ATT 1 - Draft Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan — Mountain View City Council, January 27, 2026

Draft 1/12/26
1 D raft
Parks and Recreation
Strategic Plan
Ja
nuary 2026
Attachment 1
Draft 1/12/26
2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Draft 1/12/26
3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan was developed by City staff in collaboration with Next Practice Partners with input from the community and stakeholders. The City expresses its sincere gratitude to the Mountain View City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, agencies, community groups and partners, and residents who were essential to the success in establishing this Plan.

MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Ellen Kamei
Vice Mayor Emily Ann Ramos
Councilmember Chris Clark
Councilmember Alison Hicks
Councilmember John McAlister
Councilmember Lucas Ramirez
Councilmember Pat Showalter

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Jonathan Davis, Chair
Joe Mitchner, Vice Chair
Ronit Bryant
Steve Filios
Sandy Sommer

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Audrey Seymour, Assistant City Manager
Arn Andrews, Assistant City Manager
John R. Marchant, Community Services Director

CITY OF MOUNTAIN PROJECT TEAM AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT LEADERSHIP
Kristine Crosby, Assistant Community Services Director
Tim Youngberg, Parks and Open Space Manager

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
Danielle Lee, Chief
Sustainability Officer
Lenka Wright, Chief
Communications Officer

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community
Services Director
Colin James, Recreation Manager
Lindsay Wong, Senior Management
Analyst

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Jeffrey Tsumura, Senior Planner

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Joe Lettire, GIS Analyst II

FINANCE AND

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Derek Rampone, Finance and
Administrative Services
Director
Grace Zheng, Assistant Finance
and Administrative Services
Director

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Faryal Saiidnia, Senior Project Manager
Tsan Liu, Senior Project Manager
David Printy, Principal Project Manager
Robert Gonzales, Principal Civil Engineer
Lorenzo Lopez, Traffic Engineer
Allison Boyer, Assistant Public Works
Director

PROJECT CONSULTING TEAM
Neelay Bhatt, Founder and CEO,
Next Practice Partners
Jason Elissalde, Vice President,
Next Practice Partners
John Gibbs, Principal, WRT
Deeksha Rawat, Associate, WRT
Jason Morado, ETC

Draft 1/12/26
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER TWO - INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER THREE - COMMUNITY PROFILE ............................................................................. 15

3.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 COST OF LIVING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 DEMOGRAPHICS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................16

3.4 POPULATION DENSITY ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 22

3.5 HEALTHY PLACES INDEX .................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.6 KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 CHAPTER FOUR – PUBLIC INPUT .......................................................................................... 26

4.1 PUBLIC INPUT HIGHLIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27

4.2 PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 CHAPTER FIVE - ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 29

5.1 RECREATION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................................. 29

5.2 OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................................................ 41

5.3 PARKS AND FACILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................................ 49

5.4 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 77 CHAPTER SIX - GUIDELINES FOR NEW PARK DESIGN AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS ................. 93

6.1 PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES BY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................ 93

6.2 PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES BY PARK TYPE..................................................................................................................................................... 95

6.3 INTEGRATION OF BIODIVERSITY INTO PARK DESIGN.................................................................................................................................. 103

CHAPTER SEVEN - FRAMEWORK FOR PRIORITIZING NEW PARK PLANNING AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 106

7.1 FRAMEWORK FOR PARK AND FACILITY INVESTMENT PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................ 106

7.2 SUMMARY AND IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 107

7.3 COST OF NEW PARK DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 111

7.4 AREAS OF FOCUS FOR PARK IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION ................................................................................................................ 112 CHAPTER EIGHT - GOALS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS .......................................................... 114

8.1 VISION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 114

8.2 GOALS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114

8.3 CORE VALUES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115

8.4 STRATEGIES.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 115

8.5 ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................... 116

8.6 ACTION PLAN ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121

8.7 PERFORMANCE METRICS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 149 CHAPTER NINE - APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 153

9.1 APPENDIX A - 2014 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 153

9.2 APPENDIX B – RELATED PLANS ................................................................................................................................................................. 162

9.3 APPENDIX C - PUBLIC INPUT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 164

9.4 APPENDIX D - STAFF INPUT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 238

9.5 APPENDIX E - PROGRAM INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................................... 240

9.6 APPENDIX F – PARK ASSESSMENT SCORING .......................................................................................................................................... 244

9.7 APPENDIX G – PARK ACRES AND AMENITIES BY PLANNING AREA ................................................................................................... 265

9.8 APPENDIX H - FUNDING AND REVENUE ................................................................................................................................................. 289

Draft 1/12/26
5 CHAPTER ONE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Parks and recreation are fundamental to Mountain View’s quality of life. They provide places for physical activity, mental restoration, cultural expression, learning, and social connection, while also serving as essential public infrastructure that supports biodiversity, climate resilience, and environmental stewardship. The importance of access to parks and open space became especially clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, when these public spaces played a critical role in supporting residents' well-being.

Mountain View’s parks and recreation system includes 46 parks (37 City parks and nine school fields maintained and programmed by the City), two trail corridors, a community center, a senior center, a teen center, two aquatics complexes, two historic facilities, a regional performing arts center, the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park and many recreation programs and events offered annually. Over the past decade, the City has added eight new parks, for a total of 8.06 acres and purchased 11.24 acres for future park development. The City has also made significant investments in existing parks and facilities, including the Community Center renovation, the new Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center, and the new Magical Bridge Playground at Rengstorff Park. These investments reflect a strong and sustained commitment to parks and recreation.

While the City has acquired and/or developed nearly 20 acres of park land since the 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan, and the City as a whole achieves the 3-acre per 1,000 resident (3 ac/1,000) goal, access to parks in specific Planning Areas has decreased over time compared to the 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Five Planning Areas —Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Central, and Stierlin—currently fall below 1.5 acres of accessible park land per 1,000 residents. The decline in this measure of park access is driven by population growth and a new methodology in this Plan, which reduces the count of acres from Shoreline Park and school sites in recognition of public access limitations either due to fee-based access, off-limits habitat areas, and school hours.

Removing the North Bayshore Planning Area from the equation, an additional 87 acres of park land would be needed to achieve the 3 ac/1,000 goal —an outcome that is not feasible within the timeframe of this Strategic Plan given land availability, cost, and anticipated population growth. This Strategic Plan reframes success around equitable access, targeted investment, and realistic implementation. The Plan recognizes that meaningful progress will require focusing limited resources where they can have the greatest impact, aligning community aspirations with operational and financial capacity, and making intentional choices about where, how, and when to invest in the City’s parks and recreation system.

The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan aligns with and supports a number of other adopted and in-progress City plans, policies, and initiatives. These include the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, Vision Zero Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Race, Equity, and Inclusion Action Plan, and Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, among others. Together, these documents form a coordinated vision for a more livable, sustainable, and equitable Mountain View.

1.1.2 COMMUNITY PROFILE
Chapter 3 provides a picture of Mountain View today and into the future. Considering population trends, housing patterns, and neighborhood characteristics helps inform the understanding of why parks and recreation matter so deeply to everyday life in our community.

Key Findings:
• Cost of Living: The city has a significantly high cost-of-living index, driven primarily by housing costs, which are nearly three times California's average.

Draft 1/12/26
6 • Population Growth: The city’s population is projected to grow steadily, from 82,376 in 2020 to slightly over 100,000 by 2040 (a 21% increase), with shifts toward an aging population and increasing diversity. (Considering potential housing development, the Housing Element includes a higher population projection (148.200).
• Racial Composition: The Asian population is projected to become the largest demographic group (46%) by 2040, while the White population is expected to decline to 29%. • Ethnicity: The Hispanic/Latino population is projected to grow modestly from 17% in 2020 to 18.56% by 2040.
• Income: The city’s per capita income ($112,724) and median household income ($189,727) are more than double the national averages, reflecting Mountain View's status as a high-income area overall, with some low and very low income groups.
• The city has a high proportion of foreign-born residents (43%) and renters (61%), surpassing state and national averages. However, it has lower percentages of uninsured residents (3%) and individuals living in poverty (6%) compared to California and the U.S.

1.1.3 PUBLIC INPUT
Public input is a cornerstone of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, informing priorities with insights about the experiences, values, and priorities of Mountain View residents.

Through statistically valid surveys, community meetings, focus groups, pop-up events, and online input, the City connected with residents across neighborhoods, ages, abilities, and backgrounds, resulting in more than 3,200 engagement touchpoints. This inclusive approach aimed to hear from both frequent park users and residents with less access to parks and recreation services.

When asked about the strengths of Mountain View’s parks and recreation system, residents most often mentioned dedicated staff, high quality of parks and facilities, diversity of recreation programs, and Strong Community Engagement.

Alongside these strengths, residents identified opportunities for improvement. Themes included the following needs: park expansion; park and facility upgrades for modern and well-maintained public spaces; tree canopy, native planting, and biodiversity; improved safety and infrastructure, such as safer bike routes and active transportation improvements; and new park and recreational facilities and amenities, such as sports fields and courts, indoor recreation opportunities, restrooms, shade, skate and bike facilities, dog parks, adult fitness equipment, and enhanced aquatic amenities.

1.1.4 ANALYSIS
This chapter contains four sections:
• Recreation Program Assessment
• Operations Assessment
• Parks and Facility Assessment
• Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Recreation Program Assessment
The City provides a wide range of recreation programs, including aquatics, fitness and wellness, sports, senior programming, youth and teen programs, and special events. Recreation programs are highly valued and appreciated in the community. Program areas were assessed against a range of criteria, including ages served, pricing strategies, benefit level (community or individual), cost recovery, program lifecycle, direction, and participant proficiency level.

Key findings include:
• Programs are provided for all age groups.

Draft 1/12/26
7 • There is an opportunity to rebalance program offerings by expanding community-focused and programs with both community and individual appeal while maintaining financial sustainability. • The emphasis on revenue-generating programs, along with the financial assistance program, helps sustain fully and partially subsidized offerings, maintaining program diversity, community access, and affordability.
• Recreation programming is a mix of self-directed, leader-directed, facilitated, and provided through cooperative agreements. This mix helps meet a broad range of community recreation needs in a sustainable way.
• The City’s high percentage of All Abilities programs ensures that most offerings remain accessible and adaptable, while the distribution of skill-specific programs is in line with national trends. • Given the high levels of program innovation, expansion, and retention, it will be necessary to assess program lifecycles and staff capacity to maintain program quality and stability.

Operations Assessment
The Community Services Department manages parks, recreation programs, urban forestry, performing arts, and community events. As the city continues to grow and evolve, so do the expectations for the Department to deliver efficient, responsive, and equitable services. The Operations Assessment evaluated current workflows, resource allocation, staffing strategies, and technology adoption to help position the Department for long-term success.

Key findings include:
• Parks and recreation-related City Council Policies and City Code Ordinances should be reviewed and updated to better meet current and anticipated community needs. • A comprehensive staffing audit is needed to evaluate current capacity and identify recommendations aligned with the City’s evolving service levels.
• Additional staff capacity may be needed in several areas-project management; transportation planning, and engineering; biodiversity; grants, sponsorship, and strategic partnerships; special events planning; marketing; and all-abilities program inclusion to support the delivery of recreation programs and park and related transportation projects.
• Create a formal succession plan for the department.

Parks and Facility Assessment
Parks and facilities are long-term public assets that must function effectively and safely over decades. This assessment evaluated the degree to which existing parks are well maintained and well suited to meet current and future community needs, particularly in neighborhoods with limited access to open space. Existing parks were comprehensively assessed by looking at the type of park (mini, neighborhood, community and regional), ownership (City or school district), location, and evaluation criteria (access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort)
The park assessment found that of the 37 City-owned parks, 4 are in great condition (Charleston Park, Pyramid Park, Pioneer Park, and Evandale Park), 32 are in good condition, 1 is in fair condition (Rex Manor mini park) and none are in poor condition. All trails and trail corridors are in good condition.

In addition to this park-by-park assessment, this section provides an overview of access to the park system as a whole, based on park location, transportation systems, transportation barriers, and the hours of access limitations of school-based open space.

Key findings include:
• Access to parks requires safe and connected routes, as part of the City’s broader active transportation strategy, which will inform future investments in improved crossings, pathways, and targeted infrastructure enhancements
Draft 1/12/26
8 • New parks are needed in areas that have low acres per 1,000 residents, are assessed to be outside a 10-minute walk are separated by significant transportation barriers, and/or are predominantly reliant on school fields for accessible open space and recreational opportunities.

Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
The City’s park land inventory now includes 46 parks and school fields, categorized as mini, neighborhood, community, or regional parks. Of these, 35 are City-owned, nine are Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) sites subject to a joint-use agreement, and two—Cooper and Whisman Parks—are composed of both City and MVWSD parcels.

To assess how well these parks and school fields meet community needs, the Level of Service is assessed both citywide and at the Planning Area level.
• Citywide Level of Service: Calculates the quantity of parks and different amenities and facilities citywide, compared to the citywide population.
• Planning Area Level of Service: Calculates the quantity of parks and different amenities and facilities in each of the City’s 10 Planning Areas, compared to the population in the Planning Areas.

This Level of Service analysis provides a complete picture of the park system’s performance and guides future decisions regarding land acquisition, facility development, and funding priorities.

The process for calculating the current Level of Service included the following steps:

1. Conducting an inventory of current parks, open space, and outdoor and indoor amenities.

2. Adjusting the inventory to reduce school and Shoreline Regional Park acreage based on access (taking out the parts of Shoreline reserved for wildlife habitat and the Golf Course and Sailing Lake, which charge a fee, and the hours during which school site parks are not open to the public).

3. Calculating the Level of Service, based on the adjusted inventory, with parks, open space and trails measured per 1,000 residents, outdoor amenities measured in comparison to total population, and indoor amenities measured as square feet per person.

Based on this process, the City-wide total park acres is 4.40 acres/per 1,000 residents, meeting the 3 ac/1,000 goal.

When looking at the City’s ten Planning Areas, only the North Bayshore and Miramonte Planning areas reach or exceed the 3-acre goal. Five Planning Areas—Rengstorff, Central, Stierlin, Sylvan-Dale, and Thompson—fall significantly short of the goal, with less than 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents.

The Level of Service analysis in Chapter 5, as well as Appendix G, includes maps to illustrate where parks, school fields and specific park amenities are located by Planning Area.

The City anticipates that several Planning Areas will experience increased demand for parks and recreation amenities as a result of ongoing land-use and housing policy changes, including the R3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District update, the identification of state-mandated Housing Element opportunity sites, and the implementation of recent State housing laws such as SB 79.

Key Findings include:
• The Level of Service framework and park acreage by Planning Area analysis together create a roadmap for future parks and recreation system development.
• While Mountain View meets its citywide acreage goal, many neighborhoods remain underserved, and future growth will intensify demand on existing resources. • Meeting the community’s expectations and addressing future growth will require significant and sustained investment.

Draft 1/12/26
9 1.1.5 GUIDELINES FOR NEW PARK DESIGN AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS Drawing from community input, the park and facility assessment, Level of Service analysis, and staff experience, this chapter provides guidelines for park design organized in two ways:
• By park assessment criteria: access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort; and
• By park type: community, neighborhood, and mini parks.

These guidelines create a framework for future design, programming, and capital planning of new and parks as well as the updating and enhancement of existing parks. (Guidelines have not been created for regional parks, as the City is not contemplating adding new regional parks.) Guidelines provide a list of potential amenities and landscape features that could be considered through the City’s standard park design and public outreach process.

Chapter 6 also highlights the importance of integrating trees and biodiversity into park design and aligning with the new Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan to guide appropriate trees and vegetation to be planted in our existing and new parks.

1.1.6 FRAMEWORK FOR PRIORITIZING NEW PARK PLANNING AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS This chapter provides a framework for identifying and prioritizing park and facility improvements to support Mountain View’s long-term vision for an accessible, high-quality, and resilient park system. The three priority categories are:
• Development of new parks
• Enhancing existing parks
• Updating existing parks
Each category meets a different need and reflects a different scale of investment, time horizon, and operational impact. These categories respond to opportunities to create new parks, make targeted enhancements, and address ongoing maintenance needs. For the most part, the recommendations in this section are not part of the City’s existing CIP, but are intended to inform future planning, budgeting, and funding efforts. (However, to provide clarity and a comprehensive perspective on anticipated park improvements, existing CIP projects have been included in the Action Plan in Chapter 8.) Developing new parks involves the land acquisition, planning, design, and construction of new parks to expand recreational opportunities and meet future community needs. New park development projects typically require comprehensive community engagement, master planning, environmental review, and substantial capital investment. The intent of this category is to grow the overall park system, close gaps in service areas, and ensure equitable access to high-quality parks and open spaces citywide.

The City has been proactively seeking opportunities to expand park land in Mountain View. Over the past three years, several properties have been acquired by the City or dedicated for future park development. While design and construction have not yet begun, these new sites will add over 10 acres of new parks, expand community access to open space and help respond to community growth over time.

However, when the current Level of Service is viewed by Planning Area, more new parks are needed, especially in the areas north of Central Expressway. Based on analysis in the Plan, ongoing community input, land purchase opportunities, and funding availability, the City will prioritize and pursue park expansion.

Land acquisition alone is estimated at approximately $10 million per acre, while design and construction costs average of $3-6 million per acre, based on 2025 cost estimates and recent City project actuals, resulting in a total cost of $13-16 million per acre. Using this estimate, a new 5-acre neighborhood park would cost $65 to $80 million. Based on the Level of Service, new parks should be prioritized in the Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan- Draft 1/12/26
10 Dale, Central, and Stierlin Planning Area. To address gaps in access to parks and amenities and make substantive progress on the 3 ac/1,000 goal, a significant new funding source will be needed.

Enhancing existing parks focuses on targeted enhancements that strengthen and modernize the existing park system. These improvements may include upgrades to larger park amenities, facility or amenity redesigns in portions of the park, and the introduction of new recreational offerings, along with any general ongoing maintenance and equipment/facility lifecycle replacement needed. Park enhancements have been prioritized by park type and priority level based on existing conditions. Bubb, Klein and Chetwood Parks have been identified as having the highest need for enhancements.

The cost for more substantial upgrades and redesigns for existing parks (enhancements) is estimated at $3 million per acre. Using this average, the redesign of a five-acre neighborhood park would cost $15 million.

Updating existing parks includes improvements that are essential to maintaining a safe and functional park system. This category focuses on routine repairs, ongoing maintenance, plant care, and lifecycle replacements of existing park amenities. Park updates have been prioritized by park type and priority level based on existing conditions. Sylvan, Rex Manor, Thaddeus and Varsity Parks have been identified as having the highest need for updates.

The following amenity priorities emerged from community engagement and the park assessment:
• Sports fields and courts
• Public restrooms
• Shade structures, where appropriate
• Adult fitness equipment
• Skate and/or Bike Parks
• Dog parks
• Active Transportation connections to parks – which would be guided by the Active Transportation Plan in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan.

These features should be considered for integration into both existing park improvements and new park designs, as well as through public-private partnership opportunities such as the pursuit of expanding pickleball courts or developing indoor sports complexes in Mountain View.

1.1.7 GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTION PLAN
The information and analysis in the previous chapters have shaped the final chapter of the Plan. This chapter shares the Community Services Department’s Mission statement, Vision Statement, Goals and Strategies, Action Plan Framework, Action Plan, and Performance Metrics.

The Department's mission statement: Building Community. Enriching Lives.

The Vision Statement: A vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community where accessible parks, open spaces, and recreation opportunities inspire connection, well-being, and stewardship for generations to come.

The Plan identifies four goals for the City to prioritize in the years ahead for parks and recreation:
• Expand and enhance safe, equitable and convenient access to parks, open spaces, and trails.

Draft 1/12/26
11 • Increase community participation.
• Foster a positive staff culture and ensure well-maintained operations. • Develop new funding sources and strengthen existing financial strategies to support a sustainable parks and recreation system.

There are five core values that support the goals: Inclusion, Future Focus, Collaboration, Stewardship and Quality.

For each of the goals, strategies have been identified to describe and guide how the goals will be accomplished. And within each strategy, there are a number of specific actions with milestones.

The Action Plan has a total of 50 actions grouped into four categories that reflect the major elements of the park and recreation system. Below is the list of categories and the number of actions associated with each category:
• Parks, Trails and Open Space – 19 actions
• Recreation Programs and Facilities – 8 actions
• Operations and Maintenance – 13 actions
• Funding and Marketing – 10 actions
The timeframes for the actions are:
• Immediate: less than 2 years: 12 actions
• Short-term: 3–5 years: 20 actions
• Mid-term: 6–10 years: 12 actions
• Long-term: 10+ years: 6 actions
Budget ranges are included to indicate the funding needed for each action:
• Ø = Existing staff time only: 16 actions
• $ = Up to $250,000: 10 actions
• $$ = $250,000–$1,000,000: 9 actions
• $$$ = $1,000,000–$5,000,000: 7 actions
• $$$$ = $5,000,000+: 8 actions
Chapter 8 also provides a list of prioritization criteria that align with the Plan Goals and Strategies. Because funding, staff capacity, and land availability are limited, the City will use these criteria, aligned with the Plan’s goals and strategies, to guide funding and timing decisions. Projects that advance multiple goals or strategies will typically be considered higher priorities.

The last section of this chapter provides a list of Performance Metrics.

Performance metrics provide a framework for measuring progress toward the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. These metrics translate the Plan’s vision and action items into measurable outcomes. Each metric reflects a key performance area, such as park access, program participation, sustainability, and financial stewardship, and is designed to show tangible improvement over the 10- to 15- year life of the Plan. Together, they create a data-driven approach to accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement.

By regularly monitoring and reporting these performance metrics, the City will be able to:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken under this Plan; • Identify emerging needs or gaps;
• Support informed decision-making for capital investment and resource allocation; and • Communicate the value and impact of parks and recreation services to the community.

Draft 1/12/26
12 These metrics may evolve over time as conditions, technologies, and community priorities change, ensuring that the City remains adaptive and focused on long-term outcomes that matter most to Mountain View residents.

Draft 1/12/26
13 CHAPTER TWO - INTRODUCTION
Parks and recreation are fundamental to a healthy, connected, and vibrant community. In Mountain View, these public spaces and services go beyond recreation—they foster well-being, bring people together, support community identity, and enhance everyday quality of life. Whether it’s visiting a neighborhood park, taking part in a class, enjoying nature, playing a sport, or attending a cultural event, the parks and recreation system plays an essential role in the lives of residents of all ages and from all backgrounds. In addition, the City’s parks and open spaces provide critical habitat, strengthen local biodiversity, and contribute to Mountain View’s climate resilience.

Mountain View’s system today includes 46 parks (37 City parks and nine school fields maintained and programmed by the City), two trail corridors, a community center, a senior center, a teen center, two aquatics complexes, two historic facilities, a regional performing arts center, and many recreation programs and events offered annually. These assets—maintained and programmed by the Community Services Department—serve residents across the city and attract visitors from across the region.

This Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan builds on more than three decades of planning and public investment.

The City’s first parks-focused planning effort began in 1987 and resulted in the Open Space Vision Statement in 1992. That work evolved into the Parks and Open Space Plan, updated seven times, most recently in 2014.

Separate from the prior parks plans, the City adopted its first Recreation Plan in 2008 to guide program development and delivery. Recognizing the need to modernize both plans—and the overlap between them— the City has consolidated them into this single, unified document.

Since the 2014 plan adoption, the City has added eight new parks totaling 8.06 acres and purchased 11.24 acres for future park development. Major facility investments include Shoreline Athletic Fields, Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center, Community Center renovation, Magical Bridge Playground, trail system enhancements, and existing park improvements. The rate of progress on the 2014 plan was impacted by major factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of funds, including the limitations for spending Parkland Dedication Funds in associated Planning Areas. The status of the 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan is further detailed in Appendix A.

Despite this progress, the City has not achieved the goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents (3 ac/1,000) in most of the Planning Areas. As shown in the Level of Service Analysis in Section 5.4, considering adjustments to the calculation of accessible park acreage and population growth, more Planning Areas fall short of 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents (Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Central, and Stierlin) now compared to 2014. To put the challenge in context, based on a 2020 Mountain View population of 82,376 and not counting any of North Bayshore park acres toward the City’s total park acres, the City would need to develop approximately 87 acres of new parks to reach the goal of 3 ac/1,000 citywide. It will not be possible to add this magnitude of acres to the City’s park system within this Plan timeframe and anticipated population growth will exacerbate this gap.

Accordingly, the Plan seeks to prioritize the neighborhoods and Planning Areas with the least park access and the amenities that are most in need, based on public input, staff observations, and the amenities (such as sports fields) that are most reliant on access to joint use school fields. Even with this focus, new revenue sources are needed to accomplish the actions in this Plan.

The focus on access by Planning Area, rather than citywide, is an important orientation for this Plan. In addition, it should be noted that this Plan takes a new approach in assessing the City’s progress toward the goal of 3 ac/1,000, by reducing the weight given to Shoreline regional park and the joint use school fields based on the areas or times of public access.

The 2026 Plan is grounded in robust community engagement. Input was gathered through statistically valid surveys, online feedback, community meetings, stakeholder interviews, pop-up events, and focus groups. This inclusive process helped shape the Plan’s goals and priorities, ensuring it reflects the values and experiences of Mountain View residents. The Plan responds to evolving needs and priorities, including Mountain View’s Draft 1/12/26
14 growing and diversifying population, increasing demand for equitable and walkable access to parks, and the City’s commitment to environmental stewardship, climate resilience, and public health. These factors, alongside shifting recreation trends and operational challenges coming out of the pandemic, reinforce the importance of creating a flexible, forward-looking roadmap.

The Strategic Plan offers a comprehensive vision for the next 10 to 15 years, with the development process for the next plan to begin in the 10
th year. It provides direction on expanding the park system, through the purchase of land and development of new parks, especially in the areas of the city with low access to parks, reinvestment in existing parks and facilities, addition of amenities and recreation programs to address identified needs, improvements in maintenance and operations, and strategies to provide the staffing and financial resources to achieve the Plan’s strategic goals and actions. It also outlines a framework for long-term planning and implementation, designed to remain adaptable as the community continues to grow and change.

This will be accomplished through ongoing reporting and review and the instigation of an update process at year 10 of the Plan.

This Strategic Plan aligns with and supports a number of other adopted and in-progress City plans, policies, and initiatives. These include the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, Vision Zero Plan, Race, Equity, and Inclusion Action Plan, and Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, among others. Together, these documents form a coordinated vision for a more livable, sustainable, and equitable Mountain View. A full list of related plans can be found in Appendix B. The Action Plan in Section 8.6 speaks further to alignment with other City plans.

Most notably, this Strategic Plan supports the goals of the City’s General Plan, which calls for a balanced, sustainable, and livable community, with high-quality public spaces that support health, equity, and environmental responsibility. It also directly aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Priorities, particularly Livability and Quality of Life, by ensuring all residents have access to enriching recreational opportunities and well-maintained public spaces.

The Strategic Plan also directly complements the City’s emerging Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, which outlines strategies to enhance ecosystem health, habitat connectivity, and native species protection across public and private landscapes. Parks, trails, and open spaces serve as one implementation area for these strategies—functioning as living infrastructure that supports climate resilience, urban cooling, and ecological health. By reinforcing the role of parks and open spaces in advancing biodiversity goals, this Plan positions the City as a key contributor to both environmental and quality-of-life outcomes.

Equity is a central theme throughout this Plan, with a focus on ensuring that all residents - regardless of income, age, ability, or neighborhood—have access to safe, welcoming, and high-quality parks and recreational opportunities.

Guided by community values, this Plan is both visionary and practical. It sets a course for continued excellence in service delivery while remaining adaptable to future needs, technologies, and demographic shifts. It also recognizes the importance of community partnerships, interdepartmental collaboration, and long-term fiscal planning.

As Mountain View continues to evolve, this Strategic Plan will help that its parks and recreation system remains responsive, resilient, and reflective of the community it serves - today and for generations to come.

Draft 1/12/26
15 CHAPTER THREE - COMMUNITY PROFILE

3.1 Overview
A key component of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (“Plan”) is a Community Profile. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the Community Services Department (“Department”) with additional insight into the community it serves. It also helps quantify the market in and around the City of Mountain View (“City”) and assists in providing a better understanding of the types of parks, facilities, programs, and services that are most appropriate to equitably address the needs of current and future residents.

3.2 Cost of Living
The cost-of-living index is a measure of how expensive it is to live in a particular area or city compared to another area or city. The index is typically calculated by comparing the prices of a basket of goods and services, such as housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and utilities in different locations. You can see the detailed information at BestPlaces.net/city/california/mountain_view.

Table 1: Cost of Living Index for City of Mountain View

Source:BestPlaces.net
The Cost of Living Index data are not adjusted for average regional wages. The intent of including this metric is to illustrate overall affordability and purchasing power relative to national averages. While it does not account for local wage variations, it provides useful context for comparing general cost pressures faced by residents and employees across regions.

The national cost-of-living index in the United States (U.S.) is set at 100, and the cost-of-living index for a specific city or region is typically reported as a percentage of the national average, either above or below the index.

Mountain View’s overall cost of living index is 231, significantly higher than California's average of 149.9 and the nationwide index of 100. This indicates a substantially elevated cost across multiple expense categories.

Grocery costs in the city are 120.2 compared to California's average of 105.1, reflecting higher food prices in the city. Health-related expenses also exceed the state average, with a score of 107.7 compared to 98.3.

Housing costs in the city are exceptionally high, with an index of 644.7, nearly three times California's average of 234.8. This category is the primary driver of the elevated cost of living in Mountain View.

Utility expenses in the city are relatively lower, with a score of 88.6, compared to California's average of 102.4.

Transportation costs are slightly higher, at 138.6 versus 133.1 statewide.

Draft 1/12/26
16 Miscellaneous expenses, which include restaurant meals, clothing, education, and personal care items, are notably higher in the city, with an index of 155.4 compared to California's 118.7. These costs contribute to Mountain View’s overall higher living expenses.

3.3 Demographics
The Demographic Analysis examines the characteristics of the population in the city including age segments, race, ethnicity, and income levels. It covers the entire population of the city and uses historical patterns to make future projections. It is possible that unforeseen circumstances during or after the time of the analysis could impact the validity of these projections.

3.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The demographic analysis for this plan relies on data from two primary sources: the U.S. Census Bureau and Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), a research and development organization specializing in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and demographic projections. The data used was obtained in September 2025 and includes actual figures from the 2020 U.S. Census, along with available estimates and projections as of that date.

It is important to acknowledge that multiple sources and methodologies exist for estimating population growth, each with its own set of assumptions and limitations. In addition to ESRI, alternative sources include Plan Bay Area (Association of Bay Area Governments – ABAG), the City’s Housing Element, and other regional forecasting models. While these sources provide valuable insights, ESRI was selected for this analysis due to its comprehensive GIS-based approach, consistency in demographic projections across multiple jurisdictions, and widespread use in planning studies.

ESRI's methodology accounts for historical growth patterns, migration trends, and economic factors but does not incorporate local policy changes, such as housing production targets or zoning modifications outlined in the Housing Element. As a result, this analysis should be viewed as a snapshot in time, reflecting conditions as of early 2025. Future updates to this plan should reassess population projections using the most current data to ensure alignment with evolving local policies and regional trends.

For this study, ESRI estimated the 2025 population based on trends observed since 2020 and provided a five- year projection for 2030. To extend these projections further, the consulting team applied a straight-line linear regression model to forecast demographic characteristics for 2035 (10-year) and 2040 (15-year) estimates. This approach provides a simplified projection of growth, assuming that historical trends will continue at a consistent rate. However, if population growth exceeds these projections, the demand for open space, recreation, and community services may need to be reassessed.

3.3.2 POPULATION
Mountain View’s population is projected to experience steady growth over the next two decades. In 2020, the U.S. Census recorded a population of 82,376. The population for 2025 is estimated at 88,760, representing an annual growth rate of 1.55% and an overall increase of 7.75% since 2020.

Population growth is anticipated to continue, though at a more moderate pace, reaching 92,882 residents by 2030 (an annual growth rate of 0.93%) and 98,512 residents by 2035 (an annual growth rate of 1.21%). By 2040, Mountain View’s population is projected to reach 103,765, growing at an average annual rate of 1.07% over the preceding five years. Based on the City’s Housing Element, projected population in 2040 is estimated to be 148,200, representing the contributions from the Housing Element and cumulative growth.

Draft 1/12/26
17 While the rate of growth is expected to gradually slow, these projections reflect a continued pattern of consistent population expansion within the city.

Source: ESRI, 2025.

3.3.3 AGE SEGMENT
Mountain View’s age distribution is expected to gradually shift over the next two decades, with increases among middle-aged and older adults and a gradual decline in the proportion of younger residents. 2020 Census: The largest age groups were 18–34 (30.02%) and 35–54 (29.16%), followed by 0–17 (19.25%), 55–74 (16.21%), and 75+ (5.35%).
2025 Estimate: The 35–54 age group is projected to edge up slightly to 30.73%, while the 18–34 group is expected to decline to 27.68%. The 55–74 segment shows an increase to 16.84%, and the 75+ population is anticipated to represent about 5.88%.
2030 Projection: The 18–34 group is projected to gradually decrease to 26.39%, while 35–54 group holds steady at 31.05%. The 55-74 segment is expected to remain near 17.46%, and the 75+ population rises to

6.84%.
2035 Projection: The 35–54 population is anticipated to rise modestly to 32.00%, while the 18–34 group continues a gradual decline to 24.76%. The 55–74 segment edges up to 17.98%, and the 75+ group grows to

7.38%.
2040 Projection: By 2040, the 35–54 group is projected to make up about 32.70% of the population, while the 18–34 category gradually declines to 23.40%. The 55–74 segment is expected to remain relatively stable at

18.45%, and the 75+ population continues to grow, reaching 7.94%.

These projections suggest a steady aging trend, with fewer young adults and a growing share of middle-aged and senior residents, reflecting both regional and statewide demographic patterns. 82,376
88,760 92,882 98,512 103,765

1.55%

0.93% 1.21% 1.07%
-2.00%
-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%
17,000
27,000
37,000
47,000
57,000
67,000
77,000
87,000
97,000
107,000
117,000
2020
Census
2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
2035
Projection
2040
Projection

POPULATION
Total Population Population Annual Growth Rate
Figure 1: Mountain View's Estimated Population Growth
Draft 1/12/26
18 Figure 2: Mountain View's Population by Age Segments Source: ESRI, 2025

3.3.4 RACE AND ETHNICITY
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting are defined below. The Census 2020 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 2010 Census and earlier censuses; therefore, caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time. The latest (Census 2020) definitions and nomenclature are used within this analysis. • American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
• Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. • Black or African American – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. • White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
• Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Draft 1/12/26
19 Census states that the race and ethnicity categories generally reflect social definitions in the U.S. and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. It is noted that the race and ethnicity categories include racial, ethnic, and national origins and sociocultural groups.

Please Note: The Census Bureau defines Race as a person’s self-identification with one or more of the following social groups: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, or a combination of these. Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of Hispanic / Latino origin or not. For this reason, the Hispanic / Latino ethnicity is viewed as separate from race throughout this demographic analysis.

Race
Mountain View’s racial composition has shifted in recent years and is expected to continue evolving gradually over the next two decades.

Source: ESRI, 2025
In 2020, the largest racial group was White Alone (42.36%), followed by Asian (35.07%). Residents identifying as Two or More Races made up 11.39%, and Some Other Race represented 8.60%, while Black Alone (1.49%), American Indian (0.81%), and Pacific Islander (0.28%) comprised smaller portions of the population.

By 2025, the Asian population is estimated to become the largest demographic group, increasing to 38.84%, while the White Alone population declines to 38.20%. Other racial groups remain relatively stable, including Black Alone (1.57%), Some Other Race (8.79%), and Two or More Races (11.55%).

Looking ahead, the Asian population is projected to grow steadily to 46.24% by 2040, while the White Alone group continues to decline to 29.42%. The shares of other racial groups remain largely unchanged, suggesting limited change in the overall diversity index even as the racial composition shifts.

Overall, Mountain View in 2040 is expected to be less White, with a growing Asian majority, but not significantly more diverse than in 2025. The number and relative size of racial groups remain comparable, indicating a continuation of existing demographic patterns rather than the emergence of new diversity trends.

Figure 3: Mountain View’s Racial Composition
Draft 1/12/26
20 Ethnicity
Mountain View’s Hispanic or Latino population, encompassing residents of any race, is projected to experience gradual growth over the next two decades.

Source: ESRI, 2025
In 2020, 17.25% of the city’s population identified as Hispanic or Latino—a proportion that remains steady through 2025. By 2030, this share is expected to increase slightly to 18%, holding steady through 2035, and rising modestly to 18.56% by 2040.

Overall, these projections indicate slow but consistent growth in the Hispanic or Latino population, reflecting a stable demographic trend rather than a significant shift in the city’s overall ethnic composition.

Figure 4: Mountain View’s Hispanic Population
Draft 1/12/26
21 3.3.5 INCOME
The income levels in Mountain View significantly exceed those of California and the U.S. The city's per capita income is $112,724 more than double the California average of $50,026 and over twice the national average of $45,360.

Source: ESRI, 2025
Similarly, the median household income in Mountain View is $189,727, nearly double the California median of $101,136 and more than twice the U.S. median of $81,624. These figures reflect Mountain View’s status as a high-income area compared to state and national averages.

Per capita income refers to the income earned by each individual, while median household income is calculated based on the total income of all individuals over the age of 16 living in the same household.

3.3.6 HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Historically underserved populations refer to groups that face systemic barriers to resources, opportunities, and support, often due to socioeconomic, linguistic, health, or housing-related disparities. These populations may include immigrants, renters, individuals with disabilities, those without health insurance, and those living in poverty.

In Mountain View, 42.8% of residents are foreign-born, significantly higher than California’s average of

26.7% and the U.S. average of 13.9%. Similarly, 49.3% of residents speak a language other than English at home, surpassing California’s 44.1% and more than double the national average of 22.0%.

The city has a high percentage of renters, with 61.2% of residents renting, compared to 44.2% in California and 35% nationally. However, Mountain View has a lower percentage of individuals with disabilities (4.0%) than both California (7.3%) and the U.S. (9.1%).
$112,724
$50,026
$45,360
$189,727
$101,136
$81,624
Mountain View California United States

INCOME COMPARISON
Per Capita Income Median Household Income
Figure 5: Income Comparison
Draft 1/12/26
22 Access to health insurance is strong in Mountain View, with only 2.9% of residents uninsured, compared to

6.9% in California and 9.6% nationwide. Additionally, the poverty rate in Mountain View is 5.5%, less than half of California’s 11.8% and below the national average of 10.6%.

These figures highlight Mountain View’s unique demographic composition and the relative socioeconomic advantages for some residents, alongside challenges like high rental rates and linguistic diversity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2025

3.4 Population Density
Population density in Mountain View is concentrated in areas that are bound by El Camino Real to the south, Highway 101 to the north, and between San Antonio Road on the west and extending to the City border to the east. As will be discussed below in the section on Level of Service, the Planning Areas within the city that are most park deficient include Rengstorff, Thompson, San Antonio, Sylvan-Dale, Central, Stierlin, and Whisman.

Table 2: Historically Underserved Population Comparison Draft 1/12/26
23 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, City of Mountain View

3.5 Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index (HPI), developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California, measures key social and environmental factors that influence health outcomes, including access to housing, education, transportation, and clean air. Indicator sources include, but are not limited to, the American Community Survey, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, California Environmental Protection Agency, and National Land Cover Database.

Higher scores (closer to 100) reflect more favorable community conditions for health. The map in Figure 7 below, shows that nearly all of Mountain View falls within the 75–100 percentile range, indicating strong overall access to health-supportive resources across the city.

Figure 6: Population Density
Draft 1/12/26
24 However, the area around Rengstorff Park (Tract 5094.03) scores slightly lower due to challenges in housing quality and stability, including lower rates of homeownership, complete kitchens or plumbing facilities, as well as lower healthcare access, compared to other parts of the city.

Figure 7: Healthy Places Index Score
Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California. (2022). Healthy Places Index (HPI) 3.0 dataset and methodology. Retrieved from HealthyPlacesIndex.org.

3.6 Key Findings
Cost of Living
• Cost of Living: The city has a significantly high cost-of-living index (231), driven primarily by housing costs (644.7), which are nearly three times California's average.

Draft 1/12/26
25 Demographics
• Population Growth: The city’s population is projected to grow steadily, from 82,376 in 2020 to slightly over 100,000 by 2040 (a 21% increase), with shifts toward an aging population and increasing diversity.
• Racial Composition: The Asian population is projected to become the largest demographic group (46%) by 2040, while the White population is expected to decline to 29%. • Ethnicity: The Hispanic/Latino population is projected to grow modestly from 17% in 2020 to 18.56% by 2040.
• Income: The city’s per capita income ($112,724) and median household income ($189,727) are more than double the national averages, reflecting Mountain View's status as a high-income area.

Historically Underserved Populations
• The city has a high proportion of foreign-born residents (43%) and renters (61%), surpassing state and national averages. However, it has lower percentages of uninsured residents (3%) and individuals living in poverty (6%) compared to California and the U.S.

3.7 Summary
These findings highlight Mountain View’s strengths in accessibility, income, and recreation while underscoring challenges such as housing costs and equitable access for underserved populations. The data informs strategic planning for parks, recreation, and community services to meet evolving needs. The city's diversity, aging population, and high-income levels indicate current and future needs and will help inform strategies to foster inclusivity and a high quality of life for all Mountain View residents.

Draft 1/12/26
26 CHAPTER FOUR – PUBLIC INPUT
Community input and diverse perspectives are essential to the development of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. The Public Input Summary captures key insights from various engagement methods, ensuring that the plan reflects community needs and aspirations.

This summary consolidates feedback from focus groups, key leader interviews, and staff discussions, as well as public input meetings, surveys, event pop-ups and online engagement efforts. To foster inclusivity, the City hosted four public input meetings—two in-person and two virtual—with interpretation services in Spanish, Mandarin, and Russian. Additional public input opportunities including four Parks and Recreation Commission meetings in September 2023, December 2023, July 2024, and March 2025. A presentation on the findings from the public input phase was presented to the community in-person and virtually in June 2024. See Appendix C for detailed input received from each engagement activity.

In addition to the above outreach methods, the City partnered with ETC Institute to conduct a statistically valid survey, ensuring a well-rounded, representative view of resident sentiments. Additional input was gathered via a community-wide online survey and through the project website, ImagineMVParks.com.

Through these efforts, there were over 3,200 engagements in the public input process.

Source: Next Practice Partners

Figure 8: Public Input Graphic
Draft 1/12/26
27 4.1 Public Input Highlights
Highlights from the most comprehensive data source, the statistically valid survey, are summarized below. The survey consisted of 450 households, chosen for representativeness of the Mountain View population. This sample selection and size provides a precision rate of +/- 4.6% at the 95% confidence level. An open, community-wide, online survey was also conducted and received 1,371 responses. Results were roughly similar between the two surveys as shown in Appendix C.
• Importance of Parks and Recreation. Nearly all respondents believe that it is important for the City to provide high quality parks, recreation facilities, and programs (85.8% very important and 11.7% somewhat important).
• Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic. The value of parks, trails, open space, and recreation has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic for 72% of respondents, with 45% reporting a significant increase in value. • Use of Parks and Facilities. Most respondents (96%) report visiting City of Mountain View parks/recreation facilities in the past year.
• Physical Condition of Parks. Of these respondents, two-thirds (67%) visited at least once per week. Most (89%) rated the overall physical condition of facilities and parks as either “excellent” (28%) or “good” (61%). • Organizations Used. The organizations used by respondents’ households for recreation and sports activities over the past year were the City of Mountain View (80%), neighboring cities (59%) and public schools (33%).
• Program/Event Participation. Forty‐one percent (41%) of respondents report participating in programs/events offered by the City of Mountain View over the past year. Of those who did participate, 69% participated in at least two and up to seven or more programs or events in the year. • Quality of Programs/Events. Most of these respondents (94%) rated the overall quality of programs as either “good” (59%) or “excellent” (35%).
• Funding Allocation. Respondents were asked how they would allocate a hypothetical $100 among park and recreation categories. Their choices were:
o $25.26 for improvements to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities, o $24.51 towards to acquisition and construction of new park land and open space, o $21.21 for adding amenities to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities, and o $11.13 for replacing or enhancing existing park landscaping with native and biodiverse plantings.

4.2 Public Input Summary Key Findings
The Public Input Summary highlights community feedback in three core areas: strengths, opportunities, and priorities. These findings help shape a future-focused strategic plan that reflects the needs and values of Mountain View residents.

Full results from all sections of public input can be found in Appendix C.

4.2.1 STRENGTHS
Community members recognized:
• Dedicated Staff – Employees were praised for their professionalism, customer service, and commitment to the community.
• High-Quality Parks and Facilities – Residents appreciate well -maintained parks, accessible green spaces, and diverse recreational amenities.
• Program Diversity – A wide range of programs for all ages, including inclusive and cross-generational offerings, stood out as a community asset.

Draft 1/12/26
28 • Strong Community Engagement – The City ’s responsiveness and ability to foster connections through programs and events were widely acknowledged.

4.2.2 OPPORTUNITIES
Areas for improvement include:
• Park Expansion and Facility Upgrades – Community feedback identified the need for new parks, amenities, and expanded program space, as well as upgrading aging infrastructure (see Actions

1.1.1 - 1.1.4 and 1.2.1 - 1.2.6).
• Sustainability and Biodiversity Initiatives – Suggestions included alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, tree planting, native landscaping, and green energy improvements to enhance environmental sustainability (see Actions 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.4, 1.3.5). • New Park and Recreational Facilities and Amenities – Residents expressed interest in facilities such as sports fields and courts , indoor sports center, public restrooms, shade, skate/ bike park, dog parks, adult fitness equipment, and additional aquatic offerings (see Action 1.2.7).

4.2.3 PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE
Community-driven priorities include:
• Expanding Open Spaces and Accessibility – Residents expressed a desire for more parks, improved trail and bike path connectivity, and shaded rest areas to encourage outdoor use year-round (see Strategy 1).
• Prioritizing Sustainability and Biodiversity – The City is encouraged to protect and expand the urban tree canopy, enhance biodiversity, and integrate sustainable practices into park planning and maintenance (see Strategy 1.3 and Action 3.2.3).
• Ensuring Inclusivity and Equity – Continued focus is needed on inclusive programming and accessible facilities (see Actions 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 3.1.8). • Improving Safety and Infrastructure – Residents noted the importance of safer bike routes, modernized playgrounds, and well-maintained public spaces (see Action 1.1.6, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.8).

The Public Input Summary is more than a collection of data—it represents the voices of Mountain View residents. The insights gathered have provided guidance to the City, along with other analysis and research in the planning process, in developing this strategic plan to enhance the community’s quality of life, expand recreational opportunities, and ensure long-term sustainability.

Feedback has also been received and incorporated following the formal input phase of the parks and recreation planning process. Most notably, the draft Plan was posted on November 3, 2025 and discussed at the November 17, 2025 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Plan has been updated significantly in response to comments from Commissioners and the public.

In addition to the input received as part of the strategic planning process, the City continues to communicate with and hear from the community about park and recreation needs and concerns in other contexts. For example, the City has been engaged in a study to identify opportunities for expanding pickleball courts.

Through this process, the City has heard from large numbers of pickleball and tennis players, as well as community members who live adjacent to or visit locations identified as possible sites for new pickleball courts, including Cuesta Park and Cuesta Annex. Community feedback has included the need for additional pickleball courts, the need for increased access for tennis players at courts currently striped for both sports, and the desire for the existing amenities at Cuesta Park and the peaceful, natural habitat of Cuesta Annex to remain undisturbed.

Draft 1/12/26
29 CHAPTER FIVE - ANALYSIS

5.1 Recreation Program Assessment

5.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Recreation Program Assessment is a crucial step in ensuring that the City’s offerings align with the evolving needs and interests of the community, fostering accessible, relevant, and impactful programming for the future.

The assessment provides a comprehensive understanding of the City’s current recreation programs—their performance, reach, and alignment with community priorities. The process began with an internal kick-off meeting to identify the data needed for a thorough evaluation and establish focus areas. From there, the project team used a combination of community engagement, market research, and program analysis to inform the findings. This data-driven approach incorporated:
• Community Input – Engaging residents through the statistically valid survey, pop-ups and public input sessions.
• Program Inventory and Classification – Reviewing the scope and diversity of programs, checking for alignment with community needs, and categorizing offerings based on community benefit, individual benefit, or community-individual benefits. A full inventory of recreational programs can be found in Appendix E.
• Participation and Demographic Trends – Analyzing population growth, age distribution, and cultural shifts in Mountain View to ensure programming remains inclusive and reflective of community interests.
• Financial Analysis and Cost Recovery – Examining pricing structures, funding models, and cost recovery strategies to maintain a balance between financial sustainability and equitable access. • Lifecycle and Performance Evaluation – Assessing the growth, stability, and decline of programs, identifying opportunities for innovation, expansion, or realignment to better serve residents.

Together, these components provide a strategic foundation for future decision-making and ensure Mountain View continues to deliver high-quality, diverse recreation opportunities that support community well-being and enrichment.

5.1.2 METHODOLOGY
The Recreation Program Assessment began by inventorying all recreation programs and organizing them into Core Program Areas. Each Core Program Area was then evaluated using standardized criteria to understand participation patterns, financial sustainability, and delivery characteristics. These criteria include:

1. Age Segments – The primary age groups served by each program area.

2. Pricing Strategies – How fees are structured and applied.

3. Level of Program Benefit – The degree to which a program provides community benefit, individual benefit, or a blend of both.

4. Cost Recovery – The typical level of subsidy required to support each program area.

5. Program Lifecycle – Whether a program is emerging, growing, stable, declining, or has been discontinued.

6. Direction – The extent to which participation is self-directed versus led by City staff.

Draft 1/12/26
30 7. Proficiency – The skill level required for successful participation.

To provide additional context, the City’s program data was compared to national averages compiled by the project team from their work with 29 parks and recreation agencies across the country, including 9 in California. These benchmarks helped identify key strengths, service gaps, and opportunities for program growth.

The results of this evaluation are presented in the following sections, offering a structured framework for understanding the strengths and opportunities within Mountain View’s recreation program portfolio.

5.1.3 PROGRAMMING
A Core Program Area is a category of services and activities offered by an organization, essential to its mission, service to the community and reputation.

Characteristics of Core Program Areas include:
• Community-Relevance: Tailored to community needs and feedback; • Consistency: Regular and reliable in the organization's schedule; • Mission Alignment: Supports the organization's goals and values; • Diversity of Offerings: Caters to various ages, abilities, and interests; • Outcome-Driven: Measurable objectives and impacts;
• Resource Prioritization: Prioritize resources on core services; • Regular Evaluation: Continuously assessed for relevance and effectiveness; • Stakeholder Engagement: Involves community members in planning and evaluation; • Flexibility: Adaptable to changing needs and trends; and • High Quality: Represents the organization's best in content and experience.

City staff identified the following recreation core program areas currently offered by the City:

Aquatics Enrichment Facility
Reservations
Fitness and
Wellness
Outdoor
Education
Senior
Programming
Special
Events Sports
Volunteer
Youth and
Teen
Programming
Draft 1/12/26
31 Goals and Descriptions
The Core Program Areas are described below.

AQUATICS
Description
• Offers seasonal and year-round programs including swim lessons, lap swim, recreation swim, water exercise classes, water safety certifications, and pool reservations at two Aquatics facilities (the Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center and Eagle Park Pool).

Goal
• Strive to make aquatic activities enjoyable and accessible for all, promoting community health and water safety for diverse backgrounds and abilities.

ENRICHMENT
Description
• Provides classes, camps, and programs citywide, community gardens, and other enrichment activities through collaboration with cultural and educational organizations.

Goal
• Foster community engagement and lifelong learning through gardening and diverse enrichment programs, enhancing quality of life for residents of all ages.

FACILITY RESERVATIONS
Description
• Makes available for rent an array of venues for private and community events, from banquet halls to parks, enhanced by historical and performing arts spaces.

Goal
• Commit to offering versatile, high-quality venues for events and activities that support celebrations, enrichment, wellness, athletics, and community engagement.

FITNESS AND WELLNESS
Description
• Provides a wide range of fitness and wellness classes, including Zumba, yoga, and Pilates, with a focus on current trends to bring fresh options to the community.

Goal
• Encourage active participation in diverse fitness and wellness offerings that support overall health and mindfulness for participants.

OUTDOOR EDUCATION
Description
• Deer Hollow Farm offers educational programs, including classes, tours, and events, to teach about farm life and local history, supported by a team of dedicated volunteers.

Goal
• Educate and engage the community with the agricultural heritage and environmental conservation through hands-on learning experiences at the Farm.

Draft 1/12/26
32 SENIOR PROGRAMMING
Description
• Provides a suite of services and programs tailored to enhance the lives of those 55 years of age and older through nutritional, social, educational, and wellness activities.

Goal
• Deliver programs that cater to seniors' varied needs, fostering a sense of belonging, personal growth, and community connection for those 55 years of age and older.

SPECIAL EVENTS
Description
• Manages citywide special events and permits, with a calendar that includes cultural celebrations, environmental education, and community festivals.

Goal
• Host diverse events that celebrate community values, cultural diversity, and environmental stewardship, fostering citywide engagement and partnerships.

SPORTS
Description
• Offers a comprehensive sports program for all ages, featuring in-house leagues and instruction across a variety of sports, with premier facilities like the Shoreline Athletic Fields and Cuesta Tennis Center.

Goal
• Build a community through sports, offering programs that support physical and mental health and well-being across diverse age groups.

VOLUNTEERS
Description
• Provides extensive volunteer opportunities supporting City programs, events, and services.

Goal
• Promotes community involvement by offering meaningful and accessible volunteer opportunities through the City.

YOUTH AND TEEN PROGRAMMING
Description
• Provides diverse programming for youth and teens including preschool programs, after-school activities, teen programs and special events, all designed to foster learning and growth.

Goal
• Offer dynamic, inclusive programs for youth and teens that promote skill development, creativity, and a supportive community environment year-round.

Draft 1/12/26
33 Age Segment Analysis
The Age Segment analysis identifies how each core program area serves different age groups, as noted in Table 3 below.

Source: City of Mountain View
Aquatics, Enrichment, Sports, and Special Events are open to all age groups, while Outdoor Education and Youth and Teen Programming specifically cater to a younger audience, ranging from Preschool age through to Teenagers. Facility Reservations and Fitness and Wellness are tailored for adults, from age 18 and above.

Senior Programming is available exclusively for individuals who are age 55 and above.

Pricing Strategies
Pricing strategies play a vital role in cost recovery, demand management, equitable access, and market alignment. The City employs varied pricing methods across its core program areas to ensure affordability while maintaining financial sustainability.

In addition to pricing strategies, the City has a Financial Assistance Program (FAP) for low-income families for eligible youth recreation programs to remove cost as a barrier to youth participation in recreation programs.

The Community Services Agency administers the eligibility process. Based on income level, a family may receive one of the following financial assistance levels for each child in their immediate family:
• 90% fee waiver (up to $500 per child) – Families pay 10% of the program cost. • 75% fee waiver (up to $400 per child) – Families pay 25% of the program cost.

The FAP is designed for youth City programs and does not apply to adult classes, golf, tennis, and lap swim.

Participation in the FAP is renewable annually (September 1 – August 31).

Table 4 below shows the current pricing strategies used in each core program area and identifies potential strategies for future implementation such as setting fees based on family household size or market rate).

Table 3: Ages Served by Core Program Areas
Draft 1/12/26
34 Source: City of Mountain View
Level of Program Benefit
The Level of Program Benefit analysis aligns services with an organization’s objectives while maintaining a balance between public funding and user fees. This approach delineates management strategies by evaluating programs for their public or private benefits.

Services are classified as Community Benefit, Community-Individual Blend, or Individual Benefit based on their alignment with the agency’s mission, legal compliance, financial stability, and benefit to both users and the community. City staff have categorized all recreation programs into these tiers, with the current percent distribution shown in Table 5 below.

Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark • Community Benefit (33%) – Programs with broad appeal that enhance community well-being, inclusivity, and accessibility, typically publicly funded (Examples: Teen Programs, Special Events, Volunteer Programs). The City’s program distribution is slightly above the national average (31%), aligning well with public service goals.
• Community-Individual Blend (25%) – Programs serving both general community interests and individual needs, often with nominal fees or membership options (Examples: Facility Reservations, Table 4: Pricing Strategies by Core Program Areas
Table 5: Level of Program Benefit Distribution
Draft 1/12/26
35 Lifelong Learning Classes, Swim Lessons). The City’s offerings in this category are below the national average (39%), indicating an opportunity to expand hybrid programs that balance affordability and specialized services.
• Individual Benefit (42%) – Programs that focus on personal growth, skill development, or niche interests, primarily fee-based (Examples: Enrichment, Fitness and Wellness, Sports). This category exceeds the national benchmark (30%), highlighting a greater reliance on revenue-generating services.

The City’s current program distribution suggests an opportunity to rebalance offerings by expanding community-focused and blended programs while maintaining financial sustainability. (This will be addressed in the review of the cost recovery policy; see Action 4.1.4).

Cost Recovery
In Table 6 below, recreation programs are categorized by cost recovery levels, indicating the balance between affordability, sustainability, and community benefit while ensuring broad access to services.

Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark • Fully Subsidized (38%) – Programs that are cost-free to participants, fully subsidized by the City, and designed to maximize community accessibility (Examples: Senior programming, most special events, and volunteer programs). The City’s distribution is slightly above the national average (35%), reinforcing its commitment to inclusive and publicly funded services. • Somewhat Subsidized (24%) – Programs where participant fees cover part of the cost, bridging community and individual benefits (Examples: Swim lessons, Recreation-led Camps, and Field Rentals).

This is below the national average (28%), suggesting an opportunity to expand partially subsidized programs to enhance affordability for residents.
• Self-Sufficient (9%) – Programs that break even, with participant fees fully covering operational costs without generating profit (Examples: Lap swim, adult softball, and non-private tennis lessons). This category is slightly below the national average (13%), indicating a relatively balanced approach to cost- neutral offerings.
• Revenue Generating (30%) – Programs that cover their costs and generate additional revenue, often through vendor-led enrichment and fitness classes, and facility rentals (Examples: Most enrichment and fitness classes and camps, and pool/facility rentals). Many of these vendor-operated programs Table 6: Cost Recovery Distribution
Draft 1/12/26
36 make up a significant portion of the City's Activity Guide, contributing to the higher-than-average distribution in this category (national average: 24%). However, financial assistance remains available for eligible youth programs, ensuring that revenue generation does not create financial barriers to participation.

The City’s greater emphasis on revenue-generating programs, along with the financial assistance program, helps sustain fully and partially subsidized offerings, maintaining a diverse and financially sustainable recreation system that prioritizes community access and affordability. (See Actions 2.1.2 and 4.1.4 for reviews of existing cost recovery and financial assistance programs to continue to maintain program access and sustainability).

Program Lifecycle
The City currently offers approximately 1,800 programs and 80 events, with event participation reaching into the hundreds and thousands. Understanding the lifecycle of recreation programs is essential for maintaining a balanced and adaptive program portfolio. Programs naturally evolve from new offerings to stable, declining, or discontinued services, and ongoing evaluation ensures that offerings remain relevant, engaging, and aligned with community needs. Mountain View’s program portfolio is distinctive in that the majority of offerings are stable, successful, and in demand, with very few experiencing decline. Recreation programs fall into three primary lifecycle stages:
• Launch and Rising (29%) – New City programs introduced within the last year and those showing participant growth. While slightly below the national average (36%), this level still reflects a healthy stream of innovation and fresh opportunities for residents. Over the past three years, the number of City programs has increased by 28% and the number of events produced has increased by 31%. • Stable and Maxed (66%) – The largest share of Mountain View’s programs fall into this category, well above the national average (56%). These programs have consistent participation, demonstrate ongoing community relevance, and in many cases are “maxed out” with little room to expand due to strong demand or limited facility capacity. This high percentage illustrates the City’s ability to sustain successful programs over time rather than cycle them out. • Decline and Canceled (5%) – Only a small share of programs show declining participation or discontinuation, which is lower than the national average (8%). This demonstrates the City’s attentiveness in keeping offerings current and responsive to resident interests.

Unlike many agencies that frequently discontinue programs to make room for new ones, Mountain View has been able to introduce new programs while continuing to support a broad base of established, high-performing offerings. This speaks to both strong community demand and the City’s commitment to sustaining valued services. At the same time, it highlights the growing workload for staff who manage an expanding portfolio.

Ongoing lifecycle analysis will remain important to balance innovation with capacity, ensuring the program portfolio continues to evolve while maintaining its exceptional program quality and stability.

Draft 1/12/26
37 Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark

Program Direction
Recreation programs can also be classified based on the level of participant independence and the agency’s role in delivering or supporting activities as summarized below and shown in Table 8. This approach ensures a diverse mix of offerings that cater to varying community needs. • Self-Directed (20%) – Independent recreation opportunities with minimal supervision (Examples: Lap swim, community gardens, drop-in programs). The City’s percentage is slightly below the national average (24%), reflecting a solid foundation in autonomous activities. • Leader-Directed (36%) – Structured programs led by instructors (Examples: Swim lessons, Recreation- led camps, preschool). The City has fewer leader-directed programs than the national average (49%), though it remains a significant focus.
• Facilitated (14%) – Programs where the City assists independent providers (Examples: Facility rentals, Deer Hollow Farm, special events permits, adult softball leagues). This is above the national average (8%), highlighting strong community support.
• Cooperative (30%) – Programs offered through partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit entities (Examples: Fitness and wellness programs, enrichment classes, lifelong learning). The Department’s percentage is well above the national average (19%), emphasizing a strong presence of collaboration.

The City’s balanced approach combines direct supervision, independent recreation, and partnerships, ensuring broad and sustainable recreation opportunities for the community.

Table 7: Program Lifecycle Distribution
Draft 1/12/26
38 Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark Program Proficiency
Recreation programs are structured to accommodate a range of skill levels, ensuring accessibility for beginners while offering opportunities for skill development and advanced training. Programs fall into four proficiency levels:
• Beginner (6%) – For individuals new to an activity or with limited experience. The City's percentage matches the national average (6%), ensuring accessibility for new participants. • Intermediate (4%) – Designed for those with some experience looking to refine their skills. The City’s percentage is slightly below the national average (8%) but remains within a comparable range. • Advanced (3%) – Tailored for highly experienced participants seeking specialized training or competition-level instruction. This is roughly consistent with the national average (2%), ensuring some advanced-level opportunities.
• All Abilities (87%) – Programs open to all skill levels, promoting broad accessibility. The City's percentage is slightly above the national average (85%), reinforcing a strong commitment to inclusive programming.

The City’s high percentage of All Abilities programs ensures that most offerings remain accessible and adaptable, while the distribution of skill-specific programs is in line with national trends.

Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark Table 8: Program Direction Distribution
Table 9: Program Proficiency Distribution
Draft 1/12/26
39 5.1.4 CURRENT MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS
The City utilizes a comprehensive marketing strategy that blends classic and modern approaches to publicize its
recreation programs and events. This includes:
• Print and digital program guides
• A mobile-optimized website
• Distribution of flyers and brochures
• Email marketing initiatives
• Paid advertisements
• Print and digital newsletters
• Quick Response (QR) codes for accessible
information
• Signage in City facilities
• Social media channels such as Facebook and
Instagram
• Visible marquee signs by the roadside
To foster a dialogue with the community, the City collects feedback via post-program evaluations, regular interactions with users, on-site evaluations, and comprehensive,
statistically sound surveys.

City Website
The City’s webpage is a thorough and accessible online resource. It effectively showcases the City's dedication to community enrichment through a variety of services and programs.

The website's design and layout are user-friendly, providing easy access to information about parks, recreation, performing arts, and environmental initiatives. It's a valuable tool for residents to stay informed and engaged with the City's Community Services Department, reflecting Mountain View's commitment to improving the quality of life for its citizens.

The website can be viewed at MountainView.gov/CommunityServices.

Social Media Overview
The Community Services Department maintains an active presence on Facebook and Instagram, which are the focus of this assessment. However, it is important to note that the City of Mountain View has multiple social media accounts that support and cross-promote recreation programming, expanding the Department’s reach and engagement. Below are social media statistics as of June 2025.

Community Services-Specific Accounts:
• Mountain View Recreation Division (Facebook) – 6,100+ followers, with strong engagement, particularly for special events.
• Mountain View Recreation Division (Instagram) – 1,200+ followers, mirroring Facebook’s engagement. • City of Mountain View Senior Center (Facebook) – 959 followers; dedicated to senior-specific programs and activities.
• The View Teen Center (Facebook) – 528 followers; focused on teen programming. • The View Teen Center (Instagram) – 803 followers; teen-focused content. • Rengstorff House (Facebook) – 777 followers; venue-specific content. • Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts (Facebook) – 3,900+ followers; venue-specific content.

Draft 1/12/26
40 • Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts (Instagram) – 298 followers; venue-specific content.

Additional City-Managed Accounts Supporting Community Services Department Content:
• City of Mountain View (Facebook) – 18,000+ followers
• City of Mountain View (Instagram - @MountainViewGov) – 6,487 followers • City of Mountain View (X - @MountainViewGov) – 6,276 followers • City of Mountain View YouTube Channel (@MountainViewGov) – 1,000+ subscribers; the City’s main YouTube account to post videos community meetings and advertisements for City events and programs.
• NextDoor.com – the City has a government agency account to broadcast City information such as recreation program and events.
• BlueSky (@MountainViewGov) – 152 followers; the City’s newest social media account currently being piloted.

While the Department manages its own social media presence, the broader network of City accounts plays a key role in amplifying recreation programming and can be found at MountainView.gov/Social. To further boost engagement, the City could benefit from a more consistent posting schedule and increased use of Instagram Reels, which are 2.5 times more engaging than longer videos. With multiple accounts to manage and follow, additional coordinated efforts across platforms can help maximize visibility and community engagement.

5.1.5 KEY FINDINGS
The Recreation Program Assessment evaluates the city's demographics, program trends, cost recovery, lifecycle management, and communications to guide future recreation planning.

Program Level of Benefit
• Community Benefit (33%) aligns with national trends.
• Community-Individual Blend (25%) is below average, presenting growth opportunities (to be addressed in the review of the cost recovery policy; see Action 4.1.4). • Revenue Generating (30%) is higher than average, largely due to vendor-led programs; financial assistance ensures affordability.

Program Lifecycle and Direction
• 29% of programs are newly launched or growing, indicating steady innovation even if slightly below national averages.
• Stable programs (66%) exceed national averages, emphasizing retention of well-established offerings. • Given the high levels of program innovation, expansion, and retention, it will be necessary to assess staff and funding capacity to maintain program quality and stability. (See Actions 3.1.1, 3.1.6, 3.1.8, and 3.1.9 for recommended capacity enhancements.)
• High reliance on partnerships (30%) expands program offerings and community reach.

Marketing and Communications
• Strong social media presence: Recreation Division Facebook (6,100+) and Instagram (1,200+) with high event engagement.
• Citywide social media accounts (Facebook: 18,000+, Instagram: 6,487) enhance program visibility. • Expanding Instagram Reels and consistent posting could increase engagement.

Draft 1/12/26
41 5.2 Operations Assessment

5.2.1 OVERVIEW
The Community Services Department (Department) plays a vital role in enhancing the quality of life for Mountain View residents by managing parks, recreation programs, urban forestry, performing arts, and community events. As the city continues to grow and evolve, so do the expectations for the Department to deliver efficient, responsive, and equitable services. This Operations Assessment aims to evaluate current workflows, resource allocation, staffing strategies, and technology adoption to ensure the City is positioned for long-term success.

This assessment reflects a comprehensive review process that included analysis of departmental policies, procedures, and budgets; participation in staff meetings; and extensive input gathered through structured conversations and listening sessions with employees across all divisions. These insights provide a holistic view of current challenges and emerging opportunities.

The assessment identifies both strengths and areas for improvement, providing data-informed findings and actionable recommendations to support the City’s ability to maintain high standards of service delivery while adapting to increasing complexity and demand. With continued investments in workforce development, internal systems, and cross-functional coordination, the City can maintain its tradition of excellence and proactively meet the community’s needs well into the future (see Strategy 3.1 and 3.2).

Areas explored in this section include:
• The current staffing and organizational model
• Adoption of new technology and systems
• City Council policies and City Code ordinances
• Park maintenance and resource alignment
• Recreation Division staffing
• Staff capacity to coordinate grants, partnerships and sponsorships • Use and structure of part-time and hourly staff
• Long-term planning for workforce continuity and succession • Interdepartmental collaboration and project delivery
• Engagement with volunteer organizations
The key findings serve as a roadmap for enhancing performance, increasing efficiency, and supporting staff with the tools and structures they need to succeed.

Draft 1/12/26
42 Figure 9: Community Services Department Organizational Chart for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Draft 1/12/26
43 5.2.2 CURRENT STAFFING AND OPERATIONS
The Community Services Department operates across six primary divisions: Administration, Parks and Open Space, Performing Arts, Recreation, Shoreline, and Urban Forestry. As of Fiscal Year 2025-26, the Department includes 100.25 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and one full-time limited-period position. This total represents full-time and permanent part-time employees and does not include the large contingent of hourly and seasonal employees who contribute significantly to the Department’s year-round service delivery.

Each division fulfills a specialized role, with core operational responsibilities distributed as follows:
• Administration oversees internal operations, policy implementation, budget management, and strategic direction.
• Parks and Open Space maintains parks, landscaped areas, and the Castro Pedestrian Mall. • Urban Forestry manages the City’s urban canopy, and landscaped medians and supports biodiversity initiatives.
• Recreation coordinates community programming, special events, Deer Hollow Farm, aquatics, and facility management.
• Performing Arts manages the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, including front-of-house, technical, and volunteer coordination.
• Shoreline oversees operations at Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park, including environmental protection, trails, Rangers, and oversight of contractor-operated facilities.

Annual Review o f Staffing Analysis a nd Level o f Service Impacts The Department conducts annual staffing reviews as part of the City’s budget development process, with additional adjustments made midyear as appropriate. This year-to-year approach has resulted in incremental staffing increases to support departmental operations. Implementing a more structured, long-term staffing analysis—aligned with clearly defined service-level benchmarks—would allow the City to better anticipate future needs, proactively plan for growth, and minimize potential service disruptions. (see Action 3.1.1).

Technology and Software
The Department relies on a range of software tools to manage registration, ticketing, maintenance, and internal communication. The current recreation registration system, in place since 2014, would benefit from a review to assess whether it continues to meet evolving user expectations, such as mobile payments and digital membership cards. The Performing Arts Division recently adopted a venue management platform and is actively exploring enhancements to its ticketing system. (See Action 3.1.10) Meanwhile, the Parks and Open Space Division is preparing to implement a Computerized Maintenance Management System, which will transition existing paper-based processes to a digital platform. This upgrade will improve efficiency in managing work orders, asset tracking, and maintenance scheduling, ultimately enhancing service delivery across the park system.

City Council Policy and City Code Ordinances
The Department's operations are shaped by several key Council policies and City ordinances, some of which are outdated. These include:

1. CITY COUNCIL POLICY H-5, USE OF THE CITY’S FACILITIES Policy H-5 outlines rules for reserving and renting City facilities, including community centers, plazas, athletic venues, and performance spaces. The last update in 2014 added facilities, refined definitions, referenced related policies, and addressed use and fees for Council Chambers. Since then, new facilities, such as McKelvey Ball Park and Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center, have opened and offer reservable spaces but are not yet covered under the policy. Including them would ensure consistent application of reservation guidelines and fee structures.

Draft 1/12/26
44 Additionally, definitions for user groups like “Community Groups” and “Nonprofit Organizations” are currently broad and could benefit from clearer parameters. More precise criteria would support consistent fee assignment and equitable facility access. Action 2.1.1 has been included in the Action Plan to update Council Policy H-5.

2. CITY COUNCIL POLICY H-7, ATHLETIC FIELD USE POLICY
Policy H-7 governs the allocation and use of athletic fields, with a priority system based on sport type, season, and recognition of City-approved Youth Sports Organization (YSO). Adopted in 1979 and last updated in 2012, the policy is due for review.

Key areas for improvement include establishing a more objective process for becoming a City-recognized YSO and distinguishing between different types of organizations—such as volunteer-based leagues versus paid “club” teams. These differences impact resource needs and may justify adjusted fee structures. (See Action 2.1.3.)
The City may also benefit from formal agreements (e.g., Memoranda of Understanding) with YSOs to clarify roles, expectations, and responsibilities around field use and maintenance.

3. CITY COUNCIL POLICY J-2, RECREATION COST-RECOVERY POLICY Adopted in 2010, Policy J-2 guides how fees are set for recreation programs based on the level of community versus individual benefit. Programs serving broader public interests are assigned lower cost recovery targets, while those with greater private benefits are expected to recover more of their costs.

As the City expands services and focuses more on equity and financial sustainability, a policy update is recommended (see Action 4.1.4). A modernized cost recovery framework would support alignment with current community needs, evolving program offerings, and market conditions.

4. RECREATION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The City’s Financial Assistance Program, as described above in Section 5.1 provides support for low-income families to participate in recreation programs. The program was last updated in 2015, thus the cap on total assistance per family hasn’t been benchmarked to increasing program costs in a decade.

A review is recommended to evaluate eligibility criteria, funding levels, and administrative processes, and to compare with regional programs. This would help ensure that the program continues to reduce financial barriers and aligns with the City’s commitment to equitable access (See Action 2.1.2).

5. MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY ORDINANCE, Chapter 41 – Park Land Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof Chapter 41 requires residential developers to contribute to park infrastructure through land dedication or in- lieu fees. Updates in 2019 and 2021 introduced credit for Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) spaces, allowing developers to meet up to 50% of their obligations through accessible private open space to help expand open space access in new developments. POPA spaces must provide meaningful public benefit and function like a City park, remaining open to the public during park hours. While Chapter 41 outlines basic requirements for POPA’s—such as public access, minimum size, and maintenance responsibilities—future updates to the ordinance may include clearer standards for design quality, accessibility, amenities, signage, and long-term operations. Enhancing POPA guidelines will help ensure these spaces are well-integrated, Draft 1/12/26
45 offer lasting value to the public, and align with City goals for livability, equity, and environmental quality (see Action 4.1.2).

A Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study (Nexus Study) is being prepared concurrent with the development of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. This Nexus Study will recommend updating fees established in Chapter 41 of the Mountain View City Code, to align with State laws and to meet the objectives of the City’s Housing Element as described further in 7.1.1. The 2023–2031 Housing Element includes Program 1.8, directing the City to reduce park fees—by at least 20%—to support housing development. Following Council’s deliberation and direction on the results of Nexus Study, the parkland dedication and in lieu fee requirements in Chapter 41 of the Mountain View City Ordinance may be updated (see Action 4.1.2).

Park Expansion, Enhancements, and Updates: Staffing and Capacity The Department is recognized for delivering high-quality parks and services that the community enjoys. Over the past decade, eight new parks totaling 8.06 acres, along with numerous high-maintenance amenities, have been added to existing parks, expanding the system. In the 2023-24 budget, the City Council approved the addition of a Community Services Project Administrator position to increase capacity and coordination with the City’s Public Works Department to deliver park and recreation facility projects. In response to growing demands, the Department has implemented innovative staffing strategies, including the reassignment of Roadway and Medians staff to create a new Central and Downtown Parks Team, which now works in coordination with the existing North and South Parks Teams.

Operational efficiencies have also been achieved through service adjustments. Since 2020, janitorial responsibilities for park restrooms, previously managed by Parks staff, have been performed via contract. This shift has allowed maintenance staff to dedicate more time to park operations. In recognition of the increasing demands at Rengstorff Park, including the addition of a new pool, the Magical Bridge Playground, and heightened community use following the pandemic, the City Council approved an additional maintenance worker assigned to Rengstorff Park in the FY 2025–26 budget.

While these actions have enhanced resources, staffing levels continue to be stretched as the City’s parks and recreation system expands in acreage, amenities, programs and events. Maintaining the high standards the community expects is increasingly challenging with existing staffing levels. Action 3.1.1 calls for a comprehensive staffing audit to evaluate current capacity and identify recommendations aligned with the City’s evolving service levels.

Public Works Department project managers play a key role in delivering park capital projects, such as developing new parks and enhancing existing ones. Their responsibilities range from leading efforts in project scoping and design through construction, coordinating across City departments, consultants, and contractors, to meet budget, schedule, regulatory requirements, and community expectations. As new park development and larger-scale enhancements advance, the volume and complexity of capital projects continue to increase.

Current Public Works staffing levels limit the number of projects, including park improvement projects, that can be actively managed at one time and constrain the City’s ability to respond to emerging priorities. Action

3.1.4 calls for evaluating additional project management capacity to support the delivery of new park development and larger-scale park enhancement projects.

Improving safe and convenient access to parks requires dedicated transportation expertise to plan and implement pedestrian, bicycle, and mobility connections. As new parks are developed, additional transportation planning and engineering staffing may be needed to advance safe routes and access improvements, particularly in areas with barriers such as high-traffic roadways or limited connectivity.

Additional transportation staffing would help better align park projects with broader transportation safety and Draft 1/12/26
46 active transportation goals. Action 3.1.5 identifies the need to assess transportation planning and engineering capacity to advance safe, accessible connections to parks as part of future park investments.

Advancing the City’s biodiversity and urban forest goals will require dedicated expertise to support implementation across park planning, design, and ongoing maintenance. Resources focused on biodiversity would provide technical guidance to maintenance staff and other departments, review projects for consistency with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, and help integrate habitat, tree canopy, and ecological resilience considerations into capital and operational decisions. To support effective coordination and continuity, this role may also facilitate cross-departmental communication, bring forward grant opportunities to explore, and interface with community partners and regional agencies - helping ensure that park both public spaces and the City’s living infrastructure. Action 3.1.3 supports establishing dedicated biodiversity expertise to implement the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan and strengthen coordination across park projects and operations.

Recreation Division Staffing
The Recreation Division offers a wide range of programs, events, facilities, and services to the community. As offerings have expanded, existing staff have absorbed increased responsibilities. Some functions are centralized (handled by one person or team), while others are decentralized across multiple staff. The following are examples of how absorbing additional responsibilities have impacted the Recreation Division.

Since 2014, a Recreation Supervisor has overseen centralized marketing and later took on additional program oversight. As programs grew, specific program staff began managing marketing and social media for their targeted audiences (e.g., Teens, Seniors). In addition, in other divisions, marketing tasks are supported by hourly or administrative staff. There isn’t one single staff member or unit that oversees marketing for the Department.

Special events have significantly expanded in scale, frequency, and attendance, with more than 80 events held each year. The Concerts on the Plaza series now runs weekly, new series like Music on Castro have been added, and signature events such as Monster Bash and Tree Lighting have grown. New celebrations reflecting the Council’s Strategic Priorities of Community for All and Sustainability include the Multicultural Festival, Lunar New Year, Earth and Arbor Day events, Together in Pride, and the Magical Bridge Performance Series. The Division also manages the grand openings of parks and facilities.

Currently, each full-time staff serves on two to three event committees annually in addition to their regular duties. Events are supported by staff from the other divisions within the Department, depending on the size and scope of the event. The committee assignments can shift from year to year, which does not provide consistency in event management and requires staff to learn new operations for different events each year.

Action 3.1.6 addresses the need for dedicated special events staffing.

As part of the assessment process, an inclusion audit was conducted to identify barriers, establish goals, and understand opportunities to strengthen inclusion practices that support participants of all abilities. It was identified that inclusion-related responsibilities within the Recreation Division are decentralized, with individual program coordinators and supervisors addressing accommodation needs within their own areas.

While this structure allows staff closest to participants to respond directly, the audit found that it contributes to inconsistent processes, documentation, and communication across programs. (See Action 3.1.8 regarding staffing or contract capacity for maintaining and enhancing accessibility and inclusion across recreation programs.)
Grants, Partnerships, and Sponsorships
The Department has secured grants for both capital projects and smaller recreation programs but limited internal capacity forces grant administration to be handed off to other City departments, creating inefficiencies and fragmented oversight. Likewise, a Recreation Supervisor—already responsible for various recreation programs—can devote only limited attention to cultivating sponsorships and strategic partnerships, often Draft 1/12/26
47 relying on ad-hoc outreach or existing relationships rather than proactive, coordinated efforts. This decentralization of grants, partnerships, and sponsorships duplicates work across multiple staff and departments, does not provide clarity to funding organizations, and leaves significant funding opportunities unrealized. Establishing a dedicated Analyst position to manage these functions in tandem with program and facility staff would provide a single point of contact, streamline administration, and strengthen the Department’s ability to secure and steward external resources (See Action 3.1.7).

Hourly and Seasonal Staffing
Hourly and seasonal employees are crucial to the Department’s ability to scale operations, particularly during peak periods such as summer and major events. These staff members are heavily involved in recreation programs, aquatics, special events, weekend park maintenance, and visitor services at Shoreline and the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts. The City is required to limit the total hours worked per year per hourly employee with a cap of 1,000 hours per year, which creates high turnover and ongoing training of new staff, which further impacts staff time dedicated to operations.

Succession Planning
Succession plans help ensure continuity of leadership and services by preparing staff to step into key roles as vacancies arise, minimizing disruption to programs and community initiatives. Such plans foster professional development and retention by creating clear career pathways, which boosts morale and preserves institutional knowledge through intentional mentoring and knowledge transfer. By aligning workforce planning with long- term strategic goals, the Department remains responsive to evolving community needs, including sustainability, equity, and service quality. Additionally, succession planning reduces external hiring costs and promotes a strong internal culture, ultimately strengthening the Department’s effectiveness and resilience.

While the City has been successful in promoting existing staff to new roles, it does not currently have a formal succession plan. The absence of a clear strategy can limit leadership development and continuity in core services and decision-making to meet the expectations within the organization and community (See Action 3.1.2).

Volunteer Organizations
Volunteer engagement is a key part of the Department's operations, with hundreds of individuals supporting programs, events, and facility operations. This robust volunteer program also helps deepen the City’s engagement with the community. The City regularly shows its appreciation through volunteer recognition events. The Department has streamlined individual volunteer processes through a new online system.

However, community groups that wish to take on stewardship roles (e.g., habitat restoration) may require additional steps due to liability and complexity in coordination. The City will further streamline this process through a project in the Fiscal Years 2025-27 City Council Work Plan (see Action 2.2.1).

5.2.3 KEY FINDINGS
Department Staffing Structure:

Department staff is focused on providing quality programs, events, facilities and services to the community. As parks and recreation functions expand, such as new events and new parks, staffing needs are considered during the annual budget process. A longer-term, more comprehensive look at the organizational chart would help determine if there are options to reorganize divisions to better meet existing needs. The Department can also consider conducting a staffing study to provide recommendations for future staffing needs (see Action

3.1.1).

Technology and Software:

The planned adoption of a Computerized Maintenance Management System for the Parks and Forestry Divisions will enable staff to track work orders, track and schedule playground and safety inspections, and management asset replacement cycles Data from such a system would be invaluable in supporting budget Draft 1/12/26
48 forecasts, planning future staffing needs, and optimizing day-to-day operations. Department staff have dedicated significant time to preparing for the new system by entering existing park assets in the City’s GIS database. The new system is expected to be in use by early 2026.

The Department should also consider evaluating both the Recreation Division registration and Performing Arts Division ticketing software to ensure it still meets staff and customer needs (see Action 3.1.10).

City Council Policy and City Code Ordinances
Each of the policies and code ordinances provided should be reviewed and updated as necessary to meet current operational and community needs. The following are specific suggestions for the updates:
• Policy H-5: Since its last revision, new reservable venues—such as McKelvey Ball Park and the Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center—have opened but are not yet included under the policy. Expanding its scope would create consistency in reservation procedures and fee structures citywide. Clarifying broad user group definitions (e.g., “Community Groups” and “Nonprofit Organizations”) would further promote fairness and transparency in fee application. (See Action 2.1.1)
• Policy H-7: The City could enhance the process for recognizing Youth Sports Organizations (YSOs) by applying more objective criteria and distinguishing between volunteer-led leagues and fee-based “club” teams. Establishing formal agreements, such as Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), would help define responsibilities for field use and maintenance. (See Action 2.1.3) • Policy J-2: Updating this policy to reflect the City’s focus on equity and financial sustainability would align cost recovery expectations with evolving community needs, market conditions, and program offerings. (See Action 4.1.4)
• Financial Assistance Policy: A comprehensive review of eligibility criteria, funding levels, and administration is recommended to ensure the program continues reducing financial barriers and upholding equitable access. (See Action 2.1.2)
• Park Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fees: A nexus study currently underway will inform future updates to the City Code, refining the park land fee structure and ensuring it aligns with current development patterns and community needs. (See Action 4.1.2)
Park Expansion, Enhancements, and Updates: Staffing and Capacity Mountain View’s park system has expanded over the past decade through new park development, major enhancements, and the addition of high-maintenance amenities. While the Department has implemented staffing adjustments and operational efficiencies, staffing capacity has not kept pace with the growing scale, complexity, and intensity of park investments and use.

Targeted staffing capacity is needed to support continued expansion and effective implementation of park system goals, including:
• Park Maintenance Staffing Levels: The City should work to identify a staffing ratio or standard based on the type of acreage or park intensity through a field maintenance services audit (see Action 3.1.1).

This will help create a consistent framework for assessing staffing needs and justifying new positions in the future as resources are available.
• Public Works Project Management: Additional project management capacity could lead new park development and larger-scale park enhancement projects, enabling the City to complete more projects. (see Action 3.1.4)
• Transportation Planning and Engineering: Focused transportation planning and engineering capacity is needed to plan and implement safe pedestrian, bicycle, and mobility connections to parks, particularly where access is constrained by high-traffic roadways, limited crossings, or incomplete networks. (see Action 3.1.5)
Draft 1/12/26
49 • Biodiversity and Urban Forest Expertise: Specialized capacity is needed to integrate Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan guidance into park planning, capital projects, and maintenance, and to support cross-departmental coordination. (see Action 3.1.3)
Recreation Division Staffing
Over time, the number of programs and special events within the Recreation Division has increased. While staffing models have been updated to distribute the workload more evenly, it is becoming increasingly challenging to maintain the quality of services with existing staffing resources.

To improve efficiency and better support service delivery, the City could consider establishing centralized roles or small teams to handle core support functions currently spread across divisions, such as:
• Marketing and Communications: A centralized function for the Department would enhance brand consistency, outreach strategies, and public engagement for all divisions. (see Action 3.1.9) • Special Event Management: A central events team could improve coordination, standardize processes, and elevate the quality of community-wide events. (see Action 3.1.6) • Inclusion Specialist: A single, designated point of contact to guide, coordinate, and oversee inclusion practices to strengthen consistency and improve support for participants, families, and staff. (see Action 3.1.8)
These centralized roles would reduce duplication, enhance cross-divisional coordination, and foster long-term operational resilience.

Grants, Partnerships and Sponsorships
Establishing a centralized function to oversee grants, sponsorships, and strategic partnerships would enhance the Department’s ability to identify, pursue, and manage external funding opportunities. A dedicated resource would not only improve coordination and implementation of grant applications but also build internal awareness of available funding. In addition, this role could strengthen community and corporate relationships, leading to increased sponsorship opportunities and diversified revenue streams. (see Action 3.1.7) Succession Planning
The Department should consider the creation of a formal succession plan that includes:
• Identification of key positions and internal talent pipelines • Strategies for mentorship, knowledge transfer, and leadership development • Timelines for preparing staff to assume new responsibilities A strong succession strategy will strengthen continuity, preserve institutional knowledge, and support long- term workforce sustainability. (See Action 3.1.2)
Volunteer Opportunities
Staff recognizes the importance of volunteers. Over the past few years, grassroots volunteer groups have requested access to the City’s open spaces to implement habitat restoration and install a butterfly garden.

These groups provide valuable time, resources, and expertise to enhance areas of existing parks. Initial groups worked with staff to complete a new process, including the creation of new agreements. This process has since been made easier and requires less time to complete. In addition, the City will further streamline this process through a project in the Fiscal Years 2025-27 City Council Work Plan (see Action 2.2.1).

5.3 Parks and Facility As sessment
The project team conducted a comprehensive assessment of the City’s park system to understand how well existing parks meet community needs. The assessment looked at the following criteria—access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort—as well as park type and ownership. Together these measures indicate system strengths and areas for reinvestment. Sections 5.3.3 through 5.3.11 present Draft 1/12/26
50 the results of this evaluation, illustrated through a series of maps and summaries that highlight key findings and opportunities for improvement.

In addition to this park-by-park assessment, Section 5.3.2 provides an overview of access to the park system as a whole, based on park location, transportation systems, transportation barriers, and the access limitations of school-based open space.

5.3.1 PLANNING AREA OVERVIEW
For the purposes of this Plan and used in the 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan, the City is organized into ten Planning Areas, which are geographic groupings (census tracks) of neighborhoods used to analyze park access, park acreage, and recreational needs at a more localized level. Planning Areas provide a consistent framework for evaluating how parks, open space, and recreation facilities are distributed across the city and for identifying areas where investment, improvements, or new park land may be needed.

Planning Areas are used to assess metrics such as park acres per 1,000 residents, proximity to parks, and the distribution of amenities relative to population and land use patterns. This approach allows the City to move beyond citywide averages and better understand disparities, constraints, and opportunities that vary by neighborhood. Planning Areas also support data-informed decision-making by helping prioritize park acquisition, improvements, and programming in locations where access or service levels fall below established goals.

Planning Areas are also used to help guide the use of park land dedication fees, including in-lieu fees and land dedications associated with new development, as established under Chapter 41 of the City Code. Fees collected through development are generally tracked and reinvested to support park acquisition and improvements within the same or nearby Planning Area, consistent with City policy and applicable legal requirements. This geographic nexus helps ensure that growth contributes to park and recreation benefits in the areas most directly impacted by development. Figure 10 illustrates the Planning Areas and boundaries.

Draft 1/12/26
51 A detailed description of each Planning Area, including boundaries and associated neighborhoods, are provided in Appendix G.

5.3.2 PARK ACCESS OVERVIEW
This section describes the degree to which parks are supported by transit and active transportation routes and the relative ability for residents to walk to a park. Maps show different assessments of park “walkability,” considering park ownership (which impacts the hours of availability) and the presence of transportation barriers that impact safety and comfort for those walking to parks. This section also references other City planning efforts—Vision Zero Action Plan/Road Safety Plan and Active Transportation Plan—that will improve safe walking and bicycling to parks.

Transit Network
Mountain View’s public transit network comprises Caltrain, VTA light rail and buses, shuttles, and a growing network of active transportation options. The City is served by two Caltrain stations—Downtown Mountain View and San Antonio—located along the Central Expressway, and five light rail stops that primarily serve the Figure 10: Planning Area Map
Draft 1/12/26
52 east side of the city. VTA bus service covers major corridors such as El Camino Real, North Shoreline Boulevard, and Rengstorff Avenue, but much of the city’s residential neighborhoods, particularly in the south and southeast, are underserved, lacking frequent or direct routes. Figure 11 below shows transit routes and stops.

To supplement regional transit, the City operates the free Mountain View Community Shuttle, which connects neighborhoods to local destinations, and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association operates MVgo, a commuter-oriented shuttle linking the Downtown Transit Center with employment hubs in North Bayshore.

Transit access to Mountain View’s larger parks is uneven and generally limited. Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park (or Shoreline Park), the City’s largest recreational and ecological asset, lacks direct VTA bus service and is only served by the Mountain View Community Shuttle on weekends and holidays, with limited service to the Shoreline/Pear stop, which is a considerable walk to Shoreline Park. While the MVgo commuter shuttle provides weekday access to the nearby Shoreline Athletic Fields in North Bayshore, it does not reach the main areas of Shoreline Park, requiring a walk for park visitors.

In contrast, Rengstorff Park benefits from relatively direct access via VTA Route 52 and the free Community Shuttle, offering better connectivity than most other large parks. Cuesta Park, in the southern part of the city, and Sylvan Park, in the northeast, require a walk from the nearest bus stops, posing barriers to access for youth, seniors, and others with limited mobility. These service gaps highlight the need to strengthen multimodal access to parks through more frequent transit service, improved routing, and better first- and last-mile connections.

Bicycle Routes
Mountain View’s bike network includes a mix of on-street bike lanes and off-street trails, forming a generally well-connected grid that links residential neighborhoods to schools, parks, and commercial areas. Bike routes are shown in Figure 11. Key multi-use trails like the Stevens Creek Trail and Permanente Creek Trail enhance north-south mobility and provide direct access to major open spaces, including Shoreline Park and Cuesta Park.

This network facilitates safe and convenient access to a many parks, including Rengstorff Park, Cuesta Park, Sylvan Park, and Eagle Park, supporting active transportation across much of the city. While the network is extensive overall, opportunities remain to strengthen connections in the southeastern part of the city around Cooper Park, where bike infrastructure is somewhat more limited.

As mentioned in the section below on planned active transportation, the City is working to develop additional bike lanes and access improvements.

Draft 1/12/26
53 Figure 11: Transit Map
Source: City of Mountain View

Draft 1/12/26
54 Park Walkability Considering Park Location , Park Ownership, and Transportation Barriers Access to parks within a 10-minute walk is a recognized benchmark for equitable park or green space access, reflecting the goals of the national 10-Minute Walk initiative led by The Trust for Public Land and its partners, the National Recreation and Park Association and the Urban Land Institute. (Additional information about the “10-Minute Walk Program” can be found at TPL.org/ParkServe.) While not a regulatory standard, it provides an aspirational measure that helps cities understand how well residents can reach parks and green spaces within their neighborhoods.

Three figures below (Figure 12, 13, and 14) show the areas of Mountain view that are assessed to be within a 10-minute walk of a park. The first figure (Figure 12), shows that 92% of residents are located within a 10- minute walk to either a City-owned park or a school field with a joint use agreement between the City and Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD). The parts of City Planning Areas that fall outside of this assessment of a 10-minute walk are:
• East side of North Bayshore
• East side of Whisman
• East side of Sylvan-Dale
• South side of Grant
• Small pockets on the north side of Grant and the south side of Central • A small pocket on the south side of Miramonte
When school fields, which aren’t available to the public during the hours of school use, are removed from the map (Figure 13), the areas outside of a 10-minute walk expand, including the following (in addition to the list above):
• An expanded area of Whisman
• An expanded area of Central
• An expanded area of Grant
• A new area on the west side of Stierlin
• A new area covering approximately half of Thompson
When major roadways and other transportation barriers, such as the Caltrain railway, Central Expressway, El Camino Real, Highway 85, Highway 237, and Highway 101 are considered (see Figure 14), the additional areas outside of a 10-minute walk are:
• An expanded area of Thompson
• An expanded area in Stierlin
• A new area on the west side of Central
• A new area toward the west side of San Antonio
• A new area on west side of Rengstorff
The Planning Areas outside of the assessed 10-minute walk to a park coincide with the Planning Areas with low access to parks, i.e. those with less than 1.5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, compared to the goal of 3 ac/1,000.

When transportation barriers are considered, certain areas that appear to be within a 10-minute walk may no longer be considered fully accessible due to pedestrian and cyclist comfort or safety challenges. This reinforces the need to prioritize safe and connected routes to parks as part of the City’s broader access strategy, informing future investments in improved crossings, pathways, and targeted infrastructure enhancements (see Action 1.1.6).

Draft 1/12/26
55 Figure 12: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and MVWSD School Fields) Source: WRT, City of Mountain View

Draft 1/12/26
56 Figure 13: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks only)
Source: WRT, City of Mountain View

Draft 1/12/26
57 Figure 14: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and Major Transportation Barriers) Source: WRT, City of Mountain View

Draft 1/12/26
58 Planned Active Transportation Improvements
Access to parks can be improved by enhancing pedestrian and bike infrastructure at key intersections, such as adding high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian signals, median refuge islands and traffic calming devices near busy roads and rail lines. The City’s Capital Improvement Program includes annual funding for Active Transportation Improvements and the Street Pavement Maintenance Program which delivers these enhancements. Examples include a new bridge on Colony Street to connect an underserved neighborhood to Permanente Creek Trail, high-visibility crosswalks along and across California Street and other Complete Streets elements, as well as traffic calming measures on Sierra Vista Avenue and other high-priority corridors.

Barrier mitigation may also include building grade-separated crossings, such as pedestrian bridges or underpasses, across major highways or rail corridors to ensure safe, continuous access to nearby open spaces.

The City has two grade-separation projects currently in design to improve access across the Caltrain rail corridor that would improve access to Rengstorff Park and Centennial Plaza, as well as connect several surrounding neighborhoods.

Table 10 below summarizes recently completed, under-construction, and in-design CIP projects that will expand bike lanes and improve access to parks.

Table 10: Planned Active Transportation Projects
Project # Project Description Status as of
Dec. 2025
Provides Access to
CIP 21-
40 California Complete Street
Improvements, Pilot
Buffered Bike Lanes and road
diet
Completed Rengstorff, Klein,
Mariposa, and Mora Parks
CIP 18-
48 Colony Street Connection
to Permanente Creek Trail
New Permanente Creek Trail
connection
Completed Permanente Creek Trail,
Sierra Vista Park
- Ameswell Bridge, 750
Moffett Blvd. (by
developer)
New Stevens Creek Trail
connection with a new bridge
Completed Stevens Creek Trail
- Crittenden Trail Head
Improvements (by third
party)
Trail head improvements for
compliance with Americans
Disabilities Act
Completed Shoreline Park, Stevens
Creek Trail
CIP 21-
41 Crittenden Lane and
North Shoreline Boulevard
Reconstruction
Restriping of buffered bike
lanes on Crittenden Lane
Under
construction
Shoreline Park, Stevens
Creek Trail
CIP 21-
39 Grant Road and Sleeper
Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Phase 1 includes pedestrian
and bicycle focused
intersection improvements at
three intersections –
Grant/Sleeper,
Sleeper/Franklin, and
Dale/Heatherstone
Under
construction
Cuesta and Cooper Parks,
Stevens Creek Trail
CIP 18-
43 Shoreline Boulevard
Active Transportation and
Utility Improvements
Limits are Middlefield to Pear,
installation of protected bike
lanes and buffered bike lanes
In design Shoreline Park and
Charleston Park
Draft 1/12/26
59 Project # Project Description Status as of
Dec. 2025
Provides Access to
CIP 17-
37 Rengstorff Avenue Grade
Separation
Lower Rengstorff Avenue at the
Caltrain rail crossing and the
Central Expressway crossing.

Removes at grade crossing of
rail lines. Installation of new
bike/ped bridge across
Rengstorff Avenue between
Leland and Crisanto.

In design Rengstorff Park
CIP 17-
41 Stierlin Road Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements
Bike and pedestrian
improvements on Stierlin Road
and Shoreline Boulevard
between Montecito and
Middlefield.

In design Shoreline Park, Jackson
Park
CIP 20-
50 Stevens Creek Trail
Extension from
Dale/Heatherstone Way
to West Remington Drive
Trail extension In design Stevens Creek Trail
CIP 21-
38 El Monte Corridor
Improvements
Road diet, buffered bike lanes,
and pedestrian and bicycle
intersection improvements at
intersections of El Camino
Real/El Monte and El Camino
Real/Escuela
In design Rengstorff Park
CIP 20-
01 Miramonte Avenue
Pavement Improvements
Cuesta to Castro, buffered and
protected bike lanes
In design Cuesta and Bubb Parks,
Bubb School Field,
Graham Athletic Sports
Complex, Schaefer Park,
McKelvey Ball Park
CIP 20-
40 Plymouth Street/Space
Park Way Realignment
Cycle track on west side of
Shoreline Boulevard between
Pear and Space Park, and
pedestrian and bicycle focused
intersection improvements at
Space Park Way
In design Shoreline Park, Charleston
Park
CIP 21-
39 Grant Road and Sleeper
Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Phase 2 includes pedestrian
and bicycle focused
intersection improvements at
three intersections -
Rengstorff/Junction,
Middlefield/Terra Bella, and
Cuesta/Bonita.

Installation of pedestrian
actuated flashing lights
In design Crittenden Athletic Sports
Complex, Cuesta Park
Draft 1/12/26
60 Project # Project Description Status as of
Dec. 2025
Provides Access to
CIP 21-
39 Grant Road and Sleeper
Avenue Intersection
Improvements
Phase 3 includes pedestrian
and bicycle focused
intersection improvements at
three intersections -
Middlefield/San Pierre,
Cuesta/Began, and
Dana/Pioneer
Installation of pedestrian
actuated flashing lights
In design Crittenden Athletic Sports
Complex, Cuesta Park,
Landels School Field,
Stevens Creek Trail
CIP 22-
01 Annual Street
Maintenance
Middlefield Road Complete
Streets project, Moffett to
Bernardo, includes protected
and buffered bike lanes
In design Pyramid and Whisman
Parks, Vargas School Field
CIP 24-
03 SB-1 Streets Project Moffett Boulevard Complete
Streets – Middlefield to RT
Jones, includes protected and
buffered bike lanes
In design Stevens Creek Trail
CIP 25-
28 Miramonte Avenue
Pavement Improvements
Castro to El Camino Real,
buffered bike lanes
Preliminary
design
Cuesta and Bubb Parks,
Bubb School Field,
Graham Athletic Sports
Complex, Schaefer Park,
McKelvey Ball Park

The Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (VZAP/LRAP) was adopted by the City Council on September 10, 2024. The VZAP/LRSP includes 19 recommended safety corridor projects, several of which would support safe access to parks. (See pages 6-26 – 6-28).

In addition, the City’s development of an Active Transportation Plan is underway (as of the writing of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan). That plan will map out both existing conditions and proposed list of priority projects identified by the Active Transportation Plan process.

In addition to addressing traffic conditions to improve access to existing parks, the Plan prioritizes bringing new parks online, particularly in areas that are assessed to be outside a 10-minute walk or are separated by significant physical barriers, and especially if those areas are predominantly reliant on school fields for accessible open space and recreational opportunities (see Actions 1.1.1 and 1.1.2). This could include identifying underutilized public land (which consists mostly of small parcels) that is feasible for activation, incorporating open space into future housing and mixed-use development, and the purchase of land by the City (see Action 1.1.3). Prioritizing park access improvements in areas with higher population density, limited mobility options, or greater vulnerability will help provide residents, regardless of neighborhood or income level, with equitable access to the City’s park system.

5.3.3 PARKS SITE ASSESSMENT
The project team had performed an in-depth assessment of the parks and trails owned and operated by the City. Altogether, the team visited 43 parks (1 Regional Park, 6 Neighborhood Parks, 6 Community Parks, and 19 Mini Parks) and 4 Trails and Trail Corridors. The parks by type are shown in Figure 15. At the time of this assessment, Evelyn Park had not opened and therefore was not assessed. However, it is included in the inventory of City parks.

Draft 1/12/26
61 The team also visited 11 school fields, which are accessible to the public through a joint-use agreement with the MVWSD, and were assessed separately and less extensively. The list of school sites can be found in the Level of Service Section 5.4. A brief summary of school site conditions is included at the end of this section.

Detailed, site-specific assessments have not been included for school sites. As outlined in the joint-use agreement, in most cases, the City maintains the fields, restrooms, and recreational amenities within the identified “recreational area” while the school district maintains the trees in the recreation area.

The assessment provides a qualitative evaluation of parks and trails based on relevant criteria: access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and sense of safety and comfort. Patterns observed between different park types are noted. This assessment has been used to inform recommendations in the Plan. Scoring criteria for the assessment can be found in Appendix F.

5.3.4 PARK BY TYPE
The City categorizes its park land into categories defined by size, function, amenities, and type of service provided to the community. The map in Figure 15 below shows park land by the following types:
• Regional Parks: A large park, over 40 acres in size, that attracts visitors from across the city and region, often featuring natural areas, trails, water access, and unique amenities like wildlife and habitat features. Shoreline is the one regional park in Mountain View. • Community Parks: Larger parks ranging from 5.0 to 40 acres that serve the entire city and offer a broader range of recreational facilities, such as sports fields, community buildings, playgrounds, and various amenities. The City owns and maintains five community parks. • Neighborhood Parks: Parks ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 acres in size that typically serve nearby residents who live within one mile and often include playgrounds, open spaces, picnic areas, and sports courts.

Mountain View has ten City-owned neighborhood parks.
• Mini Parks: Small parks (less than 1.0 acre) that provide limited recreational opportunities, such as seating areas, playgrounds, or small green spaces, usually serving a localized area of one mile. There are 21 City-owned mini parks in Mountain View.
• School sites: School sites that are part of the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Mountain View and MVWSD, in which 11 school fields are publicly accessible and available for recreational use during designated hours.
• Trails and Trail Corridors: Trails and Trail Corridors include paved and unpaved pathways within City parks and corridors, which provide intra- and inter--jurisdictional connectivity.

Draft 1/12/26
62 Figure 15: Parks by Park Type
Source: WRT, City of Mountain View

Draft 1/12/26
63 5.3.5 METHODOLOGY
During the parks and trails assessments in the field, the team used a spreadsheet organized around four categories to record findings. Definitions and the findings used in the evaluation are included in Appendix F.

The assessment categories are:

1. Access and Connectivity

2. Condition

3. Functionality

4. Safety and Comfort
Each category, in turn, was comprised of additional, more specific characteristics. Due to the inherent differences between types of sites to be evaluated, parks were assessed separately from trails. The criteria assessed for both are presented below in Table 11.

Based on this primarily qualitative assessment, a rating scale of 1-10, broken down as below, was applied to provide relative numeric ratings of the parks.
• Poor (0 – 4.0)
• Fair (4.1 – 6.0)
• Good (6.1 – 8.0)
• Great (8.1 – 10)
In addition to the numeric score, descriptive field notes were added, and photos were taken throughout the parks and trails system to illustrate the findings.

Draft 1/12/26
64 Table 113: Parks and Trails Assessment Criteria, October 2023

PARKS TRAILS

ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
Edge permeability X X
Signage, maps, and City branding X X
ADA Accessibility X X
Presence of crosswalks and crossing signals X X
Sidewalks and surrounding circulation X X
Path connectivity within park X X
Nearby bike lanes and adequate bike parking X X
Sufficient parking X X
Adjacent trails or trailheads X X
Public transportation nearby X X

CONDITION
Paving condition X X
Vegetation condition X X
Tree canopy coverage and condition X X
Playground condition X
Recreation amenities condition X
Buildings/restroom facilities condition and availability (if applicable)
X
Lighting condition (if applicable) X
Trash receptacle condition and availability X X
Seating /benches availability and condition X X

FUNCTIONALITY
Diversity of activities/uses X
Appropriate amenity adjacencies X
Distribution of shady and sunny areas X X
Absence of visible drainage issues or erosion X X
Compatibility with neighboring uses X X
Level of activation during site visit X X

SAFETY AND COMFORT
Adjacent derelict features X X
Draft 1/12/26
65 PARKS TRAILS
Graffiti and vandalism X X
Evidence of illicit or unauthorized use X X
Road /traffic calming measures around park X X
Line of sight /openness X
“Eyes on the street”1 X
Ease of navigation X X
Mitigation of views /noise from surrounding land uses X X Source: WRT
Notes
• Cuesta Park was assessed in this report, but not the Cuesta Annex open space which does not have the features assessed in the other sites.
• Any observations and recommendations regarding Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park align with the “Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan.” Habitat conservation and biodiversity improvements are considered in parallel with public health and recreational goals. • The Joint-Use Agreement with MVWSD documents the specific recreational area on each site and maintenance responsibilities of the City and School District at school fields.

Scores and notes were reviewed and refined so that aggregated scores could be calculated for each category.

Each site was given an overall rank ranging from great to poor. This assessment provides a qualitative understanding of how Mountain View’s parks and trails function today. Park and trail rankings are shown in the map in Figure 16 below and the bar chart in Figure 17.

Draft 1/12/26
66 Figure 16: Overall Score Summary for City Parks and Trails Source: WRT

Draft 1/12/26
67 Figure 17: Overall Score Summary of Parks and Trails Source: WRT

Draft 1/12/26
68 5.3.6 OVERALL TAKEAWAYS
The City’s parks are in good to great condition, performing strongly across most evaluation categories, with four parks rated as great (Charleston, Pioneer, Pyramid, and Evandale) and 32 as good. Only one park was rated as fair (Rex Manor mini-park) and no parks were rated as poor (see Action 1.2.2). Highly rated neighborhood parks reflect strong maintenance, design quality, and integration with surrounding neighborhoods. Several mini parks, including Evandale, Chetwood, and Mora Parks, also scored highly, demonstrating the City’s commitment to maintaining smaller parks as valuable neighborhood assets. In addition to these site-level findings, Appendix G includes a summary of park amenity distribution by Planning Area, providing a broader view of how amenities are distributed across the city.

Trail corridors scored somewhat lower, primarily due to limited comfort amenities, shade, or connectivity challenges related to their larger size or constrained rights-of-way (see Action 1.2.8). Despite these limitations, the City continues to make meaningful progress in expanding its trail network to support recreation, access, and active mobility citywide.

The sections that follow go into detail about the assessment’s key findings in the areas of access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort. For each topic, key themes are discussed at a systemwide scale.

Findings highlighted in the assessment summaries below have been used to inform the park design guidelines by assessment criteria and by park type in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. These guidelines will, in turn, be used to inform the improvements that will be pursued in the three categories of park improvements: expand, enhance, and update.

5.3.7 ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
Signage and Wayfinding
Most parks are marked by a standard wooden sign located at the main entrance facing the street and a few smaller signs at secondary entrances. A few parks have additional interior educational or wayfinding signage.

These thoughtfully designed elements contribute to park character and user experience.

Additional signage at secondary pedestrian entrances would strengthen park connection to adjacent communities. Additional signage in interior areas would facilitate easy navigation. This applies, particularly, to larger open space areas such as regional parks, community parks, and trails.

Standard City Signage at the entrance of Sierra Vista Park (left). Custom entry signage at Heritage Park contributes to park character (right).

Draft 1/12/26
69 Edge Permeability
Many parks in Mountain View are located along quiet streets, with distinct vegetation marking the entry, low fencing, crosswalks, and adjacent sidewalks. However, some parks are located on busy arterial roads, which can make access difficult.

Surrounding sidewalks are generally in good condition with noted exceptions. These typically line the parks, enabling good access and doubling as loop trails at times. Pedestrian circulation immediately around the park block is generally good, supported by crosswalks at nearby intersections and, in some cases, mid-block crossings that facilitate access to the park. While crossings at intersections are appropriate for mini parks, some of the neighborhood parks could benefit from better access with mid-block crossings at primary park entrances. At a few notable locations, crosswalks lead directly into the park and align with park paths, leading to better pedestrian flow.

Crepe Myrtles, with their distinct bark patterns, mark one of the entrances of Jackson Park (left). Distinct crossings and/or crosswalks tie directly into the park circulation at Hetch Hetchy Trail (right).

Universal Design and Connectivity Within The Park
Newer parks feature good universal access, with wheelchair-accessible paths, picnic tables and benches.

However, many older parks would benefit from increased accessibility to park elements.

In general, path connectivity within the parks is adequate and provides meandering as well as direct paths to amenities. Some larger parks lack a secondary path network to facilitate better pedestrian flow and provide more route options.

ADA picnic table is well integrated into the park circulation at Wyandotte Park (left).

Chetwood Park does not have a path that connects to the picnic table (right).

Draft 1/12/26
70 Transportation Modes and Connectivity between Parks and Neighborhoods Formal bike lanes (Class II and IV) are provided along major corridors, supporting bike access to many parks.

While the network is extensive overall, opportunities remain to strengthen connections in the southeastern part of the city around Cooper Park, where bike infrastructure is somewhat more limited. Targeted improvements in the area, including filling short gaps in the bike network and creating clearer, low-stress connections to nearby streets, would help address these challenges and improve access from surrounding neighborhoods. Bike parking is provided at several parks, though the number and visibility of racks could be improved. Adding more racks in prominent locations would further encourage bike use.

Nearly all regional, community, and neighborhood parks are within a 15-minute walk of one or more public transportation options, such as bus, light rail, or Caltrain. Vehicular parking varies by park type, with designated ADA spots in some. Whereas regional, community, and neighborhood parks are designed to accommodate more visitors, mini parks are designed to accommodate people living in the immediate vicinity. Parking sufficiency is rated with these considerations of park type in mind.

5.3.8 CONDITION
Hardscape Condition
Concrete in most parks is in fair to great condition. The concrete, especially in older parks, is cracked or uneven. In some areas, the roots of large trees growing beneath sidewalks have damaged and lifted the sidewalk. In these areas, replacement and/or grinding are needed. In some areas, cracked asphalt has been repaired piecemeal.

Common issues include uneven surfacing, slopes that affect accessibility, undefined paths that end abruptly, or paving material transitions that may be unexpected to visually impaired users and present uneven edges.

Commonly observed conditions of the paving in older parks (Left to Right: Thaddeus Park, Mercy-Bush Park).

Vegetation Condition
In general, City parks are well-maintained and defined by large lawns. A few parks and trails, such as Shoreline Park and the Bay Trail, boast a diversity of plant species and include restored habitats. Pioneer Park is an example of a park with a large volume of groundcover plants and shrubs.

Although low shrubs and groundcover planting are present along edges and at entries at a few parks, such as Devonshire and Mora Parks, many parks lack variation in planting along the edges and throughout the park. A few parks are facing issues with their lawn areas, either due to gopher activity or irrigation issues in parts of the park.

Through the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan development, the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) assessed the biodiversity of park plantings by evaluating tree canopy cover, vegetation structure, and the ecological role of parks within the City’s habitat network. Rather than conducting species inventories, the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan uses canopy data and landscape-level biodiversity analysis to understand

Draft 1/12/26
71 how parks contribute to habitat quality, wildlife movement and opportunities for native planting. This assessment identifies parks as key locations for enhancing native vegetation and improving the ecological connectivity to support the City’s long-term biodiversity goals.

Limited groundcover and shrub planting at Gemello Park (left). Rich groundcover and shrub planting at Pioneer Park (right).

Tree Canopy
It is important to recognize that trees function as part of Mountain View’s living infrastructure—providing shade, habitat, stormwater benefits, and climate resilience that strengthen the performance of the entire park system. This living infrastructure requires long-term investment, care, and thoughtful integration into park design. Many mature trees grow throughout the city, most distinctly mature redwoods as well as Sycamores, Gingkos, London plane, Elms, Hackberries, and Oaks. The variety of trees distinguishes one park from another, provides shade for users, privacy for neighbors, and enhances biodiversity.

At newer parks, young trees are staked. Although at full maturity, they will provide shade, this will take many years (Pyramid, Wyandotte, and Evandale Parks). The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan includes goals to preserve and expand the city’s tree canopy through the protection of existing trees and the planting of native, climate-resilient and structurally diverse tree species that provide shade for parks, trails and walkways while supporting local biodiversity.

Mature trees provide shade and privacy at the edge of Heritage Park.

Recreation Amenities Condition
Playgrounds and recreational amenities in Mountain View's park system are well-maintained, with several newer parks such as Pyramid Park, McKelvey Ball Park, Schaefer Park, and Mora Park rated highly. In general,

Draft 1/12/26
72 playground and recreation amenities in larger neighborhood parks received the highest condition ratings among all park types, reflecting consistent maintenance and investment. Amenities at mini parks vary in condition, with many showing typical signs of regular use such as scratches and marks on play equipment and rubber playground paving.

Playground showing typical signs of wear -scratches, scuffs, etc.- at Gemello Park.

Buildings / Facilities
Parks that are highly rated in this category have permanent, clean, and well-designed bathrooms that are visible and located near amenities.

Otherwise, mini parks and trails do not have bathrooms, and other parks are located next to bathrooms in municipal buildings, such as Pioneer Park.

A centrally located and permanent bathroom at Shoreline Athletic Fields.

Lighting, Trash Receptacles, Seating, and Benches
Rengstorff Park, Cuesta Park, McKelvey Ball Park, and Shoreline Athletic Fields were assessed for lighting conditions and availability, and other parks were not reviewed since they close one-half hour after sunset.

Whereas the ball fields (Shoreline Athletic, McKelvey) have well-lit fields, they have little lighting along the edges and paths. Rengstorff Park is equipped with path lighting throughout to facilitate safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists traveling between the neighborhoods and main corridors like Rengstorff Avenue.

Draft 1/12/26
73 These lights also serve to provide accessibility to the tennis courts. Lighting in Cuesta Park is primarily at the tennis courts, which are well-lit. Some additional path lighting exists on the path to the courts, which could be improved by adding more light poles for safety purposes.

Parks achieved higher ratings in this category when they featured visible, sealed, and well-placed, trashcans near key amenities such as paths, restrooms, and playgrounds. The availability of trashcans was also considered in scoring, and a few parks or trails (Dana Park, Permanente Creek Trail) scored slightly lower for having few public trashcans.

Most parks scored between Fair and Great for bench condition and availability. However, a few parks, such as Shoreline Park, Thaddeus Park, and the Permanente Creek Trail, scored lower due to limited seating opportunities. While Shoreline Park includes numerous benches, its large size results in an overall lower rating for bench availability relative to park area, and the Permanente Creek Trail currently lacks benches along its length, reflecting the constrained right-of-way.

5.3.9 FUNCTIONALITY
Diversity of Activities / Uses and Appropriate Amenity Adjacencies Mountain View parks not only satisfy basic amenity needs such as play areas, multi-use lawns, and seating, but also provide additional amenities such as exercise equipment, sports courts, and community gardens. The assessment determined that the City’s neighborhood and community parks generally offer a range of amenities that attract multiple age groups; some mini parks tend to cater more narrowly to younger residents due to their smaller size and limited program space.

Some parks scored lower based on amenity adjacencies, for example, playgrounds located next to busy streets, an unfenced dog area located next to playgrounds, and amenities fenced off and located in corners of the park.

Intergenerational space at Evandale Park caters to users of different age-groups.

Distribution of Sunny and Shaded Areas
Parks are planted with many mature trees, such as Redwoods, Oaks, Maples, Pistache, Crepe myrtles, Gingkos, and London plane among others.

Tree coverage and shade in some parks favor the edge over interior spaces. Trees can be strategically placed in some large lawn spaces to provide more shade while maintaining their capacity as unprogrammed play areas.

Planting trees at the edges of sports courts would also provide shade for participants to rest between games.

However, it is crucial to make sure trees are strategically placed to limit casting shadows on the court and obstructing play and the line of sight.

Draft 1/12/26
74 Many playgrounds require more shade coverage to make the play areas comfortable during hotter months. In some cases, existing large trees are close to playgrounds or other high-use amenities but do not provide adequate shade and adding trees closer is not feasible. In other cases, new parks will be planted with younger and smaller trees that will grow to maturity and provide greater shade over time. In such instances, shade structures may be used as a supplement where shade is required—such as over play areas, seating, and high- use gathering spaces.

Comfortable distribution of shade and sun at Pioneer Park.

Compatibility with Neighbors
The design and treatment of park edges play an important role in how well parks relate to their surroundings.

Parks have multiple frontages, and the character of each edge varies depending on adjacent uses. Parks that incorporate solid fencing, layered planting, or a setback from immediately adjacent to single-family residences are scored favorably, as these design features help create a comfortable transition between public and private spaces. Along public streets, however, open and visually accessible frontages are preferred to enhance safety and connectivity. Parks such as Evandale, Magnolia, and Fayette feature circulation that connects directly with nearby residences, creating desirable neighborhood access. Others, like Cuesta Park and Pioneer Park, benefit from adjacency to public facilities such as the YMCA and the library.

Parks built adjacent to residential buildings with a chain link fence division diminish the privacy of neighbors living next to parks. Parts of Rengstorff Park abut apartment housing and have chain-link fences. A similar condition is also seen along one side of Devonshire Park, where cloth has been used on the chain-link fence to add more privacy. Such cases rated lower for “Compatibility with Neighbors.” Park circulation ties into housing circulation at Fayette Park. The park directly serves its neighbors.

Draft 1/12/26
75 5.3.10 SAFETY AND COMFORT
Traffic Calming
Most parks are located next to streets with crosswalks, crossing signals, and signage. However, a few busy streets could benefit from traffic calming measures such as bump-outs, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and more signage for pedestrian safety. The adopted Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan and the under development Active Transportation Plan address priorities for such improvements.

A busy street with no immediate crosswalks at Fayette Greenway Park.

Mitigation of Views/Noise from Surrounding Land Uses
In general, the city is peaceful and quiet. Many parks are located on residential roads with little vehicular traffic. However, busy streets and train sounds affect a few parks. Whereas some have noise calming measures, such as berms (San Veron and Eagle Parks) and large trees (Sylvan Park, Crittenden School Field), others (Fayette Greenway) are adjacent to busy roads but have no noise calming measures. Subtle berms and large redwood trees buffer the park from adjacent street sounds at Eagle Park.

Graffiti and V andalism
The parks are well-maintained and clean, with minimal signs of vandalism or misuse. During the site visits, most parks were observed to be in good condition.

While a few parks, such as Rex Manor Park and Cuesta Park, had some graffiti at the time of observation, these instances appeared to be isolated and promptly addressed by City staff. Similarly, signs of unhoused presence were noted at Rengstorff Park and Klein Park during visits, though such conditions may vary over time.

Draft 1/12/26
76 Nighttime Safety
The parks were all assessed during the day; however, several parks present characteristics that could compromise perception of safety and comfort after dark. Line of sight, “Eyes on the Park” from surrounding streets and public areas, and the availability of lighting all contribute to the perception of nighttime safety. The majority of the parks close half an hour after sunset and hence do not have park lighting. This has an impact on park usability during winter months, when the days are much shorter. Lighting is nonexistent on the trail system. Since the City does not intend for nighttime use of these amenities, no negative impact has been accounted for in scoring for this element in most parks.

Parks (like Pyramid and Del Medio Parks) that are adjacent to residential buildings on a few sides are rated higher for safety due to the presence of “eyes on the park”. Otherwise, berms, tall fencing, and layout contribute to poor line of sight, sense of openness, and nighttime safety.

5.3.11 SCHOOL FIELDS ASSESSMENT
The 11 school fields subject to the joint use agreement between MVWSD and the City are well used by students, families, and nearby residents during non-school hours. The school sites provide a range of recreation amenities, including multipurpose fields, playgrounds, sport courts, and open space. (Table 49 in Appendix G provides a listing and count of amenities by site, including both City and school sites.) Most sites include picnic tables, trash cans, and access to water fountains, although fountains are often located closer to the school campus. While bike parking is generally available on the school campus, opportunities exist to add bike racks nearer to the fields to support community access.

Connectivity between school fields and surrounding neighborhoods varies. Many campuses provide multiple access points from adjacent streets and trails, offering clear and convenient entry during non-school hours. A few sites can be accessed only through the front of the school. All campuses, including most school fields, are fenced and the fences are unlocked during non-school hours.

Overall, no graffiti, vandalism, or illicit use was observed at the school fields. Conditions of the amenities varies from being new to needing replacement. Hardscape areas show opportunities for paving upgrades. Some of the playgrounds that are accessible to the public during school hours should be updated in five to ten years (Castro and Landels). The City is currently undertaking a renovation project at Monta Loma to update the playground and surrounding amenities.

Many sites benefit from large, mature trees that provide shade and enhance the user experience. These trees are mostly located along the edges of many school fields and are observed to be in great condition and to be providing both privacy for surrounding neighbors and shade. In addition, MVWSD is developing Outdoor Learning Spaces at their campuses to ensure schools have sustainable, green spaces. These spaces will provide shade, plants, and outdoor areas for learning and play. Construction of these spaces is expected to commence and be completed in summer 2026.

Together, the school fields play a critical role in meeting community recreation needs. Through the Joint Use Agreement, the City and MVWSD provide access to multipurpose and baseball fields, basketball courts, playgrounds, and other amenities that would not otherwise be available. Without these shared facilities, the City would face significant gaps in field and court availability, underscoring the importance of continued partnership and development of additional city parks.

5.3.12 TWO HIGHLY -ASSESSED PARKS
Not surprisingly, two of the City’s newer parks can be used to illustrate highly-assessed parks in Mountain View. Overall, neighborhood parks and mini-parks scored the highest in all four categories, and Evandale Park (mini) and Pyramid Park (neighborhood) stood out as well-designed, well-used, and well-integrated with the surrounding city fabric. Evandale opened in 2020 and Pyramid in 2022, and their higher scores may reflect the Draft 1/12/26
77 benefit of being recently planned and constructed to meet current community needs, accessibility standards, and design practices. Table 12 compares Evandale and Pyramid Parks scores.

Table 124: Highly-Assessed Parks
Category Evandale Park (mini park)
Overall Score: 8.3 - Great
Pyramid Park (neighborhood park)
Overall Score: 8.7 - Great
Access +
Connectivity

7.3 The park is well connected
and integrated with the
neighboring residences,
clearly connected within, and
fitted with accessible
amenities.

8.4 The park is well integrated with
the surrounding neighborhood.

It is accessible throughout,
easily navigable, and marked by
clear signage.

Condition 8.4 The park is in good condition,
with young but healthy trees,
clean and neat amenities, and
paving.

8.3 The park is brand new, with
healthy young trees, and clean
amenities.

Functionality 8.0 The park caters to various
users, and is thoughtfully
designed, with an even
distribution of sun and shade.

8.6 There is a variety of amenities
that caters to different age
groups and users. Residences
are located at a distance or next
to quieter park activities.

Safety + Comfort 9.6 The park is open and located
in a clean and quiet
residential neighborhood.

There may be lights from the
adjacent building at night, but
lighting is lacking in the park.

9.4 The layout is open, and the
edges are surrounded by new
housing and apartment
complexes.

Source: WRT

5.4 Level of Service Analysis

5.4.1 INTRODUCTION
A strong parks and recreation system is one of the cornerstones of a thriving city. Mountain View’s parks, trails, open spaces, and recreation facilities bring people together, improve physical and mental well-being, and reflect the community’s values of health, equity, environmental stewardship, and quality of life.

To ensure these benefits reach all residents, the City needs more than a list of parks and facilities—it needs a framework to measure how well the system meets community needs now and in the future. Two complementary levels of analysis make this possible:

Citywide Level of Service (LOS): A citywide framework that calculates and sets measurable benchmarks for the types and quantities of parks, amenities, and facilities the system should provide.

Planning Area Level of Service: A neighborhood-scale analysis that shows how equitably park land is distributed across the City’s 12 square miles and 10 Planning Areas.

LOS sets the overall goal for resident access across the City. Park acreage by Planning Area reveals where gaps exist, allowing the City to focus investments where they are most needed. Together, these tools provide a complete picture of the park system’s performance and guide future decisions regarding land acquisition, facility development, and funding priorities.

Draft 1/12/26
78 5.4.2 DEFINING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
The concept of LOS helps answer an essential question: Does Mountain View provide enough parks, facilities, and amenities to meet the needs of its residents?
Historically, this question has been answered using the goal of three (3) acres of park land per 1,000 residents.

While still a useful reference point, that ratio alone cannot capture the full range of recreation opportunities that residents value.

For this Strategic Plan, the City created a LOS framework that looks at multiple dimensions of service:
• Park Acreage: Acres of park land per 1,000 residents—still an important measure of overall open space.
• Amenity-Based Measures: The number of key amenities (e.g., sports fields, playgrounds, community gardens) available.
• Indoor Facility Measures: Square footage of indoor spaces such as gyms, aquatics facilities, and community centers available.
• Access and Equity: The degree to which neighborhoods have parks and amenities within a reasonable distance and whether they serve diverse community needs.

This multi-layered approach informs a more complete, nuanced understanding of how the park system supports the community.

To determine the actual LOS and compare it to the goal of 3 ac/1,000, the City has typically included school site open space and the full acreage of Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. Based on community feedback received before and during the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan process, the approach to calculating LOS has been adjusted as described below.

5.4.3 CALCULATING CITYWIDE LEVEL OF SERVICE
The process for calculating the current Level of Service includes the following steps:

1. Conduct an inventory of current parks, open space, and outdoor and indoor amenities.

2. Adjust the inventory to reflect changes in how school and Shoreline Regional Park acreage are reflected based on access.

3. Calculate the current Level of Service, based on the adjusted inventory, with parks, open space and trails measured per 1,000 residents, outdoor amenities measured in comparison to total population, and indoor amenities measured as square feet per person.

Parks, Open Space, and Amenity Inventory
The calculation of current LOS began with a comprehensive inventory of all parks and recreation facilities maintained by the City. This included recording each site's acreage or square footage, cataloging amenities (e.g., picnic tables, playgrounds), classifying sites based on updated park typologies, and evaluating the level of public access. The previous Parks and Open Space Plan served as a foundation for the assessment, and the inventory was expanded to include all recreation facilities and all land maintained by the Community Services Department, such as passive open space and landscaped sites.

The City’s inventory now includes 46 parks and school fields, categorized as mini, neighborhood, community, or regional parks. Of these, 35 are City-owned, 11 are Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) sites subject to a joint-use agreement, and two—Cooper and Whisman Parks—are composed of both City and MVWSD parcels. In addition to these parks, the inventory includes recreation facilities, special-use parks, trails located within parks, two standalone trail corridors, protected open space and open space (previously referred to as landscaped sites). Portions of some City parks and open space areas are located on land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), including Fayette Greenway, Rengstorff Park, Senior Garden, Bonnie-Beatrice, Rex-Manor Park, Whisman Park, and the Hetch Hetchy Trail Open Space, and are Draft 1/12/26
79 subject to the terms and conditions governing use of those properties. Altogether, 76 properties were reviewed during the LOS process, with acreage or square footage verified and site amenities inventoried.

To ensure accurate acreage data, Community Services staff collaborated with the Information Technology and Public Works Departments to review and update park site boundaries using the City’s geographic information system (GIS). Parcel data from the County Assessor’s Office, along with GIS measurement tools, were used to define and confirm the size of each site. Table 13 below shows the resulting data regarding park acreage, by type, and facilities.

Table 135: Parks, Open Space and Amenity Inventory
Park Type City MVWSD Total Inventory
Parks
Mini Parks 12.88 - 12.88
Neighborhood Parks 30.04 19.18 49.22
Community Parks 83.40 38.54 121.94
Regional Parks 172.00 - 172.00
Trail Corridors 52.17 - 52.17
Total Developed Park Acres 350.49 57.72 408.21
Protected Open Space 335.00 335.00
Open Space 18.66 - 18.66
Special Use Acres 292.71 - 292.71
Total Park Acres 996.86 57.72 1,036.88
Percent of Park Land 96% 4% 100%
Percent of Park Land without
Regional Park Acres
73% 27% 100%
Trails
Trails (paved and unpaved within
parks)

17.86 miles - 17.86 miles
Outdoor Amenities
Basketball Courts 5 28 33
Tennis Courts 30 5 35
Pickleball Courts 3 - 3
Ball Fields (Diamonds) 4 13 17
Multi-Purpose Fields
(Rectangular)
8 13 21
Playgrounds 49 21 70
Picnic Tables/Group Rental
Pavilions
162 7 169
Outdoor Swimming Pools 3 - 3
Skate Parks 1 - 1
Splash Pads - - -
Dog Parks 3 - 3
Indoor Amenities
Indoor Aquatic Space - - -
Recreation Facility 263,465 SF 10,220 SF 273,685 SF
Draft 1/12/26
80 Adjusted Parks, Open and Amenity Space Inventory

ADJUSTING SCHOOL SITE ACREAGE , BASED ON ACCESS HOURS
As part of the City’s park land inventory, school site open spaces have historically been counted toward the City’s goal of 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. This included school properties under a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) as well as sites without formal agreements, such as Springer Elementary School and Mountain View High School. However, the City received feedback before and during the Parks and Recreation Plan process that 100% of school site open space should not be counted in the inventory and toward the LOS, as school sites are not accessible to the public during school hours. In response, the project team explored how to more accurately account for school sites in the LOS calculations.

The first step was determining which school sites to include. Since the City does not have a Joint Use Agreement with the Los Altos School District for Springer Elementary or with the Mountain View–Los Altos Union High School District for Mountain View High School, these sites were removed from the City’s park land calculations. The revised approach focuses solely on school fields maintained and programmed by the City under a formal agreement.

The City has a long-standing partnership with MVWSD to provide shared public access to school fields. In February 2024, a new 10-year Joint Use Agreement for Recreational Use of School Sites was approved. This agreement includes 11 sites:
• Benjamin Bubb Elementary School (Bubb School Field)
• Mariana Castro Elementary School and Gabriela Mistral Elementary School (Castro School Field) • O.J. Cooper Elementary School (Cooper Park)
• Amy Imai Elementary School (Imai School Field)
• Edith Landels Elementary School (Landels School Field) • Monta Loma Elementary School (Monta Loma School Field) • Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School (Vargas School Field) • Stevenson/Theuerkauf Elementary Schools (Stevenson School Field) • Crittenden Middle School (Crittenden Athletic Sports Complex) • Graham Middle School (Graham Athletic Sports Complex) • Whisman School site (Whisman Park)
Under the JUA, these fields and facilities are maintained by the City, which also manages reservations and public access during non-school hours. Access is defined by school level and day of the week. For middle schools, the City’s use period begins no earlier than 5 p.m. on weekdays; for elementary schools, it begins at 4 p.m. On holidays, weekends, and school breaks, fields are available from 6 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset— except for lighted fields, which may be used until 10 p.m.

To address community feedback regarding weekday access, it is important to clarify that staff did not include early-morning weekday hours in the access calculations for any school site. The analysis focused solely on after-school hours, weekends, and non-school days, consistent with when the public may actually use the fields under the Joint Use Agreement. Weekday morning hours—while technically outside of school operating times—were intentionally excluded and not counted toward the LOS because they do not represent practical or typical public use. .

Additionally, Cooper Park and Whisman Park are hybrid sites composed of both City- and MVWSD-owned parcels. These sites are accessible to the public during standard park hours: 6 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset.

Historically, all school field acreage was fully counted toward the City’s park land totals (e.g., 1.0 acre of school field equaled 1.0 acre of park land). The project team examined alternative approaches. Options considered Draft 1/12/26
81 included: continuing to count school sites at 100%; applying a single percentage to all sites; or calculating a specific percentage for each site based on public access.

Ultimately, the team determined that a site-specific approach would more accurately reflect availability. Access varies based on school type (elementary vs. middle), field lighting, and whether the field is open during regular park hours (as is the case with Cooper and Whisman Parks).

To determine these percentages, staff analyzed site access compared to typical park conditions (e.g., lighted vs. unlighted fields, synthetic vs. grass fields). Seasonal daylight variations and Daylight Savings Time were also factored in, as parks and fields are available for longer periods in spring and summer than in late fall and winter.

Table 14 below presents the final percentages, representing the relative public access of each school site compared to a traditional park.

Table 146: Proposed School Acreage Percentage
School Site Average Hours
Available
Total Hours
Based on Park
Hours
Percentage Available to
General Public
Elementary School Fields Without Lights
Grass fields: Bubb, Castro,
Imai, Landels, Monta Loma,
and Stevenson
Synthetic Fields: Vargas
2,906 hours 4,746 hours 61%
Middle School Synthetic Fields Without Lights
Graham Athletic Field
Complex
2,722 hours 4,746 hours 57%
Middle School Synthetic Fields With Lights
Crittenden Athletic Field
Complex
3,816 hours 5,840 hours 65%
Other Unlit Grass Fields
Cooper and Whisman Parks 4,746 hours 4,746 hours 100%

This approach provides a more accurate reflection of public and recreational access to school sites, resulting in a reduced acreage count for most locations compared to previous calculations. For outdoor amenities (e.g. courts and fields) and indoor amenities (e.g. gymnasiums) similar calculations were completed and percentages applied.

The Joint Use Agreement with MVWSD spans a 10-year period. Any future changes to school site access - whether related to operating hours, site modifications, or construction—will prompt a reassessment of park- equivalent acreage. At the time of JUA renewal or significant amendments, staff will update the LOS to ensure it continues to reflect actual public access conditions.

The City has also executed a Funding and Joint Use Agreement with the Los Altos School District for a 4-acre joint use open space area that is expected to be completed by September 2030. Facilities and park land associated with this site will be added to the LOS upon opening to the public. (see Action 2.2.2)

Draft 1/12/26
82 ADJUSTING SHORELINE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL PARK ACREAGE BASED ON ACCESS Shoreline at Mountain View, a regional open space, encompasses over 750 acres of wildlife refuge and recreational land, much of it located on a closed landfill. The area features a range of amenities, including Shoreline Golf Links and Michaels at Shoreline restaurant, Shoreline Sailing Lake and Shoreline Lake American Bistro, wildlife and habitat areas, the Historic Rengstorff House, a designated kite-flying area, a dog park, Shoreline Athletic Fields, and walking trails on Vista Slope and Crittenden Hill. It also provides access to the Stevens Creek Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, and Bay Trail, as well as Shoreline Amphitheatre, parking lots, and both active and passive open space areas.

Historically, the City has presented park acreage totals both including and excluding the North Bayshore Planning Area, which includes Shoreline at Mountain View. Through the public engagement process, staff heard consistent feedback that Shoreline is a valued community asset and should contribute toward achieving the City’s park land goals. Accessibility to Shoreline Park—via trail connections such as Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek Trails—extends to residents throughout the city, including those separated by U.S. 101.

However, staff also received input noting that not all of Shoreline is equally accessible to the public. Certain areas—such as protected wildlife habitats, passive open space, or amenities with associated fees like Shoreline Golf Links and Shoreline Lake—do not provide general public access and may not be appropriate to count toward park land goals.

To address this, staff developed an approach to evaluate Shoreline acreage based on three distinct park types:
• Regional Park – active areas with open, general public access • Special-Use Park – areas that serve a specific function and typically charge user fees (e.g., Shoreline Golf Links)
• Protected Open Space – areas set aside for wildlife preservation or otherwise not accessible to the public
This approach allows for a more nuanced and accurate reflection of Shoreline’s contribution to the City’s overall park system.

Draft 1/12/26
83 Only the acreage designated as Regional Park, representing the actively used areas and amenities with broad public access, will count toward the City’s developed park land and park land goals. Table 15 below outlines how the total acreage at Shoreline is distributed among these classifications. The areas are shown geographically in Figure 18 above.

Table 157: Shoreline Acreage Distribution
Park Classification Areas Acreage
Regional Park Shoreline Athletic Fields, Dog Park, Rengstorff House, North Shore, Crittenden Hill, Vista
Slope, Kite Flying Area
172.00 acres
Special Use Park Shoreline Golf Links and Michaels Restaurant, Shoreline Sailing Lake, and Shoreline Lake
American Bistro, Parking Lots
282.50 acres
Protected Open Space Wildlife and Habitat Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Sites, Coast-Casey Forebay, and
Northeast Meadowland
335.00 acres
Total 789.50 acres

Figure 18: Map of Shoreline Recreational Areas
Draft 1/12/26
84 Current Citywide LOS Using Adjusted Inventory
Using this approach, 172 acres of the total 789.50 acres at Shoreline at Mountain View would be counted toward the City’s park land goal, representing approximately 22% of the total acreage.

Using the adjusted acres for school sites and Shoreline at Mountain View results in an adjusted Inventory and a current Level of Service shown in Table 16 below.

Draft 1/12/26
85 Table 168: Adjusted Inventory of Parks, Open Spaces and Amenities Park Type City MVWSD* Total Inventory Current Service Level Parks
Mini Parks 12.88 - 12.88 0.15 Acres per 1,000
Neighborhood Parks 30.04 11.75 41.79 0.47 Acres per 1,000 Community Parks 83.40 28.27 111.67 1.26 Acres per 1,000 Regional Parks** 172.00 - 172.00 1.94 Acres per 1,000
Trail Corridors 52.17 - 52.17 0.59 Acres per 1,000
Total Developed Park
Acres
350.49 40.02 390.51 4.40 Acres per 1,000
Protected Open Space 335.00 - 335.00 3.77 Acres per 1,000 Open Space 18.66 - 18.66 0.21 Acres per 1,000
Special Use Acres 292.71 - 292.71 3.30 Acres per 1,000
Total Park Acres 996.86 40.02 1,036.88 11.68 Acres per 1,000 Trails
Trails (paved and
unpaved within parks)

17.86 miles - 17.86 miles 0.20 Miles per 1,000
Outdoor Amenities
Basketball Courts 5 18.36 23.36 1.0 Court per 3,800
Tennis Courts 30 5 35 1.0 Court per 2,536
Pickleball Courts 3 - 3 1.0 Court per 29,587
Ball Fields (Diamonds) 4 9.55 13.55 1.0 Field per 6,550 Multi-Purpose Fields
(Rectangular)
8 8.59 16.59 1.0 Field per 5,351
Playgrounds 49 14.41 63.41 1.0 Site per 1,400
Picnic Tables/Group
Rental Pavilions
162 7 169 1.0 Site per 525
Outdoor Swimming
Pools
3 - 3 1.0 Site per 29,587
Skate Parks 1 - 1 1.0 Site per 88,760
Splash Pads - - - 1.0 Site per -
Dog Parks 3 - 3 1.0 Site per 29,587
Indoor Amenities
Indoor Aquatic Space - - - - SF per -
Recreation Facility 263,465 SF 6,724 SF 270,189 SF 3.04 SF per person *MVWSD adjusted to reflect hours of access to school fields. **Shoreline Park adjusted to reflect areas open to the public without charge and to remove protected open space acres.

Draft 1/12/26
86 5.4.4 CALCULATING PLANNING AREA LEVEL OF SERVICE
While citywide LOS offers a systemwide perspective, park acreage by Planning Area takes a closer look at neighborhood-level conditions. Mountain View’s 10 Planning Areas each have distinct land uses, densities, and demographics. The Planning Areas were established by the City based on census tract boundaries to facilitate the use of available demographic data.

Table 17 below shows the park land acreage, population and acres per 1,000 residents for each of the 10 Planning Areas. These numbers use the adjusted park inventory described above.

Table 179: LOS by Planning Area
Planning Area Park Acres* 2020 Population Acres per 1,000 Residents North Bayshore 230.93 acres 988 233.73 acres
Miramonte 55.45 acres 11,087 5.00 acres
Grant 14.09 acres 5,931 2.63 acres
San Antonio 26.56 acres 14,752 1.80 acres
Whisman 17.29 acres 9,982 1.73 acres
Stierlin 14.21 acres 9,979 1.42 acres
Central 16.17 acres 12,391 1.30 acres
Sylvan-Dale 9.96 acres 7,778 1.28 acres
Thompson 2.93 acres 2,671 1.10 acres
Rengstorff 2.92 acres 6,817 0.43 acres
Citywide 390.51 acres 82,376 4.74 acres

* Calculated acreage includes City-owned parks, adjusted acreage for joint-use school fields, and publicly accessible portions of Shoreline at Mountain View. Figures reflect acreage used in the Level of Service analysis.

This detailed analysis highlights geographic inequities that would remain hidden in citywide averages and shows the following:

Citywide Goal Met: Mountain View exceeds the 3-acre goal.

Neighborhood Gaps: All but one Planning Area (Miramonte) falls below the 3-acre goal. Several Planning Areas—such as Rengstorff, Central, Stierlin, Sylvan-Dale, and Whisman—fall below significantly short of the goal, with less than 1.5 acre per 1,000 residents.

Outliers: The total acreage in the North Bayshore Planning Area figure is driven by the exceptionally high acreage of the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park, in addition to Charleston Park and Plaza, and the City’s two trail corridors acreage, Permanente Creek Trail and Stevens Creek Trail.

Draft 1/12/26
87 Figures 20, 21 and 22 show the location of parks (by park type and ownership) within each Planning Area.

These maps illustrate the distribution of open space, showing which Planning Areas do not have neighborhood parks or are reliant on school fields.

Figure 19: Planning Area Map
Draft 1/12/26
88 Figure 20: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
89 Figure 21: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
90 Figure 22: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area

Park access can be further understood by looking at the population density within each Planning Area, which is shown in Table 18.

Draft 1/12/26
91 Table 18: Population Density by Planning Area
Planning Area Planning Area
Acres*
2020 Population Planning Area Acres per
1,000 Residents
San Antonio 505 acres 14,752 34 acres
Sylvan-Dale 378 acres 7,778 49 acres
Central 784 acres 12,391 63 acres
Rengstorff 465 acres 6,817 68 acres
Stierlin 754 acres 9,979 76 acres
Miramonte 953 acres 11,087 86 acres
Thompson 255 acres 2,671 95 acres
Whisman 1,098 acres 9,982 110 acres
Grant 695 acres 5,931 117 acres
North Bayshore 1,968 acres 988 1,992 acres
Citywide 7,855 acres 82,376 95 acres

A summary of each Planning Area, detailed park acreage by Planning Area and maps of parks and amenities can be found in Appendix G.

5.4.5 FUTURE GROWTH
The City anticipates that several Planning Areas will experience increased demand for parks and recreation amenities as a result of ongoing land-use and housing policy initiatives, including the R3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District update, the identification of Housing Element opportunity sites, and the implementation of recent State housing laws such as SB 79, which mandates cities to allow for denser, mid-rise housing developments near major public transit stops. The Housing Element, which is required and has been approved by the California Housing and Community Development Department, provides zoning and identifies sites to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to Mountain View.

In particular, the San Antonio, Central, and Stierlin Planning Areas are expected to accommodate higher residential intensities and will therefore require expanded access to park space and recreational facilities. The Whisman Planning Area is also projected to see substantial demand growth due to the combined effects of SB 79, the R3 zoning update and planned development facilitated by the East Whisman Precise Plan. The Thompson Planning Area could experience a more modest increase in park and recreation needs associated with the development potential related to SB 79. Additionally, the Sylvan-Dale and Rengstorff Planning Areas are expected to face heightened demand primarily resulting from intensification allowed under the updated R3 zoning regulations. These anticipated shifts highlight the need for strategic planning to ensure that park land and recreational resources are expanded and enhanced in the areas most likely to accommodate future growth.

Community Development Department staff will continue to assess the implications of housing legislation on residential development and population growth, and coordinate with Community Services Department and Public Works Department staff to evaluate the resulting citywide and Planning Area–level parkland needs, Draft 1/12/26
92 recognizing that these periodic evaluations are closely tied to required updates to the City’s park fees, which under state law must be updated at least every eight years.

While this section discusses qualitatively how population growth may change in different Planning Areas, it is not possible at this point to provide population projections by Planning Area. Looking at citywide population growth, the Housing Element provides a 2040 population projection of 148,200. This projection exceeds the Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) estimate of 103,765 provided in Chapter 3. (ESRI figures do not include Mountain View housing policy and plan projections.) Looking at potential population growth citywide, the LOS for parks and open space would change over time as shown in Table 19 below, from 4.74 acres/1,000 residents in 2020 to 2.71 acres/1,000 residents in 2040 if only the currently owned but not yet developed 11.24 acres in park land were to be added to the system. These numbers include the 230.93 acres of North Bayshore park land accessible to the public. If no North Bayshore acres are included, the park LOS would go from 1.94 acres/1,000 residents in 2020 to 1.15 acres/1,000 residents in 2040.

Table 19: Citywide Acres/1,000 Resident (2020, 2040)
Including and Not Including Shoreline
2020 2040 Housing Element
Projection
Adjusted Park and School Field Acres,
including North Bayshore
390.5 401.74*
Population 82,376 148,200
Acres/1,000 residents 4.74 2.71
Adjusted Park and School Field Acres, not
including North Bayshore
159.58 170.81
Acres/1,000 residents 1.94 1.15
*Including 11.24 acres owned as of 2025 but not yet developed.

LOS Conclusion
The Level of Service framework and park acreage by Planning Area analysis together create a comprehensive, evidence-based roadmap for the future of Mountain View’s parks and recreation system.

They reveal both achievements and challenges: while Mountain View meets its citywide acreage goal, many neighborhoods remain underserved, and future growth will intensify demand on existing resources.

Meeting the community’s expectations and addressing future growth will require significant and sustained investment. Guided by this plan, Mountain View can make informed choices that expand equity, improve quality, and ensure its parks and recreation system remains a source of pride for generations to come.

Draft 1/12/26
93 CHAPTER SIX - GUIDELINES FOR NEW PARK

DESIGN AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Drawing from community input, the park and facility assessment, Level of Service analysis, and staff experience the following sections provide guidelines for park design first (6.1) by the park assessment criteria described in Section 5.3 (access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort) and then (6.2) by park type (community, neighborhood, and mini parks).

6.1 Park Design Guidelines by Assessment Criteria
The following guidelines provide best practices for creating high-quality, inclusive, and sustainable public spaces that enhance the City’s identity, support diverse recreational needs, and promote long-term environmental stewardship. By prioritizing thoughtful design and functionality, these recommendations help shape parks that are welcoming, resilient, and adaptable to changing community needs.

This section is organized into four key areas—access and connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety and comfort—each outlining specific guideline to maintain Mountain View's parks' character, usability, and longevity.

6.1.1 ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY
Access and connectivity guidelines focus on making parks and trails easy to reach and navigate. This includes improving edge access, wayfinding, ADA routes, and internal paths, as well as strengthening links to sidewalks, crossings, bike facilities, parking, transit, and nearby trail connections. Guidelines to maximize access and connectivity are listed below.
• Establish and follow a vocabulary for attractive, well-designed, commonly placed site elements for system-wide standards.
• Establish a standardized wayﬁnding system to clearly identify amenities and facilities within community and regional parks. Incorporate directions to nearby civic, historic, cultural, or ecological landmarks. • Provide consistent and uniform park entry signage at all parks by updating older park entrances to match the standardized signs used in newer parks, reinforcing a cohesive identity for Mountain View’s park system.
• Provide a main entry that gives a sense of arrival and encourages park use, including accent planting and standardized park signage.
• Direct connections to the street and/or sidewalk should be visible and part of the park entry sequence.

Where possible, locate the entry near a bus stop or a crosswalk. • Working within the overall system standard, develop distinct themes for each park site to establish a unique character. Themes may be expressed using colors, materials, special elements, and plant selections.
• Include bike parking at all parks.

6.1.2 CONDITION
Condition guidelines emphasize maintaining high-quality, well-functioning park and trail features. Key elements include durable paving, healthy vegetation and trees, well-kept amenities and facilities, reliable lighting where applicable, and adequate, clean seating and waste receptacles. Guidelines related to condition are below. • Where feasible, minimal lighting should promote park name and presence during evening hours. • Items of historic or cultural significance, public art, and historic and environmental interpretive elements should be considered for inclusion in park sites to contribute to individual character.

Draft 1/12/26
94 • Design a street and/or park edge which is attractive from adjacent public areas. Vegetation and structures should not block views into and out of the park. Signage, openness, fence materials, if applicable, and planting should be carefully designed to enhance park appeal. • Select paving, site furnishing, and landscape materials based on durability as well as aesthetic value. • Provide restrooms in regional and community parks and consider restrooms in more active neighborhood parks where amenities such as multi-use courts, group picnic areas, or playground clusters encourage extended visits. A small restroom may be appropriate at a mini park to support active transportation goals or to support other City priority projects in specific neighborhoods. • Provide seating elements that are located to take advantage of hospitable conditions, including shade, views, and sound.

6.1.3 FUNCTIONALITY
Functionality guidelines address how well parks and trails support a range of activities and user needs.

Priorities include providing varied uses, appropriate amenity placement, balanced sun and shade, proper drainage, compatibility with surroundings, and an active, welcoming environment. Guidelines to enhance functionality include the following:
• Provide a diversity of site amenities that serve and attract different types of recreation activities at various times of day.
• Provide both active and passive recreation opportunities. Passive recreation opportunities may include seating, gathering areas, and habitat educational areas. Active recreation opportunities may include playgrounds, multi-use courts, dog parks, and walking/biking paths. • Prioritize multipurpose fields and shared sports courts where possible. • Design parks for multi-generational use, with features that appeal to people of different ages placed in proximity to each other.
• Design inclusive play areas to support activities for children of varied ages, including tots, young children, and teenagers. Provide sub-areas relative to each age range as appropriate. Incorporate sensory features.
• When possible, provide creative play opportunities that incorporate natural features and non- traditional play environments.
• Shade seating and high-use gathering areas wherever possible. • Prioritize increasing plantings of trees with large canopies to provide long-term shade, improve comfort, and enhance habitat and biodiversity.
• Use shade structures in locations where reliable or immediate shade is needed – such as over play areas, seating or high-use gathering spaces – and rely on tree canopy where long-term shade and ecological benefits can be achieved.

6.1.4 SAFETY AND COMFORT
Safety and comfort guidelines focus on creating secure, welcoming spaces. This includes eliminating derelict conditions, addressing vandalism or unauthorized use, improving visibility and wayfinding, supporting passive surveillance, calming nearby traffic, and mitigating noise or visual intrusions. Guidelines to support safety and comfort are listed below.
• Use lighting to promote public safety and security, following the principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in select parks that need lighting, including those with sports courts or those that facilitate pedestrian traffic.

Draft 1/12/26
95 • Where appropriate, provide lighting to extend the use of outdoor facilities at night, such as sports fields, skate parks, and sports courts.
• Locate permanent restrooms in highly utilized and visible areas to reduce vandalism risks and deter undesirable behavior.
• Locate high-use amenities such as playground equipment and sports courts in areas visible from adjoining streets to promote safety and encourage use, but far enough away to ensure user safety. • Create highly visible spaces by designing park elements, including pathways, play areas, picnic areas, and benches, to allow for natural surveillance among users. • Design pathways with unobstructed sight lines and locate seating and play elements in areas with unobstructed views.
• Use universal design principles to facilitate access and movement within parks for people of all ages and abilities.
• Through the placement of recreation features and the use of mitigation techniques, minimize the impacts of noise and lighting on neighboring properties.

6.2 Park Design Guidelines by Park Type
The following park typologies—Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks, and Mini Parks—serve as a framework to guide the design, programming, and capital planning of future parks in Mountain View. (Guidelines for the Shoreline regional park, built over a closed landfill, are not the purview of this Plan. The City is not contemplating new regional parks.)
This section outlines potential amenities, landscape strategies, and use characteristics tailored to each park type, with illustrative diagrams to support design considerations. These typologies provide a consistent starting point to plan new park sites, with community input and site-specific considerations, that are functional, well- equipped, and aligned with community expectations.

6.2.1 COMMUNITY PARKS
As noted in the Parks Assessment section of the Plan, Community Parks are larger parks ranging from 5.0 to 40 acres that serve the entire city and offer a broader range of recreational facilities, such as sports fields/courts, community buildings, playgrounds, and various amenities. Examples of community parks include Rengstorff Park, Cuesta Park and Annex, and Sylvan Park.

This park type should offer a range of active and passive amenities, and a mixture of programmed and unprogrammed flexible open space. Amenities should cater to a wide range of users, including youth, seniors, dog walkers, athletes, and large and small groups. Amenities and entrances should be connected by a robust system of paths. Figure 23 below represents a sample of the types of amenities that could be planned for a community park. Note that the graphic is intended to be used as a framework, and more specific designs for each park would be decided through the process of analysis and community engagement.

Draft 1/12/26
96 SIZE
• 5.0 to 40 acres

TYPICAL USE TIME
• From 1 hour up to a half day

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
• Adjacent to schools, libraries, other community facilities, and commercial and mixed-use activity centers.
• Opportunities for collocation with stormwater detention basins, and trail corridors. • Distributed across the city.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
• Street frontages at site boundary, wherever possible, and may include frontage on at least one major street.
• Transit service and a transit stop.
• Good access to the City’s transportation network, including bus routes, bikeways and trails.

Figure 23: Example of Range of Amenities in a Community Park – FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY Draft 1/12/26
97 Two-way Class IV cycle track near Charleston Park.

PARKING
• On-site vehicular parking may be considered based on the park size and available amenities. Providing some parking to support large group facilities and/or multiple sports fields/courts is recommended. • If major events are planned to be hosted in the community park, having adjacent overflow parking options would be helpful.
• Bike parking with racks should be placed near the main pedestrian park entry points. Racks should also be provided near key amenities like sports fields/courts, playgrounds, and picnic areas.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY
• 75% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
When designing a community park, a mixture of amenities could be considered from the list below. The final amenities for each park would be determined through the City’s standard park design process and public outreach.
• Site identification signage along with park regulations near all major entrances. • Interpretive signage, especially near notable natural features. • Site furnishings, including benches, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, and bike racks. • Intuitive pathway circulation.
• An accessible walking loop (one mile or longer).
• A soft surface jogging path, or nature trail (half mile or longer). • Picnic facilities with shade dispersed throughout the site. These may include barbecue facilities adjacent to the picnic areas.
• Unique, thematic, or innovative playground that is universally accessible and made for ages 2-5 and 5- 12, including climbing apparatus, swings, and shade structures over the play area. • Open green areas for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. • Sports fields/courts selected to meet recreation needs. Lighting should be considered at one or more of the fields/courts.

Draft 1/12/26
98 • Provide safety lighting along primary paths and
circulation routes within the park to enhance
visibility, comfort, and user safety after dark.
• Special recreation amenity such as an
amphitheater, skate park, splash pad/water
play area, dog park, pump track, disc golf,
community garden, pollinator/sensory gardens,
BMX dirt track, running track, roller hockey,
climbing wall, or outdoor fitness equipment,
etc. (Note: water play areas such as splash pads
may require a restroom/shower.)
• Public Art for City projects over $1 million and
based on City Council Policy K-5, Public Art and CIP Projects. • Permanent restrooms based on park amenities, size, capacity and demand. • Storage or maintenance buildings and lockable trash enclosures that architecturally complement the rest of the park. The location should be in an area away from the main park attractions and coordinated with the maintenance staff and the disposal company. • Environmental education facility.
• Indoor recreation center, gymnasium, or community center. • Quiet zones with appropriate landscaping for activities like meditation and tai chi.

Community parks should have:
• 1+ Recreational Anchor: A major active recreation feature that draws users citywide, such as a destination playground, skate park, splash pad, dog park, bike park, pump track, or disc golf course. • 1+ Community Anchor: A major social or cultural feature that supports gathering, programming, or community events, such as a community center, amphitheater, or event lawn. • 1+ Active Recreation Amenity: Facilities such as sports fields and/or courts that provide space for organized or informal recreation.

The final type and number of amenities would be based on park scale, community feedback, and level of interest.

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
• Existing natural/cultural features (i.e., mature trees, landforms, drainage, built relics) should be preserved and incorporated into park design and identity where feasible. • Any existing natural areas should be optimized for resource and habitat protection, windbreaks, tree shade and biodiversity using native and climate-resilient plant species where feasible. Undeveloped areas should be maintained to prevent invasive species that would harm native plants. (see Action

1.3.3)
• Because trees serve as living infrastructure, community park designs should prioritize their protection and strategic placement to enhance user comfort, biodiversity, and climate resilience.

6.2.2 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Neighborhood Parks range from 1.0 to 5.0 acres in size and serve nearby residents who live within one mile, often including playgrounds, open spaces, picnic areas, and sports courts. Examples of neighborhood parks include Pyramid Park, Pioneer Park, and Klein Park.

Lit sports courts at Cuesta Park

Draft 1/12/26
99 This typology should include a balance of active and passive uses, designed to support nearby residents and encourage daily use. Figure 24 illustrates a representative set of amenities to review with community input and guide the planning and design of neighborhood parks. A central lawn with a surrounding loop trail offers opportunities for walking, informal play, and flexible gathering. Key amenities such as play areas, sports courts, adult fitness equipment, and dog parks provide recreation for a range of age groups and interests. Tree shaded picnic areas and privacy screening enhance comfort and create welcoming social spaces. Connections to surrounding sidewalks, transit stops, and bike infrastructure support safe and convenient access. Note that the graphic is intended to be used as a framework, and more specific designs for each park would be decided through the process of analysis and community engagement.

SIZE
• 1.0 to 5.0 acres

USE TIME
• 1 to 2 hours

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
• Central to the neighborhoods they serve with residential or school-adjacent land uses. • Relevant considerations include good spacing between park sites and the potential for trail connections.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
• May have at least two street frontages, with sidewalks. • Where feasible, connect to bikeways and trails.
• Minimal access barriers such as fencing, steep slopes, or major arterial roads.

Figure 24: Example Range of Amenities in a Neighborhood Park– FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY Draft 1/12/26
100

PARKING
• Served by street parking.
• Bike parking with racks placed near main pedestrian entry points.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY
• 80% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
When designing a neighborhood park, a mixture of amenities from the list below could be considered and reviewed with neighbors. The final amenities for each park would be determined through the City’s standard park design process and public outreach.
• Site identification signage along with park regulations near all major entrances. • Interpretive signage, especially near notable natural features. • Site furnishings, including benches, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, and bike racks. • Intuitive and accessible walking loop.
• Picnic facilities, including tables shaded by trees or shade structures, and adjacent barbecue facilities. • Game tables for chess, checkers, weiqi/go/baduk, mahjong, etc. • Playground equipment or comparable creative play environment for ages 2-5 and 5-12, including climbing apparatus and swings with shade from either a shade structure or tree shade where appropriate.
• Open lawn for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. • Active-use recreational amenity,
such as a sports court or striped
field, that has no lighting.
• A special recreation amenity, such
as an amphitheater, skate park,
dog park, roller rink, pump track,
community garden, pollinator
garden, water play area, etc.
(Note: water play areas and splash
pads may require a
restroom/shower).
• Public Art for City projects over $1
million and based on City Council
Policy K-5, Public Art and CIP
Projects.
• Gazebo trellis or arbor.
• Permanent restrooms based on the type of amenities in the park. • Quiet zones with appropriate landscaping for activities like meditation and tai chi. • Limited, safety-focused lighting along key paths or entrances where visibility is needed for user security.

Neighborhood parks should have -
• 1+ Recreational Anchor: at least one recreation amenity with neighborhood-wide appeal, i.e., sports field and/or court, destination playground, skate park, water play area/splash pad, dog park, etc. The amount should be based on park usage and level of interest.

Shade structure over picnic area at Pyramid Park.

Draft 1/12/26
101

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
• Existing natural features should be preserved and incorporated into park design and identity where feasible, with priority given to native and drought-tolerant plantings that support pollinators and other urban wildlife.
• Because trees serve as living infrastructure, park designs should prioritize their protection and strategic placement to enhance user comfort, biodiversity, and climate resilience.

6.2.3 MINI PARKS
Mini parks, are less than 1.0 acres in size that provide small-scale recreational opportunities, such as seating areas, playgrounds, or green spaces, usually serving a localized area within a short walking distance of one mile. Examples of mini parks include Evandale Park, Mora Park, and Mariposa Park.

Figure 25 illustrates a representative set of amenities to guide the planning and design of mini parks that balance relaxation, play, and social connection in a small footprint. Key features may include play areas, loop trails around small lawns, and plazas with flexible seating and activity space. These elements support informal use while enhancing comfort and safety. Privacy screening and perimeter landscaping help buffer adjacent residences and create a welcoming, neighborhood-oriented environment. These parks also provide an opportunity to select thematic furnishings and structures to create identity. Note that the graphic is intended to be used as a framework, and more specific designs for each park would be decided through the process of analysis and community engagement.

SIZE
• Up to 1.0 acre

USE TIME
• 30 minutes to 1 hour

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
• Embedded within neighborhoods.
• At trailheads that serve as nodes along greenways, paths or trails, or access points to open space areas.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
• Frontage on two streets is preferable; one-street frontage is acceptable.

Figure 25: Example Range of Amenities in a Mini Park– FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY Draft 1/12/26
102

PARKING
• Served by street parking.
• Bike parking.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY
• 80% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
When designing a mini park, a small number of amenities could be considered from the list below. The final amenities for each park would be determined through the City’s standard park design process and public outreach.
• Site identification signage along with park regulations near the entrance(s). • Interpretive signage, especially near notable natural features. • Site furnishings, including benches, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, and bike racks. • Individual picnic tables with optional tree shade or shade structure where appropriate. • Open lawn for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. • Single small sports court placed with sensitivity to neighbors. • Intuitive and accessible pathway that creates a small walking loop. • Public Art for City projects over $1 million and based on City Council Policy K-5, Public Art and CIP Projects.
• Playground equipment or comparable creative play environment for ages 2-5 and ages 5-12, including climbing apparatus and swings.
• Gazebo trellis or arbor.
• Game tables for chess, checkers, weiqi/go/baduk, mahjong, etc.

Mini Parks should have -
• Multi-use lawn/Green space: For unstructured play/recreation.

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
• Existing natural features should be preserved and incorporated into park design and identity where feasible.
• When feasible, planting palettes should emphasize native, biodiverse landscapes that provide habitat, support pollinators, and reduce long-term water and maintenance needs.

Interpretive signage at Mariposa Park Game table at Evandale Park

Draft 1/12/26
103

• Because trees function as living infrastructure, mini park designs should incorporate shade trees and biodiverse plantings that improve comfort, ecological value, and long-term climate resilience.

6.3 Integration of Biodiversity into Park Design

6.3.1 PARK SYSTEM I MPORTANCE TO BIODIVERSITY IN M OUNTAIN VIEW Mountain View’s park system presents a vital opportunity to support and strengthen the city’s biodiversity. As described in the City’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (in draft form as of this writing), urban biodiversity is shaped not only by the amount of green space in a city but also by how these spaces are configured, connected, and maintained. Parks serve not just as places for recreation and respite but also as essential patches of habitat within a broader ecological network. As the City continues to enhance its parks and open spaces, integrating biodiversity goals into park planning and operations will help support a healthy, functioning urban ecosystem that serves both people and wildlife today and into the future.

A foundational insight from the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan is the importance of patch size and configuration in supporting different types of species. Patches are contiguous areas of vegetated green space greater than two acres. Larger open spaces, such as those found in Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park and the surrounding wetlands, contain more “core” habitat area and are better able to foster species that are sensitive to urban disturbance. In contrast, smaller parks in more urbanized parts of the city, including Cuesta Park and Rengstorff Park, tend to be dominated by “edge” conditions and are more likely to support species that can tolerate or even thrive in human-dominated environments. While not every park needs to function as a biodiversity hub, there is value in understanding which parks can support core habitat and which can serve as part of a larger patch network that contributes to urban ecological health. Future park design and improvements should consider how site layout, vegetation buffers, and internal habitat zones can enhance the ecological value of each park, even within limited footprints (see Action 1.3.4).

Connectivity across the City’s park system is equally important. In many parts of Mountain View, roadways and development patterns have fragmented the landscape, making it difficult for wildlife to move safely between habitat patches. Parks located along natural corridors—particularly those that follow creek systems or trail alignments—are well-positioned to function as ecological links. Enhancing vegetation diversity along these corridors, using native species where feasible, and incorporating wildlife-friendly features such as canopy cover and ground-level refuge can transform parks and trails into movement corridors for birds, pollinators, and small mammals (see Action 1.3.2). These improvements support biodiversity and also enrich the visual and sensory quality of the park experience for residents.

In addition to improving the function of individual parks and corridors, there is a broader opportunity to elevate the ecological quality of the urban matrix—the spaces between parks that often include streetscapes, civic sites, and institutional grounds. Parks adjacent to neighborhoods with low tree cover or minimal vegetation can act as green anchors, catalyzing efforts to expand plantings and canopy in surrounding public and private landscapes. Increasing the diversity of species planted within parks, reducing reliance on high- water-use trees, and reintroducing habitat types such as oak savannas or pollinator meadows are all strategies that can contribute to a more robust and regionally appropriate urban ecology.

Park maintenance practices also play a pivotal role in supporting biodiversity outcomes. Many species rely on parks for specific life stages, nesting, overwintering, breeding, and are sensitive to the timing and intensity of landscape management. While not all parks are designed to function as habitat, those with naturalized areas, planting buffers, or ecological corridors present meaningful opportunities to align mowing, pruning, and soil disturbance activities with seasonal ecological cycles. In these designated areas, operations can be timed to avoid disruption during sensitive periods for native species. Where appropriate, particularly in habitat edges or low-traffic zones, parks may incorporate small pockets of leaf litter, deadwood, or drought-tolerant native understory that offer shelter, foraging, and nesting opportunities. These decisions require balancing ecological Draft 1/12/26
104

function with aesthetic and safety considerations, and when done well, can create spaces that are both welcoming to people and supportive of wildlife.

For details and specific recommendations related to Biodiversity, refer to the City’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

6.3.2 BIODIVERSITY AND URBAN FOREST PLAN GUIDELINES
To translate the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan’s (BUFP) goals into park system implementation, the Strategic Plan highlights the following practices, each tied to specific BUFP actions and guidance:
• Biodiversity-Supportive Planting: Incorporate biodiversity-supportive plant palettes that prioritize regional native species, layered vegetation, and plant selections that provide ecological benefits such as pollinator support, habitat structure, and seasonal foraging. References: BUFP Action 5, Guide A:

Urban Landscaping and Guide B: Plant Lists (see Action 1.3.2). • Tree Diversity and Climate Resilience: Follow the City’s updated tree list and species-diversity goals when planting or replacing park trees, emphasizing climate-resilient and underrepresented native species to strengthen long-term canopy health. References: BUFP Action 13, Guide B: Plant Lists. • Habitat Patch Enhancement: Enhance vegetated patches and ecological connectivity through naturalized areas and wildlife-friendly landscape features. Reference: BUFP Action 16. • Biodiversity Integration in Recreation and Trail Corridors: Capitalize on opportunities – large and small – to integrate biodiversity-friendly design in both active and passive recreation areas and trail corridors. This includes incorporating native landscaping in low-intensity spaces, adding native plantings at the perimeters of sports fields and play areas, designing plant palettes that reflect local historical ecology, and protecting high-value habitat resources where feasible. Reference: BUFP Action 10, Guide B: Plant Lists (see Action 1.3.5).
• Climate-Responsive Shading in Parks: In designated Cooling Zones, incorporate targeted shade tree planting and climate-adaptive design strategies to enhance public comfort, reduce heat exposure, and improve ecological resilience. Recognizing trees as living infrastructure underscores the importance of expanding shade canopy to support public health, environmental performance, and long-term park resilience. References: BUFP Action 17, Guide A: Urban Landscaping – Cooling Zone (see Action 1.3.1). • Wildlife-Friendly Maintenance: Integrate wildlife-friendly and ecologically aligned maintenance practices and standards. References: BUFP Action 21 (see Action 3.2.3). • Consistent Monitoring and Performance Indicators: Observe the metrics and targets identified in the BUFP to ensure consistent, citywide evaluation of ecological performance and program outcomes.

References: BUFP Action 22, Guide D: Monitoring and Targets.

The following design and maintenance strategies can help integrate biodiversity and sustainability goals into park development and operation:
• Lighting systems and fixtures should be selected to reduce light pollution. • Preserve, protect, and enhance habitat and natural resources within parks, including maintaining existing areas for native species where appropriate.
• Employ plants with habitat value for pollinator species. • Employ a drought-tolerant, climate-appropriate, low-maintenance plant palette for almost all site plant material.
• Prioritize turf in high-use areas where field athletics, informal play, and foot traffic are expected and desired. Remove ornamental lawn in all other areas to reduce water use. Replace with mulch cover and groundcover planting.
• Consider interpretive value of plantings as part of a public educational program. For example, ethnobotanical species related to early indigenous people and the historic landscape.

Draft 1/12/26
105

• Establish guidelines for suitable trees and plant materials to be planted in parks and consult certified arborists when needed.

6.3.3 PLANTING GUIDELINES
• The City’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan should be referenced when reviewing planting, landscape, and tree guidelines and specifications (see Actions 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.4, and 1.3.5). • Large shade trees should be plentiful to provide shade, windbreak, and carbon sequestration, with a tree canopy goal of at least 15-20% of the site at key areas such as plazas, seating areas, picnic areas, and walking/ jogging loops (see Action 1.3.1).
• Periphery landscape areas should feature climate-appropriate plants, including native and drought- tolerant species. These plants require minimal maintenance, watering, and pruning, while enhancing biodiversity. (see Actions 1.3.2 and 1.3.3).
• Select a diverse and sustainable planting palette to create a rich and resilient habitat (see Action

1.3.2).
• Use vegetation of varying heights to create visual variation and aesthetic interest. A combination of groundcovers, shrubs, and trees should be considered in the design. • Cover plant areas with mulch to reduce weeds.
• Add mulch in pass-through areas to limit irrigation needs.

Draft 1/12/26
106

CHAPTER SEVEN - FRAMEWORK FOR

PRIORITIZING NEW PARK PLANNING AND PARK

IMPROVEMENTS
Synthesizing feedback received during the public input phase with the park assessment conducted by the project team, the team conducted a park-by-park workshop to discuss which parks the City could continue to maintain with their current design, focusing on repairs and updates and which parks could be significantly improved through a comprehensive redesign. In addition, the project team discussed possible parameters for the development of new parks. The following sections further describe how potential park improvements could be considered in the CIP in future fiscal years.

7.1 Framework for Park and Facility Investment Priorities This section provides a framework for identifying and prioritizing park and facility improvements to support Mountain View’s long-term vision for an accessible, high-quality, and resilient park system. It introduces three categories to describe the expansion and improvements to the park system—development of new parks, enhancing existing parks, and updating existing parks. Each category meets a different need and reflects a different scale of investment, time horizon, and operational impact. These categories respond to opportunities to create new or significantly transformed parks, targeted enhancements, and ongoing maintenance needs. For the most part, the recommendations in this section are not part of the City’s existing CIP, but are intended to inform future planning, budgeting, and funding efforts.

Following the definition of the three categories, this section includes cost projections for new parks and amenities based on the Level of Service (LOS) analysis, providing a planning-level understanding of what it would take to meet future demand and address service gaps across the city. This comprehensive structure supports both near-term decision-making and long-term capital investment planning.

7.1.1 DEVELOP NEW PARK S
New park development involves the land acquisition, planning, design, and construction of new parks to expand recreational opportunities and meet future community needs. This category includes potential public/private partnerships, joint-use sites, and major capital projects that create new parks and amenities.

New park development projects typically require comprehensive community engagement, master planning, environmental review, and substantial capital investment. The intent of this category is to grow the overall park system, close gaps in service areas, and ensure equitable access to high-quality parks and open spaces citywide.

Funding sources for new park development projects may include Park Land Dedication and In-Lieu Fees, Development Impact Fees, grants, partnerships, and other one-time capital funding opportunities. Significant Types of Park
Investments
Develop New
Parks
$$$
Enhance Existing
Parks
$$
Update Existing
Parks
$
Draft 1/12/26
107

new funding sources, likely a voter-approved revenue measure will be needed to accomplish new park projects.

7.1.2 ENHANCE EXISTING PARKS
Enhancing existing parks focuses on targeted enhancements that strengthen and modernize the existing park system. These improvements may include upgrades to larger park amenities, facility or amenity redesigns in portions of the park, and the introduction of new recreational offerings, along with the general ongoing maintenance and lifecycle replacement needed. These projects often require additional capital and/or operational funding and are designed to respond to evolving community needs and improve overall service delivery.

Funding sources for enhancement projects include Construction/Conveyance Tax, Park Land Dedication Fund, Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund, and Capital Improvement Program Reserve Funding. New funding sources will be needed to address all recommendations identified in the strategic planning process.

7.1.3 UPDATE EXISTING PARKS
Updating existing parks includes improvements that are essential to maintaining a safe and functional park system. This category focuses on routine repairs, ongoing maintenance, plant care, and lifecycle replacements of existing park amenities. It also includes updates and instances of limited new amenity additions to existing parks, such as signage, benches, shade structures, game tables, etc. The primary objective is to ensure that existing resources are used safely and effectively, and small-scale improvements are made, enabling the City to continue delivering core services and uphold the quality of current park facilities. Within this category, playground improvement may specifically refer to the Playground Improvement Programs, which outlines a 10- and 20-year plan for playground replacement.

Funding sources for update projects include Construction/Conveyance Tax, Park Land Dedication Fund, Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund, and Capital Improvement Program Reserve Funding. New funding sources may be needed to address all recommendations identified in the strategic planning process.

7.2 Summary and Improvement Priorities
During the park-by-park workshop, the project team classified City parks into the above categories and discussed the potential for new park amenities at each park. School fields were not reviewed as part of this analysis and the focus was on city-owned land.

Most existing parks were identified as fitting within the update to existing parks category, underscoring the need for reinvestment in basic infrastructure such as furnishings, playgrounds, utilities, and path/surface repairs. These improvements aim to preserve core functionality and ensure daily users' safety and comfort. A smaller number of parks were identified for enhancement, which envisions more substantial upgrades or reconfigurations. These include expanded recreational amenities, reimagined layouts for underused spaces, new signage and wayfinding elements, and improvements that enhance identity and multi-generational use.

Many of the recommendations also reflect an interest in creating more inclusive, climate-adaptive, and welcoming park environments across the system.

While the categories and preliminary recommendations provide direction, the specific improvements will be further vetted during each park’s improvement process, with community input helping determine priorities and design details.

Note - The timeline for recommended lifecycle improvements is predominantly informed by each park’s condition score from the park assessment and City staff experience, with improvements prioritized as high priority for lower-scoring parks and medium and low priority for parks in better condition. There are projects of varying priority levels in each category.

Draft 1/12/26
108

7.2.1 DEVELOP NEW PARK S
The City has been proactively seeking opportunities to expand park land in Mountain View. This includes reviewing properties that are on the market and contacting owners in strategic locations to see if they would be interested in selling. Over the past three years, several properties have been acquired by the City or dedicated for future park development. While design and construction have not yet begun, these new sites will add over 10 acres of new parks, expand community access to open space and help respond to community growth over time (see Action 1.1.2).

Table 20: Purchased or Dedicated Sites for Future Parks and Trail Extensions Future Parks CIP Project
#
Planning Area Park Type Acres
909, 917, and 939 San Rafael 24-36 Stierlin Neighborhood Park

2.45 acres
California/Pacchetti 25-40 San Antonio Neighborhood
Park

2.00 acres
Joint Use Agreement with Los Altos
School District for Joint Use Open
Space at “10th School Site”
27-XX San Antonio Neighborhood
Park

4.00 acres
555 West Middlefield 29-XX Stierlin Neighborhood
Park

1.34 acres
Villa-Chiquita Park 21-61 Central Mini Park 0.39 acres
2231 W. Middlefield and
538 Thomspon
26-35 Thompson Mini Park 0.14 and 0.29 acres
for a combined 0.43
acres
711 Calderon 27-XX Central Mini Park 0.63 acres
Total Park
Acres

11.24 acres
Stevens Creek Trail Extension –
Dale/Heatherstone to West Remington
30-XX North Bayshore Trail Corridor 9.00 acres

Recognizing the value of optimizing existing City-maintained open space, CSD identified parcels over 0.50 acres that could be repurposed or improved as mini or special-use parks (see Action 1.1.3). Table 21 provides an overview of these sites for further evaluation during implementation. Charleston Retention Basin was renovated and incorporates a walking loop and landscape area, which provides wildlife habitat that is referenced in the City’s Wildlife Management Plan and subject to California Fish and Wildlife regulations.

Although this is not considered a City park, it is open space maintained by the City and included in the table below solely as it is above 0.50 acres.

Draft 1/12/26
109

Table 21: Existing City Land Categorized as Open Space Over 0.50 Acres Open Space Sites Planning Area Acres Description of Site Charleston Retention Basin North Bayshore 13.86 acres 1.11- mile Walking Loop, Habitat and Landscaped area
Hetch Hetchy Trail Open Space Whisman 0.52 acres Trail open space connection between Tyrella Avenue and East Street. Located
within the 0.64-mile Hetch Hetchy trail.

Shoreline Blvd. at Church St. Central 0.80 acres Undeveloped Shoreline Blvd. between Mercy and
California Streets
Central 0.51 acres Undeveloped
Sleeper/Franklin Trail Entrance Grant 1.03 acres Trailhead to the Stevens Creek Trail. Open lawn with bench seating and a water
fountain.

Total Acres 16.72 acres

These new parks in the pipeline, as well as adding amenities to or repurposing existing City land into parks, where feasible, will help the City make progress toward the goal of 3 ac/1,000. However, as noted earlier in the Plan, when the current Level of Service is looked at by Planning Area, the analysis shows that more new parks are needed, especially in the areas north of Central Expressway. Based on analysis in the Plan, ongoing community input, land purchase opportunities, and funding availability, the City will prioritize and pursue park expansion. To address gaps in access to parks and amenities and make substantive progress on the 3 ac/1,000 goal, a significant new funding source will be needed.

7.2.2 ENHANCE EXISTING PARKS
The following parks have been identified as candidates for targeted enhancements (see Actions 1.2.4, 1.2.5, and 1.2.6). Specific improvements would be determined through future design processes, guided by community input and feasibility considerations. There are two scheduled CIPs for Cuesta Park: Project 26-34 for park improvements such as new elements, pathway renovation, playground replacement, and landscape improvements, and Project 26-33 for Cuesta Tennis Center Improvements which includes a full rehabilitation of the Cuesta Tennis Center Pro Shop.

Table 22: Park Enhancement Priority
Park Park Type Priority
Cuesta Park Community Park Medium
Rengstorff Park Community Park Low
Bubb Park Neighborhood Park High
Klein Park Neighborhood Park High
Chetwood Park Mini Park High
Fairmont Park Mini Park Medium
Sierra Vista Park Mini Park Medium
Jackson Park Mini Park Medium

Draft 1/12/26
110

7.2.3 UPDATE IMPROVEMENTS
All parks require ongoing lifecycle improvements to remain safe, functional, and in good condition. A number of parks identified as in need for an update, which require only lifecycle improvements with limited small-scale amenity additions, generally have no immediate needs, so upgrades are anticipated within a 6 to 10-year (Medium Priority) or 11 to 15-year (Low Priority) timeframe. A smaller number of parks have elements that would benefit from earlier replacement within 0 to 5 years (High Priority). In some cases, minor modifications, such as the addition of game tables, shade structures, seating, or updated signage, may also be incorporated where they would improve comfort and usability. These recommendations serve as an initial framework and will be further reviewed as individual parks advance to design development, with community input informing the final improvements.

Table 23 lists the Community Parks and Regional Park that are categorized for update improvements (see Action 1.2.3). Of these, Sylvan Park has a scheduled Capital Improvement Project (CIP), Project 26-32, to complete improvements at the site that are consistent with the types of improvements categorized as updates.

Table 23: Community and Regional Parks Update Priority Park Park Type Priority
Sylvan Park Community Park High
Charleston Park and Plaza Community Park Low
Eagle Park Community Park Low
Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park Low
Shoreline Athletic Fields Regional Park Low

Table 24 shows the priority level for updates to Neighborhood Parks. As shown, Neighborhood Parks are in relatively good condition. Of these parks, Cooper, San Veron, and Whisman Parks could be prioritized for improvements (see Action 1.2.1). Cooper and Whisman Parks are comprised of both City and MVWSD parcels and would require coordination with the district on any improvements on the district parcel.

Table 24: Neighborhood Park Update Priority
Park Park Type Priority
Cooper Park Neighborhood Park Medium
San Veron Park Neighborhood Park Medium
Whisman Park Neighborhood Park Medium
Fayette Greenway Neighborhood Park Low
Heritage Park Neighborhood Park Low
McKelvey Ball Park Neighborhood Park Low
Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park Low
Pyramid Park Neighborhood Park Low

Table 25 notes the Mini Parks categorized for update improvements. There are a number of High and Medium priority parks as many are on the older side and would benefit from foundational improvements (see Action

1.2.2).

Draft 1/12/26
111

Table 25: Mini Park Update Priority
Park Park Type Priority
Rex-Manor Park Mini Park High
Thaddeus Park Mini Park High
Varsity Park Mini Park High
Creekside Park Mini Park Medium
Del Medio Park Mini Park Medium
Devonshire Park Mini Park Medium
Gemello Park Mini Park Medium
Magnolia Park Mini Park Medium
Mercy-Bush Park Mini Park Medium
Dana Park Mini Park Low
Evandale Park Mini Park Low
Fayette Park Mini Park Low
Mariposa Park Mini Park Low
Mora Park Mini Park Low
Schaefer Park Mini Park Low
Wyandotte Park Mini Park Low

7.3 Cost of N ew Park Development and Improvements
Developing new parks requires an even more significant long-term investment. The total cost of a new park can vary based on location, size, and the level of amenities provided; however, broad planning-level estimates help establish an order of magnitude for budgeting and implementation purposes.

For new parks, land acquisition is estimated at approximately $10 million per acre, while design and construction costs range between $3 million and $6 million per acre, based on 2025 cost estimates and recent City project actuals, resulting in a total estimated cost of $13 million to $16 million per acre for full park development. To build a new 5-acre park it would result in a total estimated cost of $65 million to $80 million.

These figures reflect current market conditions in Mountain View and serve as general benchmarks for planning and funding discussions. Actual costs may vary depending on factors such as site constraints, infrastructure needs, environmental conditions, and desired park features, and they are anticipated to change over time.

The City’s ability to expand its park system is constrained not only by funding availability but also by land availability. Mountain View is a built-out city, meaning land is both expensive and difficult to find. Therefore, the City must take an opportunistic approach to acquiring land for parks. Opportunities typically arise unpredictably, such as when a property becomes available for sale near an underserved neighborhood or when redevelopment presents an opportunity to incorporate public open space. For the City to operate effectively in the real estate market, timing and flexibility are critical. The City must be ready to act quickly when land becomes available, requiring dedicated funding reserves and streamlined processes to compete with private buyers in a high-demand real estate market. Funding strategies are discussed in Section 8.6.7.

Draft 1/12/26
112

The cost for more substantial upgrades and redesigns for existing parks (enhancements) is estimated at $3 million per acre, based on 2025 cost estimates and recent City projects. Using this average, the redesign of a five-acre neighborhood park would cost $15 million.

The cost for updating existing park improvements repairs and updates to meet modern standards may include replacing aging infrastructure, such as upgrading irrigation, replacing amenities, adding accessible pathways, and improving fields and landscaping. Ongoing investment in these types of projects is essential to preserve the functionality, safety, and quality of Mountain View’s existing park system while advancing the community’s vision for resilient, inclusive, and high-performing public spaces.

The cost of typical update projects ranges from:
• $1.0M–$1.5M per acre for mini parks
• $1.25M–$1.75M per acre for neighborhood parks
• $1.5M-$2.0M per acre for community parks
For example, updating a 5-acre neighborhood park at an average cost of $1.5 million per acre would cost approximately $7.5 million, not including any specialized features. The magnitude of these figures shows that even reinvesting in existing parks requires major capital funding, and that balancing improvements to existing parks with the development of new ones will require strategic prioritization. Similar to building new parks, the cost of updating and enhancing parks are anticipated to change over time.

7.4 Areas of Focus for Park Improvement and E xpansion The following potential focus areas identify where the City could prioritize investment in park improvement and expansion over the next decade. These focus areas were developed through a comprehensive analysis of community input, the park and amenity assessment, LOS analysis (including by Planning Area), equity mapping, transportation availability and barriers, and school site accessibility. Together these inputs highlight where strategic reinvestment or new park development would most effectively enhance community access, equity, and recreation opportunities.

7.4.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK INVESTMENT
A consistent theme throughout the planning process was the need to improve access to neighborhood parks, particularly within certain Planning Areas, and to diversify recreational opportunities for all age groups. This includes both active uses, such as additional sports fields and courts, and passive uses, such as shaded gathering areas, walking paths, and naturalized play spaces.

Investment in Neighborhood Parks is suggested as a focus for both new park development and park updates:
• New Park Development: New Neighborhood Parks should be prioritized in the Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Central, and Stierlin Planning Areas, which currently fall below 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Particular neighborhoods that have advocated for additional park land include Monta Loma, Terra Bella and Rex-Manor. The cost to develop five new parks at five-acres each in these areas is estimated at $65 million to $80 million per park, or approximately $325 million to $400 million in total, reflecting the combined cost of land acquisition, design, and construction. • Update Projects: Focus on repairs and updates to existing Neighborhood Parks, including Cooper, Whisman, and San Veron Parks, at an estimated cost of approximately $1.4 million per acre. To invest in these three parks at a total of 11.78 combined acres, the estimated cost would be approximately $16.5 million. Trail improvements to Stevens Creek Trail are also a priority, with cost estimates to be developed as the project scope is refined.

Draft 1/12/26
113

7.4.2 ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS AND SPECIAL PARK OPPORTUNITIES In addition to foundational investment in existing Neighborhood Parks, several locations present opportunities for strategic enhancements and new amenity development. These projects aim to elevate the quality and diversity of recreational experiences across the system by improving well-used parks, modernizing amenities, and exploring new park amenities that address emerging community needs. • Enhancement Projects: Staff suggests prioritizing investments in Klein Park, with an estimated cost of $3.9 million for the 1.30-acre site. The City could also explore opportunities for enhancements at Cuesta Park in the future and explore community interest for improvements at Bubb Park. • Special Park Opportunities: As opportunities arise, the City may also pursue the creation of new community parks, mini parks, or an indoor sports complex to address gaps in access and respond to population growth and recreational demand. These opportunities could be pursued as appropriate conditions arise.

7.4.3 AMENITY INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
In addition to park expansion, several systemwide amenity priorities emerged from community engagement and the park assessment. These features should be considered for integration into both existing park improvements and new park designs, as well as through public-private partnership opportunities such as the pursuit of expanding pickleball courts in Mountain View.

Key amenity focus areas include:
• Sports fields and courts
• Public restrooms
• Shade structures, where appropriate
• Adult fitness equipment
• Skate and/or Bike Parks
• Dog parks
• Active Transportation connections to parks – which would be guided by the Active Transportation Plan in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan.

As future projects advance, specific amenities and design features should be determined through community- driven park design processes to ensure each investment reflects the unique needs, character, and priorities of Mountain View’s diverse neighborhoods.

Draft 1/12/26

114

CHAPTER EIGHT - GOALS, STRATEGIES AND

ACTIONS
Staff reflected on the community engagement and analysis conducted throughout the planning process to shape the Department’s mission, goals and values, and to identify strategies and actions to achieve the Plan’s objectives over the next 10 to 15 years.

The Community Services Department is proud to share its new mission statement: Building Community.

Enriching Lives. This concise and purpose-driven statement reflects a meaningful shift toward a more authentic and department-specific expression of the Department’s commitment to the community.

Grounded in this new mission, the following vision statement, values, and strategic goals provide a clear framework for advancing the City’s work over the next decade. The vision and goals reflect community priorities, staff input, and a shared commitment to building a more inclusive, resilient, and high-quality parks and recreation system for all.

8.1 Vision Statement
A vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable community where accessible parks, open spaces, and recreation opportunities inspire connection, well-being, and stewardship for generations to come.

8.2 Goals
The Plan identifies four goals for the City to prioritize in the years ahead for parks and recreation. • Expand and enhance safe, equitable and convenient access to parks, open spaces, and trails.

Ensure that all community members, regardless of location, income, age, or ability, can safely and conveniently access high-quality parks, open spaces, and trail systems. Prioritize park development and enhancements in underserved areas and preserve natural spaces for future generations and alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. • Increase community participation. Foster inclusive, meaningful engagement in recreation programs, park use, planning efforts, and volunteer opportunities for residents of all ages and backgrounds. Strengthen partnerships with local organizations and build trust through ongoing, transparent, and responsive communication.
• Foster a positive staff culture and ensure well-maintained operations. Cultivate an organizational culture that supports staff well-being, development, and collaboration. Maintain high standards for cleanliness, safety, and functionality of parks and facilities through effective maintenance and operations.
• Develop new funding sources and strengthen existing financial strategies to support a sustainable parks and recreation system. Build on existing financial mechanisms to ensure long- term sustainability. Explore new funding opportunities to achieve ambitious park land goals, enhance cost-recovery strategies, and align resources with community needs to maintain and improve parks, programs, and facilities.

A Strategy and Action Plan to support the accomplishment of these goals are outlined in the following sections.

Draft 1/12/26
115

8.3 Core Values
A core a set of values has been established to guide The Action Plan. The values reflect the City’s ongoing commitment to equitable service delivery, strategic foresight, collaborative engagement, responsible resource management, and excellence in all aspects of parks and recreation. • Inclusion - We are committed to creating welcoming and accessible spaces where all community members feel valued, respected, and engaged in recreation opportunities. • Future Focus - We embrace innovation and forward-thinking strategies to ensure that our parks and recreation services meet the evolving needs of our community for generations to come. • Collaboration - We believe in the power of partnerships and community engagement, working together with residents, organizations, and stakeholders to enhance our programs and spaces. • Stewardship - We are dedicated to responsible management of our natural and recreational resources, ensuring sustainability, conservation, and environmental protection for future enjoyment.
• Quality - We strive for excellence in all that we do, providing high-quality facilities, programs, and services that enrich the lives of our community members.

8.4 Strategies
The strategies translate the City’s Core Values into clear direction for parks, trails and open space, recreation programs and facilities, operations and maintenance, and funding and marketing. They guide the way that resources, projects, and partnerships advance equitable access, quality, and long-term sustainability.

These strategies were developed from community and stakeholder input, equity mapping and level-of- service analysis, benchmarking, and staff expertise. Together, they provide a consistent framework to guide decisions, align budgets, and evaluate results.

In the pages that follow, the strategies are organized by category. As described in the Framework below, the strategies are supported by concrete actions.

Parks, Trails and Open Space: Expand and enhance safe, equitable and convenient access to parks, open spaces, and trails.

Inclusion
Collaboration
Future Focus
Stewardship
Quality
Draft 1/12/26
116

1. Provide connected and inclusive access to parks and trails through land acquisition, development of new parks, and alignment with the Vision Zero Action Plan /Local Road Safety Plan and Active Transportation Plan.

2. Provide park improvements and amenities that reflect community needs and address needed updates.

3. Promote biodiversity, environmental resilience and long-term sustainability in the City’s parks through increased tree canopy, planting of native species, and alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

Recreation Programs and Facilities: Increase community participation

1. Deliver inclusive program offerings that serve diverse community needs.

2. Expand partnerships for program delivery, awareness and use.

Operations and Maintenance: Foster a positive staff culture and ensure well-maintained operations

1. Build organizational capacity and a future-ready workforce to sustain high-quality parks and recreation services.

2. Enhance preventative and responsive maintenance practices.

Funding and Marketing: Develop new funding sources and strengthen existing financial strategies to support a sustainable parks and recreation system

1. Diversify and expand revenue streams.

2. Share meaningful stories to maximize community engagement and connections.

8.5 Action Plan Development and Framework

8.5.1 HOW THE ACTION PLAN WAS DEVELOPED
The Action Plan identifies clear, trackable work items to accomplish each of the strategies outlined in Section 8.4. The actions were developed by carefully reviewing the needs and priorities expressed through the many methods of public engagement described in Chapter 4 – Public Input and Appendix C, the assessments and analysis presented in Chapter 5 - Analysis, and the experience and expertise of City staff who plan, implement, and maintain Mountain View’s park system and recreation programs on a daily basis.

As shown in Sections 5.1 – Recreation Program Assessment and 5.2 – Operations Assessment, the predominant perspective is that the City’s recreation programs and operations are strong, well-utilized, and meeting the needs of the community. Areas of improvement have been identified and 21 associated action items are listed in Sections 8.6.2 and 8.6.3.

As highlighted in community feedback, the expansion and improvement of the park system is essential.

Chapters 4 and 5 provide the building blocks for the park design guidelines in Chapter 6 – Guidelines for New Park Design and Park Improvements. These guidelines apply to the development of new parks as well as the enhancement and update of existing parks. The guidelines are presented both by park assessment criteria (access/connectivity, condition, functionality, and safety/comfort) and by park type Draft 1/12/26
117

(community, neighborhood and mini parks). Guidelines are also provided for integrating biodiversity into the City’s park system.

Sections 5.3.2 – Park Access Overview and 5.4.4 – Calculating Planning Area Level of Service, identify access to parks and amenities and the Level of Service by Planning Area, including the location of parks and amenities, whether they are City-owned, whether there are transportation barriers that impact the ease and comfort of walking to the park, and population density. The analysis in these sections informed the identification of needed amenities and priority Planning Areas for park expansion.

Chapter 6 is, in turn, the foundation for Chapter 7 – Framework for Prioritizing New Park Planning and Park Improvements, which describes the three priority categories to Develop New Parks and to Enhance or Update Existing Parks. There are 19 actions related to park expansion and improvement in Section

8.6.1. Throughout the Plan as a whole, and especially in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, key findings that result in action items are highlighted in bold text. The intent of the highlighted findings is to indicate a tie to action items in the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. However, some findings are consistent with analysis and planned actions associated with other City strategies and plans, including the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, the Active Transportation Plan, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. (The latter three of these plans are still under development as of this writing.) These plans are referenced, as appropriate, throughout this document.

To provide transparency and accountability regarding the accomplishment of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Action Plan, action items are stated in as specific terms as possible. In addition, where appropriate, milestones have been added to action items to enable the tracking of progress. While some action items can be accomplished within existing staff resources and with moderate funding, some will require resources beyond the current operational and capital budgets. Sections 8.6.6, 8.6.7 and 8.6.8 provide information about criteria for prioritizing expenditures, a funding strategy for the Action Plan, and a land acquisition strategy, respectively.

Progress will be monitored through service levels, participation and user experience measures, asset condition, and equity outcomes, with annual check-ins to adjust course as needed. The framework is designed to be adaptable so the City can respond to changing needs while maintaining accountability.

8.5.2 HOW THE ACTION PLAN IS ORGANIZED
There are a total of 50 actions grouped into four categories that reflect the major elements of the park and recreation system.
• Parks, Trails and Open Space – 19 actions
• Recreation Programs and Facilities – 8 actions
• Operations and Maintenance – 13 actions
• Funding and Marketing – 10 actions
The framework is designed to be adaptable so the City can respond to changing needs while maintaining accountability.

Timelines
The Plan horizon is 10 to 15 years. Actions are characterized by timeline as stated below:
• Immediate: less than 2 years: 12 actions
• Short-term: 3–5 years: 19 actions
• Mid-term: 6–10 years: 13 actions
Draft 1/12/26
118

• Long-term: 10+ years: 6 actions
Relative Cost (planning- level order of magnitude)
These ranges support scoping and priority setting. Actual budgets will be refined during project development.
• Ø = Existing staff time only: 16 actions
• $ = Up to $250,000: 10 actions
• $$ = $250,000–$1,000,000: 9 actions
• $$$ = $1,000,000–$5,000,000: 6 actions
• $$$$ = $5,000,000+: 9 actions

8.5.3 A LIVING, ACTION -ORIENTED PLAN
The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan is designed to be a living, action-oriented document that guides decision-making over a 10 to 15 timeframe, while adapting to changing community needs and opportunities. Implementation will be ongoing, with staff tracking progress on action items and performance measures and sharing updates through a public-facing dashboard on the City’s website.

This dashboard will highlight milestones, completed projects, and measurable outcomes, providing transparency and accountability to the community. Progress updates will also be communicated annually, such as through annual reports or presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. (See Action 4.2.2).

To ensure the plan remains relevant and responsive, staff will regularly review progress and emerging trends and adjust implementation priorities as needed. Community members will be invited to provide feedback throughout the plan’s lifecycle through the dashboard, annual updates, and engagement opportunities tied to specific projects so that lived experience continues to inform implementation.

A comprehensive update to the Strategic Plan is recommended to begin in 2036, approximately 10 years after adoption. This update will document achievements realized through this plan, re-evaluate existing conditions and levels of service, confirm that the City’s parks, facilities and recreation programs continue to reflect the community’s evolving needs and priorities, and set priorities and actions for the next 10 years.

8.5.4 IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO RISKS
Like any planning process, the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan was developed using the information available at the time. Over the 10–15-year timeframe of the Plan, circumstances may change, impacting the City’s ability to accomplish the identified action items and/or resulting in a different set of park and recreation priorities. It is not possible to fully anticipate or plan for every eventuality. The main categories of potential change are briefly addressed below.

Population Growth
The Community Profile in Chapter 3 includes Mountain View population growth projections, based on the Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) geographic information system. Starting with the 2020 Census population of 82,376 and increasing to 103,765 in 2040. Section 5.4.5 provides a higher population growth estimate based on the potential development of housing in Mountain View consistent with City code and long-term plans and policies. According to analysis in the Housing Element, a population of 148,200 is projected for 2040. Section 5.4.5 also describes the potential impact of new state legislation, including SB 79.

Draft 1/12/26
119

As the population grows, it will be more challenging for the City to make progress toward the goal of 3 ac/1,000, due to constraints in funding and available land. In response, the City may choose to seek new revenue sources, de-prioritize other capital improvements, or adjust expectations regarding the pace of progress toward the 3 ac/1,000 goal. In addition, the City may change the relative priority of which Planning Areas to focus on for development of new parks, if certain Planning Areas grow more significantly than others.

Regulations and Mandates
The City is subject to many state and federal regulations and mandates that impact City funding, operations, and priorities. New legislation is passed on a regular basis, creating change and uncertainty impacting City services, including parks and recreation. Recent and potential state legislation and action has sought to increase housing development to address the statewide housing crisis. Examples include more ambitious and strictly enforced Housing Element requirements; a Mountain View Housing Element policy calling for a reduction in residential park-in-lieu fees; SB 79, which became law in 2025 and mandates cities to allow for denser, mid-rise housing developments near major public transit stops; and SB 315, proposed legislation that, if passed, may reduce or waive Quimby Act park fees for housing development. As of the writing of this Plan, a nexus study is being developed to revise valuation methodologies and other factors to support the adoption of lower residential park in-lieu fees. Staff is also analyzing the impacts of and options for addressing the requirements of SB 79.

If such regulations and mandates result in the development of more housing, this could increase population growth above the 2040 projection of 148,200 in the Housing Element, which would exacerbate the challenges noted above in the section on population growth. The response options would be similar.

Financial Constraints , Escalating Costs, and Tradeoffs As discussed in Sections 7.3, 7.4, and 8.6.7, the cost to expand, enhance, and update parks is considerable. For example, developing five new neighborhood parks (10 acres total) as called for in the Action Plan, would cost $65 million to $80 million for land acquisition, design, and construction.

Potential opportunities for acquisition or access of land include developer contributions of land, privately owned publicly accessible (POPA) open space, in lieu fees, and occasionally the Strategic Property Acquisition Reserve (SPAR). Potential funding sources for design and construction include in lieu fees, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) reserve, the Construction Fund, and the Conveyance Fund.

Potential constraints on development fees are described in the section above on regulations and mandates. The CIP reserve funds a broad range of capital projects to maintain, enhance, or develop City facilities, structures, and systems. For many of the ongoing needs to maintain the City’s large infrastructure, there is no dedicated funding source and the CIP reserve, construction fund, and conveyance fund are the only funding sources available. As new plans are adopted, for example the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, the Active Transportation Plan, and the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, the need for new capital projects is identified. The CIP is funded through a variety of sources, including the CIP reserve, which the City augments as feasible through the contribution of unallocated reserve balance, which is one-time, limited period funding. Similarly, the City contributes one-time funds to the SPAR as feasible.

The CIP funding streams and reserve are not sufficient to fund all of the City’s capital needs.

Consequently, trade-offs must be made between different types of projects, such as street repairs to maintain pavement quality, building repairs to maintain City facilities in good working order, addition of bike and pedestrian safety and connectivity improvements, and development of parks and recreation Draft 1/12/26
120

facilities. Cost escalations for park and other capital projects, driven by tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and other economic factors, impact how far limited capital funding can go in accomplishing planned projects. In addition, contributions to reserves are also dependent on the economy and the City’s overall fiscal condition. Looking at projected revenues and costs, the City anticipates potential deficits in the next few years. This limits the extent to which there is limited period funding from the year-end balance available to contribute to either the CIP reserve or SPAR.

Even under the best economic conditions, meeting ambitious goals to increase and improve the City’s park and recreation system will require new revenue sources to fund projects and likely additional staff capacity to execute the projects and maintain new facilities. As mentioned in Section 8.6.7, as of this writing, the City is exploring placing a revenue measure on the 2026 ballot to support community priorities for the Mountain View of Tomorrow, including a top priority to expand parks.

Natural Physical and Public Health Disasters
Mountain View, like the rest of the region and the state, is subject to potential extreme weather and geological events, such as flooding and earthquake. Such events can cause significant damage to City infrastructure and facilities. While federal and state disaster response funding may become available, this is uncertain and likely insufficient. Thus, repair of damages from natural disasters to City streets, facilities, and parks could place further demands on CIP funding sources and result in more challenging trade-offs.

Public health events, such as a pandemic, could result in a need to redirect staff resources from the Community Services, Public Works, and other departments. This was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, when parks and recreation staff quickly shifted gears and City facilities and parks were set up to offer COVID-19 testing and vaccinations. In addition, staff needed to redesign programs and operations to provide services in new ways, safely and in compliance with public health orders. Were such a public health event to occur again, progress on the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan could be expected to slow down, perhaps resulting in an extension of the Plan’s timeframe.

Emerging Community Needs
Changes in population age and other demographics, as well as a change in community interests and preferences could result in new needs or a shift in the priority for different recreation programs and amenities. The growth in the popularity of pickleball is an example of this. The Action Plan, informed by public input and program analysis, has already identified the need for expanded programs in fitness, wellness, and aquatics for adults and older adults. In the event of unanticipated trends and community needs, the City could assess the Plan for possible modification/reprioritization through the checkpoints identified in Section 8.5.3.

Changes in School Field Access
As shown in Section 5.4.3, the Level of Service in several Planning Areas is heavily dependent on access to school fields, which are available to the public and maintained and programmed by the City through a Joint Use Agreement with MVWSD. (A new joint use agreement with the Los Altos School District is expected to provide four acres of recreation space in the San Antonio Planning Area in 2027.) If the MVWSD Joint Use Agreement were to be terminated, which is allowed for with notice in the JUA, MVWSD would still be required through the Civic Center Act to make playgrounds and fields available for community use after school hours. However, this use would no longer be supported by the City. Even within the Joint Use Agreement, the District retains authority to set the hours of school use and to reprogram school site space, for example for portable classroom buildings, if needed. Were something like this to happen at Monta Loma School, the Monta Loma Planning Area, for example, would only have access to the 0.7-acre Thaddeus Park.

Draft 1/12/26
121

If some or all of the MVWSD school sites were to become unavailable, this would change the access to parks and the Level of Service (acres per 1,000 residents). Depending on the location of any such changes, the relative priority of Planning Area park expansion could shift. Additionally, without access to school fields, the City would need to move programs held on school fields to City-owned parks, which would intensify wear on existing fields and limit the range and frequency of programming that could be accommodated.

As described in Section 8.5.3 above, the current timeframe calls for the process to develop the next parks and recreation strategic plan to begin in year 10 of this plan, with regular tracking and reporting along the way. These interim checkpoints will provide opportunities to assess the impacts of changing circumstances and the need for mid-plan adjustments.

8.6 Action Plan
The Action Plan is organized by Strategy. Each action indicates resource needs and anticipated completion timeframes as show in the legend below.

Legend: Ø = staff time only • $ < $250k • $$ $250k–$1M • $$$ $1M–$5M • $$$$ $5M+ Immediate: less than 2 years; Short-term: 3–5 years; Mid-term: 6–10 years; Long-term: 10+ years Milestones are identified within actions as appropriate. For each action, a reference is provided to a performance metric, as listed in Section 8.7.

8.6.1 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
Goal 1: Expand and enhance safe, equitable and convenient access to parks, open spaces, and trails.

STRATEGY 1.1 – PROVIDE CONNECTED AND INCLUSIVE ACCESS TO PARKS AND TRAILS

THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PARKS, AND ALIGNMENT WITH THE VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN /LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

Long-term $$$$ • Acquire up to 10 acres of
new park land serving two or
more underserved Planning
Areas.
• Design and develop land
acquired.
• Acquire land to link City
park land and create larger
parks.
1 Draft 1/12/26
122

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.1.2 Design and develop 11.24 acres of
park land already acquired by the
City or planned through joint use
agreements.

Long-term $$$$ Open the following park
sites:
• 909, 917, 939 San
Rafael (CIP 24-36)
• California/Pacchetti
(CIP 25-40)
• Joint Use Open Space
at LASD “10th School
Site” (CIP 27-xx)
• 555 W. Middlefield (CIP
29-xx)
• Villa-Chiquita Park (CIP
21-61)
• 2231 W. Middlefield
and 538 Thompson
(Thompson Park, CIP
26-35)
• 711 Calderon (CIP 27-
xx)
1 1.1.3 Assess, design, and develop City-
maintained open space parcels
over 0.50 acres for potential
repurposing or enhancement as
mini or special use parks.

Long-term $$$$ Focus on the following
properties:
• Sleeper/Franklin Trail
Entrance (1.03 acres).
• Shoreline Boulevard
and Church Street (0.80
acres).
• Shoreline Boulevard
between California and
Mercy Streets (0.51
acres).
1 1.1.4 Acquire land and develop new
Community Parks, Mini Parks,
and/or an indoor sports complex
as site opportunities arise and
depending on funding availability.

Long-term $$$$ • Continue Land
Acquisition Strategy.
1 1.1.5 Expand the Stevens Creek Trail by
completing a trail extension from
Dale/Heatherstone to Remington,
and ultimately to Fremont Ave.

Mid-term $$$ • Complete extension
from
Dale/Heatherstone to
Remington (CIP 20-50).
2 Draft 1/12/26
123

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.1.6 Coordinate with the City’s Active
Transportation Plan to review and
assess safe and convenient
multimodal connections to parks,
open spaces, and recreation
facilities, prioritizing pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit access.

Mid-term $$$$ • In concert with the
City’s Active
Transportation Plan,
identify park access
gaps.
• When parks are
physically proximate,
include park access and
connectivity needs as
part of identified
priority projects in the
Active Transportation
Plan.
• Include language in the
Active Transportation
Plan to recognize Parks
and Open Space as
important destinations.
1 STRATEGY 1.2 – PROVIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES THAT REFLECT COMMUNITY NEEDS AND ADDRESS NEEDED UPDATES.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.2.1 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Neighborhood
Parks based on park assessment,
with a potential focus on Cooper,
Whisman, and San Veron Parks.

Mid-term $$$$ • Complete update
improvements to
Cooper Park.
• Complete update
improvements at
Whisman Park.
• Complete update
improvements at San
Veron Park.
3 1.2.2 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Mini Parks
based on park assessment, with a
potential focus on Rex Manor
Park which includes negotiating
with SFPUC regarding permitted
improvements, and Thaddeus and
Varsity Parks.

Mid-term $$$ • Complete update
improvements to Rex
Manor Park.
• Complete update
improvements to
Thaddeus Park.
• Complete update
improvements to
Varsity Park.
3 Draft 1/12/26
124

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.2.3 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Community
Parks based on park assessment,
with a potential focus on Sylvan
Park.

Short-term $$ • Complete update
improvements to
Sylvan Park (CIP 26-32).
• Complete Eagle Park
Pool Improvements
(CIP 25-38).
• Complete Callahan
Field Lighting Upgrade
(CIP 27-xx).
3 1.2.4 Design and implement
Enhancement Improvements to
Mini Parks, with a potential focus
on Chetwood Park.

Mid-term $$$ • Complete
enhancements to
Chetwood Park.

3 1.2.5 Prioritize Park Enhancement
Improvements to Neighborhood
Parks with a potential focus on
Klein and Bubb Parks.

Mid-term $$$$ • Complete Monta Loma
School Playground
enhancements (CIP 25-
37)
• Complete
enhancements to Klein
Park.
• Complete
enhancements to Bubb
Park.
3 1.2.6 Identify and advance
Enhancement Improvements for
Community Parks with potential
focus on Cuesta Park, guided by
community input.

Long-term $$$$ • Complete
enhancements to
Cuesta Park (CIP 26-34),
which includes new
design elements,
pathway renovations,
playground
replacement and
landscape
improvements (see
Section 7.2 for more
information).
3 Draft 1/12/26
125

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.2.7 Integrate priority amenities – such
as sports fields and courts, public
restrooms, shade, adult fitness
equipment, skate/bike parks, and
dog parks – into existing park
improvements, new park
development, and public-private
partnership opportunities to
expand recreational access and
variety.

Long-term $$$$ The following existing CIPs
will be completed prior to
the Long-term timeline
associated with this item:
• Complete Pickleball
Feasibility Study,
Design and
Construction project
(CIP 23-36), including
the in-progress site
selection.
• Working with LASD,
complete the 4-acre
Joint-use open space
(CIP 27-xx).
3 1.2.8 Complete Update Improvements
along Stevens Creek Trail by
upgrading amenities, including,
but not limited to, hydration
stations, benches, and wayfinding,
where appropriate.

Mid-term $$$ • Identify priority
segments and amenity
needs.
• Design and coordinate
trail amenity upgrades.
• Implement phased
improvements along
the trail, accomplishing
quick action projects as
feasible.
2 STRATEGY 1.3 - PROMOTE BIODIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE AND LONG -TERM

SUSTAINABILITY IN ALL PARKS THROUGH INCREASED TREE CANOPY, PLANTING OF NATIVE SPECIES, AND ALIGNMENT WITH THE BIODIVERSITY AND URBAN FOREST PLAN .

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.3.1. Expand tree canopy in parks,
gathering areas, and along trail
and park pathways, prioritizing
shade tree planting in the BUFP
Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A:

Urban Planting of the BUFP, to
protect against heat and improve
walkability (BUFP Action 17).

Immediate $$$ • Identify priority
planting areas within
parks, gathering areas
and along trails and
park pathways.
• Develop and implement
phased tree planting
plan.
3, 4
Draft 1/12/26
126

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

1.3.2. Establish and enhance native
habitat, pollinator gardens, and
climate-resilient landscaping in
parks in accordance with native
and climate-resilient planting
guidance from the BUFP (BUFP
Action 5).

Short-term

$ • Identify priority sites
and habitat
opportunities.
• Implement landscaping
enhancements based
on guidance from the
BUFP.
3, 4

1.3.3 Develop lifecycle-based
replacement schedule guidelines
for park trees and landscape
plantings to ensure proactive
management, long-term
ecological health, and predictable
maintenance planning.

Short-term Ø • Assess existing tree and
landscape lifecycles and
condition.
• Develop and implement
replacement schedules.
4 1.3.4 When reviewing or updating
existing City landscaping and
planting guidelines, implement
design standards for City parks,
facilities, and streetscapes where
feasible (BUFP Action 4).

Short-term $ • Incorporate updated
design standards during
routine updates to
existing landscaping.
• Apply standards in
review of City park,
facility, and streetscape
projects.
4 1.3.5 Maximize biodiversity support
within City parks and trail
corridors while continuing to
meet community needs (BUFP
Action 10).

Short-term $$$ • Incorporate
biodiversity-supporting
strategies into park and
trail projects.
4 Draft 1/12/26
127

8.6.2 RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
Goal 2 – Increase community participation.

Foster inclusive, meaningful engagement in recreation programs, park use, planning efforts, and volunteer opportunities for residents of all ages and backgrounds. Strengthen partnerships with local organizations and build trust through ongoing, transparent, and responsive communication.

STRATEGY 2.1 – DELIVER INCLUSIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS THAT SERVE DIVERSE COMMUNITY NEEDS.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

2.1.1 Update Council Policy H-5, Use of
City Facilities, to include recently
added venues and revise user
group definitions to recommend
fees based on group type.

Immediate Ø • Review and revise
existing policy to
include new venues
and updated user
categories.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to the
Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City
Council for adoption.
6 2.1.2 Review and update the Recreation
Financial Assistance Program
(FAP) to ensure the program is
meeting current community
needs.

Immediate Ø • Conduct a review of the
existing FAP and
develop recommended
updates.
• Present recommended
updates to the Parks
and Recreation
Commission.
• Include recommended
updates to the FAP
through the City’s
annual budget process.
5 Draft 1/12/26
128

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

2.1.3 Revise Council Policy H-7, Athletic
Field Use Policy, to define
recognition criteria, distinguish
between organization types,
establish formal agreements to
guide field use and
responsibilities, and recommend
fees based on group type and
benefit to residents.

Immediate Ø • Review and revise
existing policy.
• Seek input on revisions
from the City’s
Recognized Youth
Sports Organizations.
• Present draft policy
amendments to the
Parks and Recreation
Commission.
• Present draft policy
amendments to the
Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City
Council for adoption.
6 2.1.4 Enhance adult programming (18+)
through diverse offerings in
fitness, wellness, and enrichment
to meet evolving community
interests.

Short-term $ • Seek instructors to
offer adult
programming and pilot
five to 10 new adult
class offerings.
5 2.1.5 Enhance programs for adults 55+
by increasing fitness, wellness,
and social opportunities, including
evening offerings, that support
active and connected aging.

Short-term $ • Seek instructors to
offer programs for
adults 55+ and pilot
three to six new 55+
fitness, wellness, and
social programs
annually, with a focus
on evening programs.
5 2.1.6 Expand water fitness
opportunities for adults by
increasing class offerings and
exploring new formats that
support wellness, mobility, and
active aging.

Short-term $ • Recruit a water exercise
instructor or a vendor
to provide additional
water exercise classes.
5 Draft 1/12/26
129

STRATEGY 2.2 – EXPAND PARTNERSHIPS FOR PROGRAM DELIVERY, AWARENESS AND USE.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

2.2.1. Create a clear, accessible process
for volunteer organizations to
partner with the City (aligned with
the FY 2025-27 Council Work
Plan).

Immediate Ø • Conduct outreach to
partner/volunteer
organizations for
streamlining ideas.
• Conduct a legal review
on risk management.
• Develop a draft policy
to present to the
Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present draft policy for
City Council for
adoption.
9 2.2.2. Pursue additional joint-use
opportunities with public/private
partners to expand access to
recreation space, such as indoor
sports complex and sports fields
and courts.

Mid-term Ø • Identify and evaluate
potential public and
private joint-use
partners and sites.
• Initiate one to two new
joint-use agreements or
pilots to expand access
to recreation space.
9 8.6.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Goal 3: Foster a positive staff culture and ensure well- maintained operations.

Cultivate an organizational culture that supports staff well-being, development, and collaboration.

Maintain high standards for cleanliness, safety, and functionality of parks and facilities through effective maintenance and operations.

STRATEGY 3.1 - BUILD ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND A FUTURE -READY WORKFORCE TO SUSTAIN HIGH -QUALITY PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.1 Conduct a staffing audit to assess
the department’s structure
comparing to other agencies’
staffing levels and provide
recommendations that align with
service goals.

Immediate $$ • Complete staffing and
workload analysis.
• Develop phased
staffing
recommendations
aligned with service
goals.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
7 Draft 1/12/26
130

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.2 Develop a department-wide
written succession plan to ensure
leadership continuity, retain
institutional knowledge, and
support long-term workforce
development.

Short-term Ø • Identify critical roles,
skill gaps, and
succession risks.
• Develop a written
department-wide
succession plan.
7 3.1.3 Establish dedicated biodiversity
expertise to support
implementation of the
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan
across park planning, capital
projects, and maintenance.

Immediate $$ • Identify an approach to
provide dedicated
biodiversity expertise.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
• Integrate biodiversity
expertise into park
planning, capital
projects, and
maintenance.
4, 7

3.1.4 Evaluate and add project
management capacity within the
Public Works Department to
support new park development
and major park enhancement
projects.

Short-term $$ • Evaluate project
management capacity
and workload
demands.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
• Assign project
management resources
to support park
projects.
1, 2, 3, 7

Short-term $$ • Evaluate transportation
planning and
engineering capacity
and workload
demands.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
• Assign transportation
staff to evaluate,
advance, and deliver on
transportation projects
that provide access to
parks.
1, 7
Draft 1/12/26
131

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.6 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to create a dedicated
Special Events Team to provide
consistent planning, coordination,
and staffing for City events.

Short-term $$ • Review special event
staffing needs as part
of the staffing audit.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
• Establish a dedicated
Special Events Team
through staffing or
reallocation.
7 3.1.7 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to centralize and
coordinate exploration and
development of grants,
sponsorships, and strategic
partnerships that support parks,
recreation, and performing arts
programming.

Short-term $$ • Review staffing needs
as part of the staffing
audit.
• Establish a position
through a budget
request, as feasible, or
reallocation of existing
staff.
7, 9

3.1.8 Identify staff capacity, add staffing
specializing in inclusion, or
establish a partnership with an
agency, to provide accessibility
and inclusion support across
programs.

Mid-term $ • Determine an approach
to provide inclusion
support following the
staffing audit.
• Propose resource
allocations, as feasible,
through the City’s
annual budget process.
7 3.1.9 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to establish a
centralized communications and
marketing role to support
consistent, department-wide
outreach and engagement.

Mid-term $ • Review staffing needs
as part of the staffing
audit.
• Establish a position
through a budget
request, as feasible, or
reallocation of existing
staff.
7, 10
Draft 1/12/26
132

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.10 Evaluate current software and
hardware systems and identify
opportunities to enhance
functionality, integration, and
user experience to improve
operational efficiency and service
delivery.

Short-term $$ • Complete
implementation of a
Computerized
Maintenance
Management System
for Parks.
• Implement new or
upgraded Recreation
Registration and
Reservation Software
• Implement new or
upgraded Performing
Arts Ticketing Software

STRATEGY 3.2 – ENHANCE PREVENTATIVE AND RESPONSIVE MAINTENANCE PRACTICES.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.2.1 Establish lifecycle-based
replacement schedules for parks,
recreation facilities, equipment,
and furniture to guide proactive
maintenance, ensure safety, and
inform future capital planning.

Short-term

Ø • Inventory assets and
assess condition and
replacement cycles in
coordination with the
City’s implementation
of the Computerized
Maintenance
Management System.
• Develop and apply
lifecycle-based
replacement schedules.
8 3.2.2 Update the existing Parks
Maintenance Standards
document to enhance service
expectations, guide daily
operations, and ensure
consistency, best practices and
quality across all park sites.

Immediate

$ • Update Parks
Maintenance Standards
to define service levels
and expectations.
• Use updated standards
to inform staffing and
workload analysis.

8 3.2.3 Develop and implement staff
training for biodiversity-friendly
landscape installation and
maintenance (BUFP Action 21).

Short-term $ • Identify training needs
and biodiversity topics
to focus on.
• Develop and deliver
biodiversity-focused
training.
8 Draft 1/12/26
133

8.6.4 FUNDING AND MARKETING
Goal 4: Develop new funding sources and s trengthen existing financial strategies to support a sustainable parks and recreation system.

Build on existing financial mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability. Explore new funding opportunities to achieve ambitious park land goals, enhance cost-recovery strategies, and align resources with community needs to maintain and improve parks, programs, and facilities.

STRATEGY 4.1 – DIVERSIFY AND EXPAND REVENUE STREAMS.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.1 Assess the feasibility of a voter
approved revenue measure
through community polling and
analysis of public funding
opportunities to support City
needs such as major parks, open
space, and recreation facility
improvements for placement on
the 2026 ballot (aligned with the
FY 2025-27 Council Work Plan).

Immediate $$ • Conduct community
polling and analysis for
a potential 2026 ballot
measure.
• City Council reviews
and determines
whether to include a
ballot measure for the
2026 election.
• If approved by Council,
the ballot measure is
placed on the ballot for
the 2026 General
Election.
1, 2, 3

4.1.2 Utilize the park impact fee nexus
study process to evaluate and
update Chapter 41 of the City
Code, including new or revised
park land dedication
requirements, and fee structures.

Immediate Ø • Present the Nexus
Study to City Council
for adoption in Q1 of
2026.

1, 2, 3

4.1.3 Conduct a comprehensive review
of the City’s existing sponsorship
program—including sponsorship
levels, benefits, and dollar
amounts—compared to best
practices in the Plan to identify
opportunities for enhancement
and long-term growth.

Immediate Ø • Review existing
sponsorship program
and benchmark against
best practices.
• Identify enhancements
to sponsorship levels,
benefits, and revenue
potential.
• Implement sponsorship
program updates.
9 Draft 1/12/26
134

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.4 Revise Council Policy J-2,
Recreation Cost Recovery Policy,
to align with current program
offerings, equity goals, and
evolving community and market
conditions.

Short-term $ • Review and revise
existing policy.
• Present draft policy
amendments to the
Parks and Recreation
Commission.
• Present draft policy
amendments to the
Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City
Council for adoption.
6 4.1.5 Identify and pursue competitive
grant opportunities to fund
priority park and recreation
facility improvements, program
expansion, and strategic
initiatives.

Short-term Ø • Designate staff capacity
to focus on identifying
and administering
grants consistent with
park and recreation
priorities.
• Monitor and evaluate
competitive grant
opportunities.
• Pursue and implement
grant-funded projects
and programs.
9 4.1.6 Evaluate and develop a
framework for establishing capital
reserve fees through facility
rentals to support long-term
maintenance and capital
improvements.

Mid-term Ø • Evaluate feasibility and
best practices for
capital reserve fees.
• If feasible, develop and
implement a capital
reserve fee framework.
6 4.1.7 Evaluate and advance the
potential establishment of a
nonprofit foundation to support
City parks and recreation
programs through fundraising,
partnerships, and community
engagement.

Mid-term Ø • Evaluate feasibility,
governance models,
and legal
considerations.
• Engage stakeholders
and identify fundraising
and partnership
opportunities.
• Determine next steps
toward potential
nonprofit foundation
formation.
9 Draft 1/12/26
135

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.8 Develop a Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) sponsorship
package to engage local
employers in supporting parks,
recreation, and cultural initiatives
through funding and
volunteerism.

Mid-term Ø • Designate staff capacity
to focus on strategic
partnerships.
• Develop a CSR
sponsorship framework
and package.
• Launch and pilot CSR
partnerships with local
employers.
9 STRATEGY 4.2 – SHARE MEANINGFUL STORIES TO MAXIMIZE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND CONNECTIONS.

Action
#
Action Timeline Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

4.2.1 Develop standardized value
messaging that communicates the
economic, health, environmental,
and social benefits of parks and
recreation for use in funding
proposals, outreach, and
advocacy.

Short-term Ø • Develop standardized
impact messages and
supporting data points.
• Apply messaging across
funding proposals,
outreach, and advocacy
efforts.
10 4.2.2 Develop an annual report or
public-facing dashboard that
tracks how funding supports
improvements in parks, programs,
and facilities.

Immediate Ø • Produce a public-facing
dashboard or annual
report.
10 Draft 1/12/26
136

8.6.5 ACTION ITEMS BY IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
This section reorganizes all action items by their anticipated implementation timeline to provide a clear view of when each initiative is expected to take place.

Immediate Actions
Immediate action items represent initiatives to be launched within the first two years following plan adoption.

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.3.1. Expand tree canopy in parks,
gathering areas, and along trail and
park pathways, prioritizing shade tree
planting in the BUFP Cooling Zone,
mapped in Guide A: Urban Planting of
the BUFP, to protect against heat and
improve walkability (BUFP Action 17).
$$$ • Identify priority planting areas
within parks, gathering areas and
along trails and park pathways.
• Develop and implement phased
tree planting plan.
3, 4

2.1.1 Update Council Policy H-5, Use of City
Facilities, to include recently added
venues and revise user group
definitions to recommend fees based
on group type.

Ø • Review and revise existing policy
to include new venues and
updated user categories.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to the Council Policy
and Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City Council for
adoption.
6 2.1.2 Review and update the Recreation
Financial Assistance Program (FAP) to
ensure the program is meeting
current community needs.

Ø • Conduct a review of the existing
FAP and develop recommended
updates.
• Present recommended updates to
the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
• Include recommended updates to
the FAP through the City’s annual
budget process.
5 2.1.3 Revise Council Policy H-7, Athletic
Field Use Policy, to define recognition
criteria, distinguish between
organization types, establish formal
agreements to guide field use and
responsibilities, and recommend fees
based on group type and benefit to
residents.

Ø • Review and revise existing policy.
• Seek input on revisions from the
City’s Recognized Youth Sports
Organizations.
• Present draft policy amendments
to the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
• Present draft policy amendments
to the Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City Council for
adoption.
6 Draft 1/12/26
137

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

2.2.1. Create a clear, accessible process for
volunteer organizations to partner
with the City (aligned with the FY
2025-27 Council Work Plan).

Ø • Conduct outreach to
partner/volunteer organizations
for streamlining ideas.
• Conduct a legal review on risk
management.
• Develop a draft policy to present
to the Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present draft policy for City
Council for adoption.
9 3.1.1 Conduct a staffing audit to assess the
department’s structure comparing to
other agencies’ staffing levels and
provide recommendations that align
with service goals.
$$ • Complete staffing and workload
analysis.
• Develop phased staffing
recommendations aligned with
service goals.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
7 3.1.3 Establish dedicated biodiversity
expertise to support implementation
of the Biodiversity and Urban Forest
Plan across park planning, capital
projects, and maintenance.
$$ • Identify an approach to provide
dedicated biodiversity expertise.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Integrate biodiversity expertise
into park planning, capital
projects, and maintenance.
4, 7

3.2.2 Update the existing Parks
Maintenance Standards document to
enhance service expectations, guide
daily operations, and ensure
consistency, best practices and
quality across all park sites.
$ • Update Parks Maintenance
Standards to define service levels
and expectations.
• Use updated standards to inform
staffing and workload analysis.
8 4.1.1 Assess the feasibility of a voter
approved revenue measure through
community polling and analysis of
public funding opportunities to
support City needs such as major
parks, open space, and recreation
facility improvements for placement
on the 2026 ballot (aligned with the
FY 2025-27 Council Work Plan).
$$ • Conduct community polling and
analysis for a potential 2026 ballot
measure.
• City Council reviews and
determines whether to include a
ballot measure for the 2026
election.
• If approved by Council, the ballot
measure is placed on the ballot
for the 2026 General Election.
1, 2, 3
Draft 1/12/26
138

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

4.1.2 Utilize the park impact fee nexus
study process to evaluate and update
Chapter 41 of the City Code, including
new or revised park land dedication
requirements, and fee structures. n
requirements, fee structures, and
standards for Privately Owned,
Publicly Accessible (POPA) open
spaces to ensure alignment with
community needs, accessibility goals,
and future development.

Ø • Present the Nexus Study to City
Council for adoption in Q1 of
2026.
1, 2, 3

4.1.3 Conduct a comprehensive review of
the City’s existing sponsorship
program—including sponsorship
levels, benefits, and dollar amounts—
compared to best practices in the
Plan to identify opportunities for
enhancement and long-term growth.

Ø • Review existing sponsorship
program and benchmark against
best practices.
• Identify enhancements to
sponsorship levels, benefits, and
revenue potential.
• Implement sponsorship program
updates.
9 4.2.2 Develop an annual report or public-
facing dashboard that tracks how
funding supports improvements in
parks, programs, and facilities.

Ø • Produce a public-facing dashboard
or annual report.
10 Short -term Actions
Short-term action items are planned for implementation within three to five years after plan adoption, building on early progress and setting the foundation for mid-term initiatives.

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.2.3 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Community Parks
based on park assessment, with a
potential focus on Sylvan Park.
$$ • Complete update improvements
to Sylvan Park (CIP 26-32).
• Complete Eagle Park Pool
Improvements (CIP 25-38).
• Complete Callahan Field Lighting
Upgrade (CIP 27-xx).
3 1.3.2. Establish and enhance native habitat,
pollinator gardens, and climate-
resilient landscaping in parks in
accordance with native and climate-
resilient planting guidance from the
BUFP (BUFP Action 5).
$ • Identify priority sites and habitat
opportunities.
• Implement landscaping
enhancements based on guidance
from the BUFP.
3, 4
Draft 1/12/26
139

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.3.3 Develop lifecycle-based replacement
schedule guidelines for park trees and
landscape plantings to ensure
proactive management, long-term
ecological health, and predictable
maintenance planning.

Ø • Assess existing tree and landscape
lifecycles and condition.
• Develop and implement
replacement schedules.
4 1.3.4 When reviewing or updating existing
City landscaping and planting
guidelines, implement design
standards for City parks, facilities, and
streetscapes where feasible (BUFP
Action 4).
$ • Incorporate updated design
standards during routine updates
to existing landscaping.
• Apply standards in review of City
park, facility, and streetscape
projects.
4 1.3.5 Maximize biodiversity support within
City parks and trail corridors while
continuing to meet community needs
(BUFP Action 10).
$$$ • Incorporate biodiversity-
supporting strategies into park
and trail projects.
4 2.1.4 Enhance adult programming (18+)
through diverse offerings in fitness,
wellness, and enrichment to meet
evolving community interests.
$ • Seek instructors to offer adult
programming and pilot five to 10
new adult class offerings.
5 2.1.5 Enhance programs for adults 55+ by
increasing fitness, wellness, and
social opportunities, including
evening offerings, that support active
and connected aging.
$ • Seek instructors to offer programs
for adults 55+ and pilot three to
six new 55+ fitness, wellness, and
social programs annually, with a
focus on evening programs.
5 2.1.6 Expand water fitness opportunities
for adults by increasing class offerings
and exploring new formats that
support wellness, mobility, and active
aging.
$ • Recruit a water exercise instructor
or a vendor to provide additional
water exercise classes.
5 3.1.2 Develop a department-wide written
succession plan to ensure leadership
continuity, retain institutional
knowledge, and support long-term
workforce development.

Ø • Identify critical roles, skill gaps,
and succession risks.
• Develop a written department-
wide succession plan.
7 3.1.4 Evaluate and add project
management capacity within the
Public Works Department to support
new park development and major
park enhancement projects.
$$ • Evaluate project management
capacity and workload demands.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Assign project management
resources to support park
projects.
1, 2, 3, 7
Draft 1/12/26
140

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

3.1.5 Assess transportation planning and
engineering capacity within the Public
Works Department to evaluate,
advance, and deliver safe pedestrian,
bike, and mobility connections to
parks, particularly in areas with
access barriers.
$$ • Evaluate transportation planning
and engineering capacity and
workload demands.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Assign transportation staff to
evaluate, advance, and deliver on
transportation projects that
provide access to parks.
1, 7

3.1.6 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to create a dedicated
Special Events Team to provide
consistent planning, coordination,
and staffing for City events.
$$ • Review special event staffing
needs as part of the staffing audit.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Establish a dedicated Special
Events Team through staffing or
reallocation.
7 3.1.7 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to centralize and
coordinate exploration and
development of grants, sponsorships,
and strategic partnerships that
support parks, recreation, and
performing arts programming.
$$ • Review staffing needs as part of
the staffing audit.
• Establish a position through a
budget request, as feasible, or
reallocation of existing staff.
7, 9

3.1.10 Evaluate current software and
hardware systems and identify
opportunities to enhance
functionality, integration, and user
experience to improve operational
efficiency and service delivery.
$$ • Complete implementation of a
Computerized Maintenance
Management System for Parks.
• Implement new or upgraded
Recreation Registration and
Reservation Software
• Implement new or upgraded
Performing Arts Ticketing
Software

3.2.1 Establish lifecycle-based replacement
schedules for parks, recreation
facilities, equipment, and furniture to
guide proactive maintenance, ensure
safety, and inform future capital
planning.

Ø • Inventory assets and assess
condition and replacement cycles
in coordination with the City’s
implementation of the
Computerized Maintenance
Management System.
• Develop and apply lifecycle-based
replacement schedules.
8 3.2.3 Develop and implement staff training
for biodiversity-friendly landscape
installation and maintenance (BUFP
Action 21).
$ • Identify training needs and
biodiversity topics to focus on.
• Develop and deliver biodiversity-
focused training.
8 Draft 1/12/26
141

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

4.1.4 Revise Council Policy J-2, Recreation
Cost Recovery Policy, to align with
current program offerings, equity
goals, and evolving community and
market conditions.
$ • Review and revise existing policy.
• Present draft policy amendments
to the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
• Present draft policy amendments
to the Council Policy and
Procedures Committee.
• Present the draft policy
amendments to City Council for
adoption.
6 4.1.5 Identify and pursue competitive grant
opportunities to fund priority park
and recreation facility improvements,
program expansion, and strategic
initiatives.

Ø • Designate staff capacity to focus
on identifying and administering
grants consistent with park and
recreation priorities.
• Monitor and evaluate competitive
grant opportunities.
• Pursue and implement grant-
funded projects and programs.
9 4.2.1 Develop standardized value
messaging that communicates the
economic, health, environmental, and
social benefits of parks and
recreation for use in funding
proposals, outreach, and advocacy.

Ø • Develop standardized impact
messages and supporting data
points.
• Apply messaging across funding
proposals, outreach, and advocacy
efforts.
10 Mid-term Actions
Mid-term action items are intended for implementation within six to 10 years, advancing longer-range improvements that require additional planning, coordination, or resources.

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.1.5 Expand the Stevens Creek Trail by
completing a trail extension from
Dale/Heatherstone to Remington,
and ultimately to Fremont Ave.
$$$ • Complete extension from
Dale/Heatherstone to Remington
(CIP 20-50).
2 1.1.6 Coordinate with the City’s Active
Transportation Plan to review and
assess safe and convenient
multimodal connections to parks,
open spaces, and recreation facilities,
prioritizing pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit access.
$$$$ • In concert with the Active
Transportation Plan, identify park
access gaps.
• When parks are physically
proximate, include park access
and connectivity needs as part of
identified priority projects in the
Active Transportation Plan.
• Include language in the Active
Transportation Plan to recognize
Parks and Open Space as
important destinations.
1 Draft 1/12/26
142

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.2.1 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Neighborhood
Parks based on park assessment, with
a potential focus on Cooper,
Whisman, and San Veron Parks.
$$$$ • Complete update improvements
to Cooper Park.
• Complete update improvements
at Whisman Park.
• Complete update improvements
at San Veron Park.
3 1.2.2 Design and implement Update
Improvements to Mini Parks based on
park assessment, with a potential
focus on Rex Manor Park which
includes negotiating with SFPUC
regarding permitted improvements,
and Thaddeus and Varsity Parks.
$$$ • Complete update improvements
to Rex Manor Park.
• Complete update improvements
to Thaddeus Park.
• Complete update improvements
to Varsity Park.
3 1.2.4 Design and implement Enhancement
Improvements to Mini Parks, with a
potential focus on Chetwood Park.
$$$ • Complete enhancements to
Chetwood Park.
3 1.2.5 Prioritize Park Enhancement
Improvements to Neighborhood
Parks with a potential focus on Klein
and Bubb Parks.
$$$$ • Complete Monta Loma School
Playground enhancements (CIP
25-37)
• Complete enhancements to Klein
Park.
• Complete enhancements to Bubb
Park.
3 1.2.8 Complete Update Improvements
along Stevens Creek Trail by
upgrading amenities, including, but
not limited to, hydration stations,
benches, and wayfinding, where
appropriate.
$$$ • Identify priority segments and
amenity needs.
• Design and coordinate trail
amenity upgrades.
• Implement phased improvements
along the trail, accomplishing
quick action projects as feasible.
2 2.2.2. Pursue additional joint-use
opportunities with public/private
partners to expand access to
recreation space, such as indoor
sports complex and sports fields and
courts.

Ø • Identify and evaluate potential
public and private joint-use
partners and sites.
• Initiate one to two new joint-use
agreements or pilots to expand
access to recreation space.
9 3.1.8 Identify staff capacity, add staffing
specializing in inclusion, or establish a
partnership with an agency, to
provide accessibility and inclusion
support across programs.
$ • Determine an approach to provide
inclusion support following the
staffing audit.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
7 Draft 1/12/26
143

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

3.1.9 Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to establish a centralized
communications and marketing role
to support consistent, department-
wide outreach and engagement.
$ • Review staffing needs as part of
the staffing audit.
• Establish a position through a
budget request, as feasible, or
reallocation of existing staff.
7, 10

4.1.6 Evaluate and develop a framework
for establishing capital reserve fees
through facility rentals to support
long-term maintenance and capital
improvements.

Ø • Evaluate feasibility and best
practices for capital reserve fees.
• If feasible, develop and implement
a capital reserve fee framework.
6 4.1.7 Evaluate and advance the potential
establishment of a nonprofit
foundation to support City parks and
recreation programs through
fundraising, partnerships, and
community engagement.

Ø • Evaluate feasibility, governance
models, and legal considerations.
• Engage stakeholders and identify
fundraising and partnership
opportunities.
• Determine next steps toward
potential nonprofit foundation
formation.
9 4.1.8 Develop a Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) sponsorship
package to engage local employers in
supporting parks, recreation, and
cultural initiatives through funding
and volunteerism.

Ø • Designate staff capacity to focus
on strategic partnerships.
• Develop a CSR sponsorship
framework and package.
• Launch and pilot CSR partnerships
with local employers.
9 Long- term Actions
Long-term action items are envisioned for implementation 10 or more years after plan adoption, reflecting initiatives that depend on future opportunities, funding, or broader system-wide progress.

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.1.1 Acquire land and develop two new
Neighborhood Parks, targeting the
Planning Areas where access is lowest
(potentially focusing on the Central,
Rengstorff, Stierlin, Sylvan-Dale, and
Thompson Planning Areas, including
the Monta Loma, Terra Bella, and
Rex-Manor neighborhoods).
$$$$ • Acquire up to 10 acres of new
park land serving two or more
underserved Planning Areas.
• Design and develop land acquired.
• Acquire land to link City park land
and create larger parks.
1 Draft 1/12/26
144

Action
#
Action Cost Milestone Performance
Metric

1.1.2 Design and develop 11.24 acres of
park land already acquired by the City
or planned through joint use
agreements.
$$$$ Open the following park sites:
• 909-939 San Rafael (CIP 24-36)
• California/Pacchetti (CIP 25-40)
• Joint Use Open Space at LASD
“10th School Site” (CIP 27-xx)
• 555 W. Middlefield (CIP 29-xx)
• Villa-Chiquita Park (CIP 21-61)
• 2231 Middlefield and 538
Thompson (Thompson Park, CIP
26-35)
• 711 Calderon (CIP 27-xx)
1 1.1.3 Assess, design, and develop City-
maintained open space parcels over

0.50 acres for potential repurposing
or enhancement as mini or special
use parks.
$$$$ Focus on the following properties:
• Sleeper/Franklin Trail Entrance
(1.03 acres).
• Shoreline Boulevard and Church
Street (0.80 acres).
• Shoreline Boulevard between
California and Mercy Streets (0.51
acres).
1 1.1.4 Acquire land and develop new
Community Parks, Mini Parks, and/or
an indoor sports complex as site
opportunities arise and depending on
funding availability.
$$$$ • Continue Land Acquisition
Strategy.
1 1.2.6 Identify and advance Enhancement
Improvements for Community Parks
with potential focus on Cuesta Park,
guided by community input.
$$$$ • Complete enhancements to
Cuesta Park (CIP 26-34), which
includes new design elements,
pathway renovations, playground
replacement and landscape
improvements (see Section 7.2 for
more information).
3 1.2.7 Integrate priority amenities – such as
sports fields and courts, public
restrooms, shade, adult fitness
equipment, skate/bike parks, and dog
parks – into existing park
improvements, new park
development, and public-private
partnership opportunities to expand
recreational access and variety.
$$$$ The following existing CIPs will be
completed prior to the Long-term
timeline associated with this item:
• Complete Pickleball Feasibility
Study, Design and Construction
project (CIP 23-36), including the
in-progress site selection.
• Working with LASD, complete the
4-acre Joint-use open space (CIP
27-xx).
3 8.6.6 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Over the next ten years, the City will continue to balance implementation of this Plan’s action items with new opportunities and capital projects that arise. Because funding, staff capacity, and land availability Draft 1/12/26
145

are limited, the City will use the criteria below, aligned with the Plan’s goals and strategies, to guide decisions about when to move forward on different actions. Projects that advance multiple goals or strategies will typically be considered higher priorities.

Prioritization Criteria Aligned to Plan Goals and Strategies • Does the action expand park land in areas with low access (under 1.5 acres/1,000 residents)? • Does the action improve access to existing parks in areas with low access (under 1.5 acres/1,000 residents)?
• Does the action act on a rare or time-sensitive opportunity, such as the opportunity to purchase land?
• Does the action address aging or end-of-life infrastructure, safety needs, ADA compliance, or improved long-term maintenance?
• Does the action modernize amenities to meet evolving community expectations and support higher use?
• Does the action increase tree canopy, protect or expand habitat, enhance biodiversity, integrate nature-based solutions, or otherwise align with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan? • Does the action improve climate resilience through shade, cooling, stormwater management, or biodiverse landscape practices?
• Does the action improve environmental performance, water use efficiency, and resilience of landscapes, trees, and natural areas?
• Does the action expand or maintain quality facilities for high-demand recreation programs, sports facilities, and community gathering spaces?
• Does the action enhance multigenerational use, inclusion, and culturally relevant experiences? • Does the action have demonstrated, strong community support or respond to identified unmet needs?
• Does the action reduce maintenance burdens, improve staff efficiency, streamline operations, or improve the life-cycle value of City assets?
• Does the action leverage grants, philanthropy, sponsorships, partnerships, or private development contributions?
• Does the action support another City priority, plan, or project, especially as aligned with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan, General Plan, Housing Element, or climate and sustainability goals? • Does the action deliver high value for the cost relative to other actions? • Is funding available for the action within the proposed timeline? • Is staff capacity available to accomplish the action and maintain/operate any new facilities? • Can the action be taken quickly and easily? Have any necessary planning, feasibility studies, and permitting already been completed?
Integrating New Projects with the Action Plan
New capital projects, land acquisition opportunities, and program initiatives will continue to emerge during the life of this Plan. When they do, staff will:

1. Evaluate the new project using the same criteria listed above – ensuring consistency with the Plan’s goals and strategies.

2. Place the project into the appropriate implementation timeline (immediate, short-, mid-, or long- term) and reflect it in future Action Plan updates.

3. Review significant changes with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council, providing opportunities for community engagement and transparency.

Draft 1/12/26
146

4. Update prioritization as part of the annual work plans, the Capital Improvement Program process, and future Plan updates to ensure alignment with changing conditions, needs, funding, and opportunities.

8.6.7 THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION PLAN AND POTENTIAL FUNDING

OPTIONS
Mountain View’s parks and recreation system is supported by a combination of funding sources that serve different purposes. Some funds are intended for ongoing operations, staffing, and routine maintenance, while others support one-time capital investments, such as land acquisition, new park development or major facility improvements. Together, these funding sources allow the City to maintain its existing system and make incremental progress. However, they are not sufficient to address the scale of unmet park needs identified through this Strategic Plan, particularly in neighborhoods with lower access to parks.

This section outlines the City’s current funding structure, the magnitude of the funding gap, and the considerations and options associated with implementing the Action Plan.

Current Funding Sources
The General Fund supports the day-to-day operations of the parks and recreation system, including staffing, utilities, and routine maintenance. It is funded primarily through property tax, sales tax, and fees for service. While relatively stable from year to year, General Fund resources are limited and must be balanced against competing City priorities. General Fund appropriations to the Community Services Department are relatively consistent over time, with incremental increases recommended through the annual budget cycle and approved by the City Council.

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is used to fund the design and construction of parks, the development of new facilities, and substantial improvements to existing parks and facilities. Funding sources for the CIP include the CIP Reserve Fund, Construction Fund, and Conveyance Fund. The City augments the CIP Reserve Fund through contributions of annual unallocated reserve balance if available.

The CIP Reserve funds a broad range of capital projects City-wide to maintain, enhance, or develop City facilities, structures, and systems. For many of the ongoing needs to maintain the City’s large infrastructure, there is no dedicated funding source, and the CIP reserve, construction fund, and conveyance fund are the only funding sources available. There are more projects identified than can be funded through the CIP each year, and projects are prioritized and reviewed annually. The funding available in the CIP varies year to year and is approved by City Council through the annual budget process.

The City also uses unallocated fund balance, when possible, to fund the Strategic Property Acquisition Reserve (SPAR), which can be used to some extent to help fund the acquisition of properties for future parks but cannot be relied on as an ongoing funding source.

Park Land Dedication “in-lieu” fees paid by residential developers, help offset the impact of new residents on existing parks. Fees are used within the Planning Area of the development. In some cases, developers dedicate land for the purpose of new public parks, or they can meet their park land requirement through a combination of dedicating land and paying in-Lieu fees. In-Lieu Fee funds have also enabled key investments—such as acquiring future park sites and improving facilities like the Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center and the Community Center—but this funding source has critical limitations. Park Land Dedication fees are not intended to be used to address existing park land deficits—only to mitigate the impacts of new development. As a result, the City currently lacks a dedicated revenue stream to close historic park deficiencies.

Draft 1/12/26
147

The City is currently completing a Park Land Nexus Study to update Chapter 41 of the City Code, which will establish the legal basis for updating the park land dedication fees tied to new development. The adopted Housing Element suggests lowering the existing fees to make new housing more affordable to construct. City Council will ultimately determine whether and how fees are adjusted from the current fee levels.

The parks and recreation system also collects revenue through fees. The fees received are typically for services provided, such as program registration costs (camps, aquatics programs), picnic or facility rentals, sponsorships and similar programs. While some programs and services require a fee, the City provides programs and events at no cost. For example, the City’s Teen Center and Senior Center offer a variety of programs with no associated costs. The City’s special events are held throughout the year with no admission fee required. The fees collected help offset operational costs, but do not cover all expenses.

Magnitude of the Park Land Gap
As noted throughout the Plan, the City meets the 3 ac/1,000 goal for the city as a whole, but not at the Planning Area level. The following illustrates the park acreage shortfall at the time of the Plan and how this shortfall would increase based on the Housing Element’s projected 2040 population.

Mountain View currently has 390.51 acres of park land citywide. With a 2020 population of 82,376, 247.13 acres of park land would be needed to achieve the 3 ac/1,000 goal. Citywide, there are 390.51 acres, which exceeds the goal. However, if the acres associated with North Bayshore are excluded, there are 159.58 acres of neighborhood-serving parks, creating an estimated shortfall of approximately 87 acres.

The Housing Element projects a population of 148,200 residents in 2040. Using this potential future population and the same calculation process as above, a total of 444.5 acres of parks would be needed to achieve the 3 ac/1,000 goal. Including the 11.24 acres of land currently to be developed, the City would have 401.75 total acres. Excluding North Bayshore, there would be 170.82 acres. If no additional park acres were developed, the City would have an estimated shortfall of approximately 273 acres. This analysis highlights that the park land gap is not static; without new investments, it will continue to grow over time.

Cost of Closing the Gap
The financial implications of closing the park land gap are substantial. Land acquisition in Mountain View averages approximately $10 million per acre, with an additional $3–$6 million per acre required for park design and construction, depending on park size and amenities. At current costs, and an estimated average cost per acre of $13.5 million, acquiring and developing the 87 acres needed to address today’s shortfall would cost approximately $1.2 billion, excluding the additional acreage required to serve future population growth. To address the shortfall passed on the Housing Element’s 2040 population projection, developing the 273 acres needed would cost approximately $3.7 billion using current costs.

These figures demonstrate that fully closing the parkland gap is not achievable within a single 10–15 year planning cycle and will require long-term, sustained investment.

Even reinvesting in existing parks carries significant cost. Renovating a five-acre neighborhood park typically requires $6-8 million, depending on the scope of improvements and amenities included.

The Cost of Implementing the Action Plan
The Action Plan provides 50 actions that support the four goals of the Plan. Actions with the highest costs can be categorized into four groups and summarized below. It will not be possible to allocate Draft 1/12/26
148

funding for all items in the Action Plan at once, and the funding for each action must be considered based on the type and availability of the funding source.

DEVELOPING NEW PARKS
It is recognized that meeting the existing park deficit is not attainable in the Plan’s 10 – 15 year cycle.

Using an incremental approach to increase park acreage, the Action Plan has identified specific actions to make progress toward developing new parks. (see Actions 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.4) The cost of typical new park projects range from:
• $16 million per acre for mini parks
• $13.5 million per acre for neighborhood parks
• $13 million per acre for community parks
At an average cost of $13.5 million, developing the two 5-acre neighborhood parks would cost an estimated $135 million.

IMPROVING EXISTING PARKS
A number of actions relate to update improvements and enhancements to existing City parks. (see Actions 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6)
The cost of typical update projects ranges from:
• $1.0M–$1.5M per acre for mini parks
• $1.25M–$1.75M per acre for neighborhood parks
• $1.5M-$2.0M per acre for community parks
For example, updating a 5-acre neighborhood park at an average cost of $1.5 million per acre would cost approximately $7.5 million, not including any specialized features.

STAFFING RESOURCES
Actions have been identified that support reviewing the staffing structure and exploring possible opportunities to add staff or contract resources as resources permit, thereby creating staff efficiencies. (see Actions 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.1.8, 3.1.9) Additional resources could be considered on an annual basis as part of the budget process, phased in as the City’s fiscal condition allows.

New and Enhanced Funding Sources
Development of the Plan included research of practices in other jurisdictions to fund parks and recreation. This research is summarized in Appendix H. Most of these examples do not provide significant revenue for one-time capital costs or ongoing revenue for operating needs.

The City is currently using some of these revenue strategies and could assess additional opportunities within these strategies, as well as the implementation of new revenue strategies. Such opportunities are identified in the Action Plan under Strategy 4.1.

While most of these strategies can provide incremental financial support, none is sufficient on its own to close the park land gap or fully fund the scale of improvements identified in this Plan. Instead, they should be viewed as complementary tools that can help advance specific actions, leverage other investments, and improve the overall resilience of the City’s funding framework. The strategies that may have the most potential to make a meaningful contribution include establishing a relationship with a new or existing foundation and seeking grant funding.

Draft 1/12/26
149

Ultimately, achieving the Plan’s long-term goals—particularly those related to park acquisition, development, and major facility improvements—will require larger, more sustainable funding solutions, in combination with these enhanced strategies.

The City is evaluating the feasibility of a voter-approved revenue measure for the 2026 General Election, consistent with the FY 2025–27 Council Work Plan.

While no decisions have been made regarding whether to pursue this measure or how funds would be allocated, a revenue measure represents one of the few funding tools capable of generating significant, dedicated capital funding to address long-term infrastructure needs, including parks and recreation.

If pursued and approved by voters, a revenue measure could provide flexible, long-term funding to support major park improvements, acquisition of new parkland, renovation of aging facilities, and completion of large-scale projects that are not achievable through existing funding sources alone.

Importantly, revenue measure funding could help accelerate progress toward addressing long-standing parkland deficits and improving access to parks in underserved neighborhoods.

Any future bond proposal would be shaped by community priorities, City Council direction, and the results of ongoing analysis. This Strategic Plan helps establish the policy framework and identify needs that could inform future funding discussions, should a bond measure move forward.

8.6.8 LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY
Land acquisition is a critical tool for addressing gaps in park access and advancing the City’s long-term goal of equitably distributed park land across all Planning Areas. This strategy outlines the City’s established, disciplined approach to identifying and securing opportunities for new park land when a park-deficient area is identified, balancing flexibility, discretion, and fiscal responsibility while remaining responsive to market conditions and community needs.

When the City identifies a park-deficient area and establishes the approximate acreage needed, the City’s Real Estate Division staff conducts a targeted search to identify viable sites.

The process begins with a review of properties currently on the market, followed by discreet off-market outreach with local brokers, developers, and property owners to identify opportunities that may not be publicly listed. Where a specific service area is required, Real Estate may also conduct targeted owner outreach, such as mailed inquiries, to gauge voluntary interest without signaling acquisition urgency or commitment.

Multiple sites are evaluated in parallel, and any potential acquisition is subject to independent appraisal and approval by the Council, ensuring pricing discipline and the protection of public funds. Outside consultants or brokers are not typically required, but may be used selectively where added discretion, independent outreach, or specialized coordination would best support the City’s objectives.

8.7 Performance Metrics

8.7.1 MEASURING PROGRESS
Performance metrics provide a framework for measuring progress toward the goals and objectives of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. These metrics translate the Plan’s vision and action items into measurable outcomes that demonstrate how the City is b uilding community and enriching lives through its parks, facilities and programs.

Each metric reflects a key performance area, such as park access, program participation, sustainability, and financial stewardship, and is designed to show tangible improvement over the 10 - to 15-year life of Draft 1/12/26
150

the Plan. Together, they create a data -driven approach to accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement.

The metrics are not intended to capture every operational detail; rather, they highlight the most meaningful indicators of system-wide progress. Some measures will be tracked annually, while others will be evaluated on a multi-year basis as data becomes available.

These metrics may evolve over time as conditions, technologies, and community priorities change, ensuring that the City remains adaptive and focused on long- term outcomes that matter most to Mountain View residents.

8.7.2 PERFORMANCE METRICS
Below in Table 27 are Performance Metrics that will measure the success of the Plan. Each metric includes related action items, suggested data sources, targets and tracking frequency.

Table 26: Strategic Plan Performance Metrics
# Performance
Metric
Purpose / What It
Measures
Related
Action
Items
Data
Source(s)
Target Metric Tracking
Frequency
1 Park Access
and Land
Expansion
Park acres by
Planning Area
Total acres added
through new park
development.

1.1.1 - 1.1.4,

1.1.6, 3.1.4,

3.1.5, 4.1.1,

4.1.2 GIS / Park
Service Area
Maps; Park
Acreage
Database,
Park Acres by
Planning Area
Increase park acres
per 1,000 residents
in Planning Areas
currently below 1.5
acres per 1,000 and
10-15 total acres
added citywide by
2036.

Every 5
years
2 Stevens Creek
Trail and
Connectivity
Improvements
Tracks progress
toward
completing the
Stevens Creek
Trail extension
and improving
trail amenities to
enhance user
comfort, safety,
and park
connectivity.

1.1.5, 1.2.8,

3.1.4, 4.1.1,

4.1.2 Public Works
project data;
GIS trail
inventory;
trail amenity
audit
Complete the
Stevens Creek Trail
extension from
Dale/Heatherstone
to Remington by
2036 and install
upgraded amenities
along the Stevens
Creek Trail.

Every 5
years
Draft 1/12/26
151

# Performance
Metric
Purpose / What It
Measures
Related
Action
Items
Data
Source(s)
Target Metric Tracking
Frequency
3 Park Renewal
and
Improvements

# of parks
completing
update
improvements.
# of parks
completing
enhancement
improvements.

1.2.1 - 1.2.7,

1.3.1, 1.3.2,

3.1.4, 4.1.1,

4.1.2 CIP / Project
Completion
Reports
Complete update or
enhancement
improvements at an
average of 1-2 parks
per year.

Every 5
years
4 Sustainable
Park Design
and
Landscaping
# of parks
incorporating
native, pollinator-
friendly, or
drought-resilient
landscape
features.

1.3.1 - 1.3.5,

3.1.3 Project close-
out reports;
planting
records
Integrate native or
drought-resilient
landscaping in 2
parks per year.

Annual
5 Program
Participation
and Inclusion
% change in total
recreation
participation.

Number of
Financial
Assistance
recipients served.

2.1.2, 2.1.4 –

2.1.6 Registration
Data;
Financial
Assistance
Program
Records
Increase total
program
participation by
10% and serve 10%
more Financial
Assistance
recipients by 2031.

Annual
6 Fee Equity and
Cost Recovery
% of program
areas meeting
updated cost-
recovery targets.

Policy updates
completed.

2.1.1, 2.1.3,

4.1.4, 4.1.6
Financial
Reports;
Policy
Update
Complete a review
and update of
Council Policy J-2 by
2031. Once
implemented,
achieve at least 85%
compliance with
updated cost-
recovery targets by
2033, with biennial
policy reviews
thereafter.

Annual
Draft 1/12/26
152

# Performance
Metric
Purpose / What It
Measures
Related
Action
Items
Data
Source(s)
Target Metric Tracking
Frequency
7 Workforce
Structure and
Succession
Planning
Completion of a
staffing audit and
actions taken to
strengthen
departmental
structure and
capacity.

Completion or
update of the
Department’s
written succession
plan.

3.1.1 - 3.1.9 HR and
Budget
Reports;
Department
Succession
Plan
Complete the
staffing and
performance audit
by 2028, implement
priority
recommendations
within 3 years of
audit completion,
and adopt the
Department’s first
written Succession
Plan by 2031.

Every 5
years
8 Preventive
Maintenance
and Asset
Management
% of parks and
facilities with
current lifecycle
replacement
schedules.

Adopted
maintenance
standards.

3.2.1 – 3.2.3 Asset
Management
System;
Maintenance
Standards
Audit
Maintain current
lifecycle schedules
for 80% of parks
and facilities and
adopt updated
maintenance
standards by 2031.

Annual
9 Partnerships
and External
Funding
# of active
partnerships,
sponsorships, and
grants secured
annually.

Total external
funding or in-kind
value.

2.2.1, 2.2.2,

3.1.7, 4.1.3,

4.1.5, 4.1.7,

4.1.8 Partnership
Agreements;
Sponsorship
Logs; Grant
Tracking
Increase
sponsorship
revenue by 10–15%
each year through
2031. Once staffing
capacity is
established, add a
target metric to
secure at least 1–2
new partnerships or
grants annually.

Annual
10 Public
Transparency
and Reporting
Publication of an
annual dashboard
or report showing
park investments,
participation, and
funding
outcomes.

3.1.9, 4.2.1,

4.2.2 Annual
Report; City
Website
Analytics
Publish an annual
“State of Parks and
Recreation”
dashboard by
September 30 each
year.

Annual

Draft 1/12/26
153

CHAPTER NINE - APPENDICES

9.1 APPENDIX A - 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan Outcomes Appendix A documents progress made since the City adopted the 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. The table summarizes the original recommendations from the 2014 Plan, shows their current status, and highlights key achievements and actions completed over time. In addition to tracking direct implementation, the appendix also notes other accomplishments that advanced the intent of the original recommendations, even when approaches or priorities changed. This information provides transparency, accountability, and context for how past planning efforts have informed and shaped the City’s parks and open space system today.

9.1.1 INCREASE OPEN SPACE
Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
Acquire open space for a community park
north of Central Expressway and south of
Highway 101.

Not completed and ongoing.

Land has not been acquired for a community
park (5-40 acres) in this area. Staff continues
to look for opportunities.

City-wide
Priority 2
Acquire open space throughout the City for
neighborhood parks and mini parks, especially
in neighborhoods deemed most deficient in
open space by Planning Area:

See specific Planning Areas below for current
status.

Planning Area Priority – San Antonio: Acquire
land in the midsection of the San Antonio
Planning Area for the development of a mini
park, preferably on the north side of California
Street between Showers Drive, Central
Expressway and Rengstorff Avenue.

Completed. Land acquired for 4-acre shared
fields at the future LASD school site and an
additional two acres for a future City park
along California Street.

Planning Area Priority – San Antonio: Acquire
land for the development of a mini park
bordered by El Camino Real, Del Medio
Avenue, Fayette Drive and San Antonio Road.

Completed. Acquired and opened Fayette
Greenway (1.30 acres) in 2021 and Fayette
Park (0.52 acres) in October 2023.

Other accomplishments: Opened Mora Park
(0.43 acres) in June 2022.

Planning Area Priority – Sylvan-Dale: Acquire
land south of El Camino Real for development
of a mini park.

Completed. Opened Evelyn Park (0.68 acres) in
May 2025.

Planning Area Priority – Rengstorff: Acquire
land in the area bounded by Highway 101,
Rengstorff Avenue, San Antonio Road, and
Middlefield Road (preferably adjacent to the
City-owned parcel at the corner of Wyandotte
Street and Reinert Road) for development of a
mini park.

Completed. Opened Wyandotte Park (0.90
acres) in October 2020 and Heritage Park (1.21
acres) in December 2016.

Draft 1/12/26
154

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Planning Area Priority – Stierlin: Acquire land
in the area bounded by Central Expressway,
Moffett Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and
Highway 85 for development of a mini park.

Completed. Purchased two adjacent properties
in 2022 and a third adjacent property in 2024 for
the purpose of developing a new 2.45-acre park
along San Rafael Avenue near the
recommended area.

Planning Area Priority – Thompson: Acquire
land for the development of a mini park.

Completed. Two parcels have been acquired,
totaling 0.43 acres, for a future mini-park.

Planning Area Priority – Whisman: Acquire
land for development of a neighborhood park
as part of the South Whisman development
process.

Completed. Opened Pyramid Park (2.76-acres)
in September 2022.

City-wide
Priority 3
Work with owners of open space not currently
available for acquisition to enable shared use
of these resources (by means of joint use,
easements, or other cooperative
mechanisms).

Completed. Through agreement with SFPUC,
City designed and constructed Fayette
Greenway on SFPUC land. City entered into a
funding and joint use agreement for the use of
the future LASD school fields on California
Avenue.

Explore the feasibility of acquiring land
adjacent to the Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way,
Stevens Creek Trail, and Permanente Creek
Trail.

Not completed and ongoing. No land has been
acquired to date in the identified areas.

City-wide
Priority 4
Acquire a portion or all of Mountain View's
agricultural lands, if they become available, in
an effort to preserve the City's agricultural
heritage.

Not completed and ongoing. Agricultural land
has not been acquired. Staff continues to look
for opportunities and communicates interest
to these property owners.

Acquire land for a garden space that is
available to the public. Consider various types
of gardens. (e.g. urban gardens,
demonstration gardens, edible landscaping,
etc.)
Completed. Opened Heritage Park (1.21 acres)
in December 2016 and entered into an
agreement with Soil and Water to utilize part
of the park for a demonstration garden.

City-wide
Priority 5
Acquire land adjacent to Hetch-Hetchy right of
way, Stevens Creek Trail, and Permanente
Creek Trail.

Not completed.

9.1.2 IMPROVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE
Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
Develop open spaces for community use,
especially in neighborhoods that are deficient
in open spaces. Encourage maximum
community input in all stages of development.

See “Increase Open Space” category above
and Planning Area Priority below.

Planning Area Priority – North Bayshore:

Design and construct the Shoreline Sports
Complex at Shoreline at Mountain View
Regional Park.

Completed. Opened the Shoreline Athletic
Fields (12 acres) in November 2015.

Draft 1/12/26
155

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 2
Preserve and enhance the City's urban forest
and canopy.

See status updates below.

Review and update the Urban Forest
Management Plan.

In progress. Developing a new Biodiversity and
Urban Forest Plan. Plan adoption scheduled
for June 2026.

Develop public spaces as visual open space
(e.g. through landscaping of parking lots,
vacant lots, street medians, etc).

In progress. Specific goals related to this
recommendation are included within the draft
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

City-wide
Priority 3
Improve and renovate existing parks. Be
creative in the design of park elements and
play structures.

See specific Planning Areas below for current
status.

Other accomplishments: Restroom Upgrades
completed at: Sylvan Park, Monta Loma
School Fields, Cooper Park, Whisman Park,
Crittenden School Fields, Stevenson School
Fields.

Planning Area Priority – San Antonio:

Continue the renovation of Rengstorff Park
consistent with the Rengstorff Park Master
Plan.

Completed. Renovated and reopened the
Community Center in 2018, built a state-of-
the-art Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center
opened in March 2025, moved the park
maintenance building closer to the barbecue
area, and included new restrooms (fall 2025).

Installed new restroom facilities adjacent to
the tennis facilities (January 2025). While not
specifically part of the Master Plan, a Magical
Bridge all-inclusive playground was added to
the park (January 2025).

Planning Area Priority – Stierlin: Work with
Mountain View Whisman School District and
Youth Sports Organizations to explore the
possibility of converting Crittenden Field to
synthetic turf.

Completed. Opened in June 2023.

Planning Area Priority – Central: Work with
Mountain View Whisman School District and
Youth Sports Organizations to design and
construct a joint-use restroom at Castro
School Fields.

Completed. Opened in fall 2025.

Planning Area Priority – Miramonte: Work
with Mountain View Whisman School District
and Youth Sports Organizations to design and
construct a joint-use restroom at Landels
School Fields.

Completed. Opened in fall 2025.

Planning Area Priority – Miramonte: Continue
to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District on the development of McKelvey Field
and mini park as part of the Permanente Creek
flood protection project.

Completed. Opened in February 2020.

Draft 1/12/26
156

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Planning Area Priority – Grant: Work with
Mountain View Whisman School District and
Youth Sports Organizations to design and
construct a joint-use restroom at Huff (now
Imai) School Fields.

Completed. Opened in fall 2025.

City-wide
Priority 4
Look for opportunities to add garden space to
existing open space.

Completed. Opened Latham Community
Garden (0.81 acres) in August 2019.

Other accomplishments: Entered into an
agreement to incorporate a volunteer
pollinator garden within Cuesta and Mariposa
Parks.

Explore alternative public garden models, such
as demonstration gardens, edible landscape,
and youth/school gardens.

Completed. Agreement with Soil and Water at
Heritage Park to create a public demonstration
garden.

City-wide
Priority 5
Look for opportunities to add off-leash dog
areas to existing open space. Explore a variety
of options, including fenced and unfenced
areas.

Completed. Created an "Off-Leash Dog Area"
program at specific parks, created a fenced
dog area at Rengstorff Park and included a
fenced dog area in Pyramid Park’s design.

9.1.3 PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE
Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
Work with school districts, utility companies,
private owners, governmental agencies, etc. to
ensure that no current open space is lost. To
accomplish this, the City Should:

See status updates and specific Planning Area
recommendations below.

Strengthen existing and future City/school
joint-use agreements to provide additional
methods to ensure preservation of school
open space areas.

Partially completed. City entered into a new
joint-use agreement with the Mountain View
Whisman School District in February 2024.

Field inventory, maps, and maintenance
responsibilities were updated. City continues
to have access to school fields during non-
school hours. School District continues to
control ultimate use of its land.

Continue to maintain all joint-use agreements
with the school district for use of open space
at public middle and elementary schools.

Completed.

Develop new joint use agreements where they
currently do not exist.

Completed. Entered into a new Joint Use
Agreement for LASD's new 10th school site on
California Avenue.

Explore the possibility of developing an
agreement with the school district for joint
use of garden space as a shared community
benefit.

Completed. Through discussions with school
district staff, it was determined that it would
not be feasible as a shared community
program.

Draft 1/12/26
157

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Planning Area Priority – Miramonte: Explore
the possibility of developing an agreement
with the Los Altos School District for joint use
of open space for public use at Springer
Elementary School and future school
developments in Mountain View.

Completed. Entered into a Joint Use and
Funding Agreement for LASD's new 10th
school site on California Avenue.

Planning Area Priority – Grant: Explore the
possibility of developing an agreement with
Mountain View Los Altos High School District
for joint use of open space for public use at
Mountain View High School.

Completed. Mountain View High School uses
its outdoor recreational facilities frequently.

Not enough hours are available to enter into
an agreement. The previously calculated open
space at this facility has been deleted from the
City's open space calculations.

Strengthen and formalize current partnerships
to provide safe custodianship of land in
Mountain View that is owned by other
agencies, such as the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (Hetch-Hetchy), Santa
Clara County Water District, Santa Clara
County, and PG&E.

Partially completed. City entered into a new
long-term agreement for existing uses and
incorporated Fayette Greenway into
agreement located on SFPUC land.

City-wide
Priority 2
Preserve the City's urban forest and canopy in
accordance with the City's Urban Forestry
Management Plan in order to retain
neighborhood character and ensure the
greening of the increasingly urbanized
environment.

In progress. The Biodiversity and Urban Forest
Plan will provide updates regarding this action.

The City has entered into an agreement with
the non-profit Canopy to assist with tree
plantings, public education programs and
resources to support these efforts.

Planning Area Priority – Central: Develop a
conceptual use plan for development of the
City-owned parcels on South Shoreline
Boulevard and California Street as Open
Space.

Completed. City used an existing parcel to
design and construct the Latham Community
Garden along Shoreline Boulevard.

City-wide
Priority 3
Support efforts by other agencies, private
organizations, and or nonprofits to preserve a
portion of all of Mountain View's agricultural
lands as permanent open space, if they
become available.

In progress. City staff continue to
communicate with property owners of
agricultural lands to determine if future use as
open space is feasible.

City-wide
Priority 4
Work with other agencies to preserve all Bay-
front land.

In progress. City is working with the South Bay
Salt Pond Restoration Project to preserve and
improve the bayfront land for future sea level
rise and to include enhancements for wildlife.

Planning Area Priority - North Bayshore:

Maintain Charleston Slough and creeks within
Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park.

Completed.

Other accomplishments: Vegetation
improvements surrounding Charleston
Retention Basin. Adoption of Shoreline
Wildlife Management Plan.

Draft 1/12/26
158

9.1.4 PROVIDE ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE
Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
Work cooperatively within the City and with
other governmental agencies to ensure
that access to open space resources is
enhanced (e.g., traffic safety, attractiveness to
users, etc.). Evaluate all City parks to ensure
safe crossings.

See specific Planning Areas below for current
status.

Planning Area Priority – San Antonio:

Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to
Rengstorff Park consistent with the Rengstorff
Park Master Plan.

Completed. New entrance to Rengstorff Park
in alignment with Stanford Avenue, with
intersection improvements for pedestrians
and bicycles.

Planning Area Priority – Rengstorff: Improve
access to Thaddeus Park through safe street
crossings and other techniques.

Completed.

Planning Area Priority – Rengstorff: Improve
access across Central Expressway to Rengstorff
Park from the Rengstorff Planning Area.

In progress through design of grade separation
project.

Planning Area Priority – Rengstorff: Provide
access to Permanente Creek Trail from Colony
Street.

Completed.

Planning Area Priority – Central: Improve
access to Mariposa Park through safe street
crossings and other techniques.

Not completed.

Planning Area Priority – Miramonte: Improve
access to Graham Middle School and Sports
Complex, through safe street crossings and
other techniques.

Completed.

Planning Area Priority – Grant: Extend
Stevens Creek Trail from the current terminus
at Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way south to
provide access to the approximately 20 acres
of City-owned open space east of Highway 85.

In progress. This project is in design and in
collaboration with the City of Sunnyvale.

City-wide
Priority 2
Work cooperatively within the City to build
mini-trails to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
access to trails from neighborhoods, especially
from neighborhoods that are underserved in
open space.

Ongoing: Fayette Greenway is a new trail to
access the neighborhood. Improved
Bonny/Beatrice with a new path and
vegetation on SFPUC land. Continue to look
for opportunities.

Draft 1/12/26
159

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Identify locations where new or improved
access to trails and bicycle routes would
improve safe, continuous non-auto routes
throughout the City. Implementation of such
improvements should be given priority in
those Planning Areas that are underserved by
park and open space resources.

The Trailhead at Crittenden Lane has been
improved, the Fayette Greenway has created
new access from El Camino Real to Fayette
Park and the adjacent neighborhood,
protected bicycle lanes have been added near
Graham Middle School, the Permanente Creek
Trail has been extended adjacent to
Crittenden Middle School, providing improved
and safer access. See Section 5.3.1 for current
projects listed in the Capital Improvement
Projects that support this recommendation.

Explore the feasibility of a trail along the
Permanente Creek right-of-way across Central
Expressway, connecting Crisanto Avenue and
Escuela Avenue with the Hetch-Hetchy right-
of-way.

Completed. In 2016, a “Permanente Creek
Trail Extension – Feasibility Study” was
completed and presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission. The study concluded
the proposed alignment was not feasible.

9.1.5 DEVELOP TRAIL SYSTEMS
Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
Continue development of the City's trail
system for walking, biking, hiking, wildlife
preservation, and other recreational
opportunities in accordance with Mountain
View City Code. Enhance and preserve native
plantings and protect wildlife along trails and
in open space areas.

Ongoing. Enhancements along the Charleston
Retention Basin have been completed.

Planting projects along Permanente Creek
Trail continue within Shoreline at Mountain
View Park.

Explore the possibility of connecting the
Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, and Hetch-
Hetchy Trails to each other via trails and
rights-of-way.

Not completed.

Look for opportunities to add hydration
systems and drinking fountains along trails and
pathways.

Ongoing. Hydration stations have been added
to various parks and trail locations. Bottle
fillers are now a standard addition for new
water fountains when they are replaced.

Trail System Priorities – Stevens Creek Trail:

Continue construction of Stevens Creek Trail
from Dale/Heatherstone to Mountain View
High School.

In progress. Design has been initiated and in
coordination with the City of Sunnyvale.

Trail System Priorities – Stevens Creek Trail:

Explore the feasibility of improving the
Stevens Creek Trail access point at Crittenden
Lane to establish a more accessible and formal
trailhead.

Completed.

Draft 1/12/26
160

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Trail System Priorities – Hetch Hetchy Trail:

Improve the landscaping at Bonny/Beatrice
Streets along the Hetch-Hetchy corridor.

Completed.

Trail System Priorities – Hetch Hetchy Trail:

Develop the Hetch-Hetchy corridor from El
Camino Real to Fayette Drive.

Completed.

Trail System Priorities – Hetch Hetchy Trail:

Explore the feasibility of maintaining the
Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way as pedestrian-
accessible space.

Ongoing. City inquired and SFPUC is not
prepared to permit this use at the time of this
Plan development.

Trail System Priorities – Hetch Hetchy Trail:

Update the Hetch-Hetchy Trail Feasibility
Study.

Not completed.

Trail System Priorities – Permanente Creek
Trail: Explore the possibility of a safer crossing
(potentially underground) at Charleston Road.

Completed. A new signalized at-grade crossing
has been installed.

Trail System Priorities – Permanente Creek
Trail: Work with the Mountain View Whisman
School District to extend the Permanente
Creek Trail from Rock Street to West
Middlefield Road.

Completed.

Trail System Priorities – Permanente Creek
Trail: Explore the feasibility of maintaining the
Permanente Creek right-of-way as a trail.

Ongoing. City inquired about this and SFPUC
has not approved to date. Staff will continue
to request a review of this request.

Trail System Priorities – Permanente Creek
Trail: Conduct a feasibility study for extending
the Permanente Creek Trail to the southern
border of Mountain View.

Not complete.

Trail System Priorities – Charleston Retention
Basin: Explore the feasibility of connecting the
Charleston Retention Basin to the Stevens
Creek Trail.

Completed. Found to not be feasible at this
time due to existing use of land between the
trail and retention basin.

Trail System Priorities – Caltrain Corridor:

Explore the feasibility of an east-west trail
corridor from Sunnyvale to Palo Alto, south of
the Central Expressway and north of El Camino
Real, to include consideration of the Caltrain
corridor as a possible option.

Ongoing. Right-of-way is required for the
Caltrain corridor to facilitate the integration of
the bullet train. A CIP is anticipated to be
funded next fiscal year for "Evelyn Avenue
Bikeway" to connect Evelyn Avenue
improvements being made in Sunnyvale and
integrating those improvements into
Mountain View from Bernardo Avenue to
Mountain View Transit Center.

Draft 1/12/26
161

Priority Order Recommendation Current Status
Trail System Priorities – Bay Trail: Explore the
feasibility of improving the Bay Trail
connection between the western and eastern
sides of the Stevens Creek Corridor.

Ongoing. The eastern side of the Bay Trail was
significantly improved into the City of
Sunnyvale. The western side may be improved
through the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration
Project.

City-wide
Priority 2
Work with other cities and governmental
agencies to develop regional trails connecting
Mountain View with other regional trails and
open spaces.

Completed. City staff were active members of
the "Four Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek
Trail Feasibility Study" which included
Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Cupertino and other
agencies that have the Stevens Creek within
their jurisdiction. This effort has led to the
design of the last segment of the trail in
Mountain View. The Study also looked at
potential options and identified obstacles to
extend the trail from Mountain View to
Stevens Creek Reservoir.

Explore all opportunities to connect the City's
regional open space areas to the former Cargill
Salt Ponds as they are returned to their
natural state.

Ongoing and under construction. As part of
the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project,
additional public access along the former salt
ponds will be constructed.

Work with other cities and agencies to
develop Stevens Creek Trail and the Bay Trail
for the purposes of developing a regional
network of interlinked trail systems.

Ongoing. The City has worked with the Friends
of Stevens Creek Trail to incorporate a united
signage system to identify the Stevens Creek
trail in all the agencies that have completed
segments. The City continues to work with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
related to the coordination of Bay Trail
improvements, extensions and signage.

City-wide
Priority 3
Develop trails and pathways to provide safe
connections between transit centers and parks
and open space areas.

Capital Improvement Projects have been
identified to connect the Castro Transit Center
to the North Bayshore Planning Area. This will
also help connect to other parks along the
route and to connect with other bicycle and
pedestrian improvements.

Draft 1/12/26
162

9.2 APPENDIX B – Related Plans
In addition to this Strategic Plan, the City has developed a number of complementary plans and policy documents that collectively guide long-term decision-making, resource allocation, and community development. These related plans provide context, alignment, and support for the goals and initiatives outlined here, ensuring a cohesive approach to citywide planning. Together, they reflect the City's commitment to creating a vibrant, inclusive, and well-connected community. Below is a list of relevant plans that support and align with this Strategic Plan; however, this list may not be exhaustive and is intended to represent the most directly related and currently available documents.

Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan - The City of Mountain View is partnering with the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to develop a city-wide Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan built on science-based guidance and community needs, values, and priorities. This Plan will be the first of its kind in the Bay Area to provide a clear set of priorities, goals, and objectives for increasing and supporting biodiversity for the long-term future. The Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan will inform and influence the vegetation, habitats and trees in projects, development, and ordinances for maximum environmental sustainability, climate resiliency, and health benefits. The Plan will integrate and update the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan into a broader vision and blueprint for managing and enhancing the urban forest in Mountain View. This plan is anticipated to be adopted in 2026. The Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan is intended to complement and be informed by the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, ensuring that future park and recreation investments advance shared goals for habitat connectivity, species diversity, and climate-resilient landscapes across Mountain View. 2023-2031 Housing Element - The Housing Element identifies the City’s current housing conditions and future housing needs while outlining initiatives to improve available housing for populations with various income levels within the city. The current plan covers the 2023 to 2031 period and is updated every 8 years as mandated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2030 General Plan - The 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the city's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. The General Plan is the foundation for zoning regulations, subdivisions, and public works plans. It also addresses other issues related to the city’s physical environment, such as noise, open space, and safety.

Active Transportation Plan - The City is developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which will provide a roadmap of projects and policies to support walking, rolling, and biking in the City of Mountain View. The ATP aims to update and bring together the previously completed Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bicycle Transportation Plan and will also incorporate green treatments as much as possible. This plan is anticipated to be adopted in 2026.

Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan - In compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City has prepared a self-evaluation and transition plan to identify and make a plan to remove potential barriers to accessing City facilities, infrastructure, policies, programs, and services for disabled community members. The City is working on an update to the 2002 ADA Self-Evaluation Plan that includes evaluation of the City’s parks, recreation facilities, and recreation programming and strategies for improving their accessibility.

Economic Vitality Strategy - The City of Mountain View has developed an Economic Vitality Strategy that recognizes the unique character of Mountain View’s businesses and community as well as identifies and addresses the opportunities and challenges. The Economic Vitality Strategy is a guiding document that aligns the City’s vision for a welcoming, vibrant city that plans intentionally and leads regionally to Draft 1/12/26
163

create livable, sustainable neighborhoods, access to nature and open spaces, and a strong innovation- driven local economy. The strategy identifies 25 implementation strategies and 164 actions the City and its partners can focus on for the next 10 years.

Precise Plans – Precise Plans are a tool for coordinating future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention.

Race, Equity, and Inclusion Action Plan - The City is implementing a Race, Equity and Inclusion Action Plan focused on policing practices, policies and accountability, celebration and recognition of community diversity, and review of City operations and policies, with opportunities for community engagement throughout.

Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan - The Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan focuses on the distinctive environmental aspects that make Shoreline at Mountain View a special place in the city and South Bay Area. The plan addresses the diversity of species, vegetation, and habitats that are currently found at Shoreline, a wildlife and recreation area. The plan reviews and consolidates the various regulations and codes for wildlife and habitats that govern Shoreline as well as provides recommendations for future habitat enhancement projects and best practices for maintenance operations
Sustainability Plans and Policies - The City has adopted several ordinances, resolutions, and policies that complement statewide legislation and help achieve its sustainability goals. In addition, the City has a variety of sustainability strategic and action plans to work towards achieving the City’s sustainability goals.

Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan - The City developed an integrated Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan. This Plan is focused on eliminating fatal traffic crashes that affect everyone, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. The action plan analyzes historic crash data, compiles proven countermeasures, identifies and prioritizes projects, and recommends safety projects for implementation.

Draft 1/12/26
164

9.3 APPENDIX C - Public Input
This appendix provides a detailed summary of the public engagement process conducted throughout the development of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. It includes an overview of outreach methods, participation levels, and key themes that emerged from community surveys, pop-up events, stakeholder meetings, and public workshops. The findings in this appendix reflect the community’s priorities, values, and aspirations, which directly informed the plan’s goals, strategies, and action items.

9.3.1 STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS AND KEY LEADER INTERVIEWS The Stakeholder Input Summary reflects valuable feedback gathered through both community-based and internal engagement efforts. External Focus Groups were held on August 22, 2023, with additional sessions conducted in Spanish and Mandarin on August 29 and 30, 2023, to ensure inclusivity across Mountain View’s diverse population. These discussions brought together stakeholders from a range of organizations, backgrounds, and perspectives, helping ensure that community voices were fully represented in the planning process.

To complement this community input with internal expertise and strategic insight, Key Leader Interviews were conducted with members of the City’s Executive Team, City staff, and individual City Councilmembers. Additional feedback was collected during the September 2023 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, which provided an important opportunity for advisory body discussion and direction.

Together, these engagement efforts provided a comprehensive understanding of the community’s strengths, opportunities, and priorities—from both those who live and work in Mountain View and those responsible for guiding its future. The following section summarizes the most common themes identified across all stakeholder input.

STRENGTHS
Community and key stakeholder input reflected strong appreciation for the City’s parks, programs, staff, and overall responsiveness to community needs. The following represent the most common themes identified through both external focus groups and key leader interviews:

High-Quality Parks, Facilities, and Natural Assets - Mountain View’s parks are widely viewed as well- maintained, accessible, and beautiful. Trails such as the Stevens Creek Trail, mature oak trees, and the city’s tree canopy were frequently cited as defining community assets. The Shoreline area—including its trails, amphitheater, and natural features—was described as a “unique jewel.” Exceptional Staff and Leadership - Staff were consistently described as professional, friendly, caring, and responsive. Stakeholders highlighted strong departmental leadership, a willingness to adapt and innovate, and genuine pride in serving the community. The City’s collaborative relationships—both internally and with community partners—were also identified as a key strength.

Variety and Quality of Programs and Services - The City offers a broad and diverse range of recreation opportunities for all ages and interests, from youth and teen programs to senior services and community events. Programs such as The View Teen Center, community events, and adult recreation offerings were frequently praised for their accessibility, quality, and creativity.

Community Connection and Engagement - Stakeholders recognized Mountain View’s strong culture of community engagement and outreach, including efforts to reach diverse and marginalized groups. The City’s ability to listen to residents, celebrate community history, and foster citywide participation through events and volunteer opportunities was cited as a defining trait.

Draft 1/12/26
165

Strategic and Sustainable Approach - The City’s planning, maintenance, and operational standards were viewed as proactive and forward-thinking. Stakeholders noted the City’s emphasis on sustainability, its biodiversity goals, and long-term financial stability. Major planning initiatives were recognized as examples of effective coordination and future-focused investment.

Opportunities
Stakeholders and community leaders identified a variety of opportunities to enhance Mountain View’s park system, programs, and operational capacity. While overall satisfaction with existing facilities and services is high, participants noted several areas where continued investment, innovation, and coordination could strengthen the City’s impact.

Expand Park Access and Acreage - Many participants emphasized the need for additional parks, open spaces, and natural areas to serve the city’s growing population. Suggestions included adding new neighborhood and community parks, expanding community gardens, and increasing shade, trees, and restrooms. Stakeholders also encouraged greater equity in park distribution and more intentional access planning to ensure all residents can easily reach green spaces.

Improve Connectivity and Accessibility - Connectivity across the city’s parks and trail network was a common theme. Participants recommended improving bike and pedestrian access, widening and maintaining trails, and designing better connections between neighborhoods, schools, and major park destinations such as Shoreline. Opportunities include multimodal trail planning, ADA accessibility improvements, and better wayfinding and signage.

Enhance and Modernize Existing Facilities - Stakeholders noted that several facilities are aging or in need of reinvestment. Opportunities include upgrading park lighting, irrigation systems, and restrooms; developing additional indoor recreation space; improving athletic fields and maintenance standards; and exploring creative reuse of underutilized buildings for recreation purposes. Maintenance consistency and resource allocation were also identified as priorities.

Strengthen Community Engagement and Partnerships - Participants expressed a desire for more inclusive, transparent, and ongoing communication between the City and residents during park design and development processes. There is also interest in expanding volunteer opportunities, simplifying partnership processes for community groups, and engaging youth and underrepresented populations more intentionally.

Address Staffing, Capacity, and Process Improvements - Operational capacity emerged as a recurring challenge. Stakeholders cited the need for additional maintenance and recreation staff, streamlined administrative processes, and improved project management systems. Investing in technology, asset management tools, and interdepartmental coordination were identified as key steps to improve efficiency and sustainability.

Priorities
Stakeholders and key leaders identified a shared set of priorities focused on sustainability, accessibility, and community connection. The following themes highlight where participants believe the City should direct attention and investment over the next decade:

Long-Term Park Funding, Access, and Expansion - Participants emphasized the importance of securing sustainable, long-term funding mechanisms to maintain, preserve, and expand park spaces. Many expressed a desire for new park land and equitable access across neighborhoods, ensuring all residents can easily reach a park or trail. Stakeholders also noted the need to define clear rules for park development and to preserve existing park land amidst continued urban growth.

Draft 1/12/26
166

Facility and Field Improvements - Enhancing the quality and availability of athletic fields, gym spaces, and recreation facilities was a high priority. Stakeholders advocated for more lit sports fields, additional gym and racquet facilities, and indoor swimming options for year-round use. There was also support for creating a third pool, additional dog parks, and dedicated teen and senior spaces that reflect community needs and interests.

Connectivity, Safety, and Environmental Resilience - Improving citywide connectivity through walkable, bikeable, and multi-use trail networks remains a key goal. Participants also called for enhanced lighting, tree canopy expansion, and park designs that balance ecological preservation with recreational access. A climate-resilient park system—supported by native landscaping, biodiversity, and sustainable infrastructure—was identified as a guiding principle for the future.

Community Engagement and Program Accessibility - Stakeholders encouraged expanded community outreach and engagement to ensure decisions reflect broad input. Suggestions included more cultural events, concerts, and neighborhood gatherings; improved communication about available programs; and better alignment of offerings with demographic and income diversity. Providing affordable and inclusive recreation opportunities was seen as essential to maintaining equitable access for all residents.

Organizational Capacity and Implementation - Internally, participants highlighted the need for continued investment in staffing, workload balance, and operational efficiency. Priorities included developing a maintenance management plan, strengthening interdepartmental collaboration, and improving project delivery timelines. Many emphasized the importance of a unified organizational culture guided by shared goals, clear communication, and a sense of pride and purpose among staff.

Draft 1/12/26
167

9.3.2 COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS
The following community groups were invited to participate in the public input process as Stakeholders.

While not all groups were able to attend a Stakeholder meeting, each was offered the opportunity to be involved.

AYSO Soccer
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Advisory
Committee
Canopy
Community
Services
Agency
Downtown
Committee
Environmental
Planning
Commission
Friends of "R"
House
Friends of Deer
Hollow Farm
Friends of
Mountain View
Parks
Friends of
Stevens Creek
Trail
German
International
School
Greenspaces
Mountain View
Human
Relations
Commission
Khan Lab
School
Kiwanis Club of
Mountain View
League of
Women Voters
of Los Altos-
Mountain View
Library Board
of Trustees
Livable
Mountain View
Live Nation -
Shoreline
Amphitheatre
Los Altos
Mountain View
Aquatic Club
Los Altos
School District
Los Altos-
Mountain View
PONY Baseball
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
Mountain View
Academy
Mountain View
Babe Ruth
Mountain View
Chamber of
Commerce
Mountain View
Coalition for
Sustainable
Planning
Mountain View
Historical
Association
Mountain View
Little League
Mountain View
Los Altos Girls
Softball League
Mountain View
Los Altos
Soccer Club
Mountain View
Los Altos Union
High School
District
Mountain View
Masters
Mountain View
Pickleball Club
Mountain View
Tennis
Academy
Mountain View
Tennis Club
Mountain View
Whisman
School District
Mountain View
YIMBY
Palo Alto
Preparatory
School
Performing Arts
Committee
Public Safety
Advisory Board
Red Star Soccer
Academy
Rental Housing
Committee
Rotary Club of
Mountain View
Santa Clara
Valley Audubon
Society
Senior Advisory
Committee Silicon Shores St. Francis High
School
St. Joseph
Mountain View
Tennis
Advisory Board
Touchstone
Golf
Visual Arts
Committee
Chair
Waldorf School
of the
Peninsula
Yew Chung
International
School
Youth Advisory
Committee
Draft 1/12/26
168

9.3.3 PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS
In this segment, we showcase feedback from four Public Input Meetings held in August 2023. Four public meeting opportunities were available, with two of these meetings held in-person, while the other two were virtual. To ensure inclusivity, each session provided translation services in Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish, engaging with a collective of over 190 participants. Attendees actively shared their views using live polling, promoting immediate interaction and response. This method ensured a broad spectrum of voices was captured, enriching the community engagement process.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Frequency of Use:
• A significant majority (8 6%) of respondents use parks, trails, or recreation facilities in Mountain View at least weekly.
• No respondents indicated that they do not use these facilities at all.

Most Visited Parks:
• Rengstorff Park (37%) and Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park (36%) are the top two most visited parks.

Quality Rating:
• Most respondents rate the quality of parks and facilities as "Good" (60%) or "Excellent" (24%). • None of the respondents rated the quality as "Poor".

Proximity to Parks:
• A high percentage (88%) of respondents live within a 10-minute walk to a park or trail. However, when excluding parks at school sites, this percentage drops to 70%.

Mode of Travel to Parks:
• Walking (46%) is the most common mode of travel to parks, followed by driving (26%) and biking (24%).

Preferred Information Channels:
• Email (79%) is the most preferred way to learn about programs, parks and facilities, followed by the Activity Guide (51%) and the City Website (45%).

Barriers to Using Parks:
• The top three barriers preventing respondents from using parks and facilities are:
o Lack of amenities in parks and centers (32%).
o Lack of restrooms (30%).
o Being too busy (25%).

Facility Interests:
• Trails/Walking Paths (48%), Aquatic Features (3 3%), and Open Space (3 1%) are the top three facilities that respondents are most interested in.

Program Interests:
• Fitness (45%), Sports (33%), and Aquatics (30%) are the top three programs of interest.

Desired Improvements for the Next Ten Years:
• The top three desired improvements are:
o Expand and connect the trail system (49%).
o Build new or upgrade existing sports courts (41%).
o More shade structures (39%).

Draft 1/12/26
169

Satisfaction with Community Services Department:
• A majority of respondents are either "Very Satisfied" (2 4%) or "Somewhat Satisfied" (42%) with the overall value they receive from the Community Services Department.

These takeaways provide a comprehensive understanding of the public's preferences, usage patterns, and feedback regarding parks and recreational facilities in Mountain View.

9.3.4 POP -UP EVENTS SUMMARY
As part of the public engagement process, the City hosted a series of pop-up events in fall and winter 2023 to gather ideas directly from community members in festive, family-friendly settings. More than 500 responses were collected across three events:
• 40th Anniversary Celebration at Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park (October 15, 2023) • Monster Bash at Rengstorff Park (October 28, 2023)
• Community Tree Lighting Celebration at Civic Center Plaza (December 4, 2023) At each event, residents were invited to contribute feedback using interactive dot boards and open- ended prompts to respond to four questions. Participants identified their priorities and vision for the future of Mountain View parks and recreation as noted in the following section.

KEY FINDINGS
Features You Want to See in Mountain View
Community members shared their priorities through a dot-voting activity, highlighting the amenities and features they most want to see in Mountain View’s parks and public spaces. Based on over 500 responses, the most requested features included:
• Aquatics: The most popular feature, showing strong demand for pools or splash pad facilities. • Multi-use Sports Courts and Fields: A need for versatile, shared athletic spaces. • Community Gardens and Natural Play Areas: Interest in hands-on, nature-rich environments. • Shade and Comfort: Tree canopy, shade structures, and restrooms were top comfort priorities. • Trail Connectivity and Active Transportation: Support for walking and biking paths, a connected trail system, and safe, shaded routes.
• Environmental and Access Features: Residents also emphasized native plants, accessible play, green infrastructure, and bike parking.

What Key Issues Should the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Address? • Bike Infrastructure and Trail Improvements: A high priority for mobility and recreation. • Fenced Dog Parks: Many residents want secure, off-leash spaces across the city.

Draft 1/12/26
170

• Biodiversity and Ecology: Strong interest in preserving trees, planting natives, and enhancing habitats.
• Waste and Facility Access: Additional lighting, signage, water fountains, and waste bins were frequently requested.
• Youth and Equity-Focused Features: Youth programming, accessible design, and safe, inclusive spaces were common themes.

What Is Your Vision for Parks and Recreation in Mountain View? Responses to this question painted a picture of an inclusive, sustainable, and connected park system.

Residents envisioned:
• Community-Oriented Spaces: Parks as welcoming "third spaces" that support food security, climate resilience, and active lifestyles.
• Accessibility and Inclusion: Multicultural support, family-friendly spaces, and sensory-friendly design for people of all abilities and ages.
• Expanded Trails and Connections: Strengthened access to and between parks, including extended bike lanes and tree-lined trails.
• Ecological Health: Priorities included light pollution reduction, habitat protection, and use of native plants.
• Creative Programming and Amenities: Public art, games, events, a mix of active and relaxing areas, and features like BMX tracks, climbing walls, and pickleball courts. • Maintenance and Operations: Residents also voiced interest in doggie bag stations, smoke-free areas, and improved trail lighting.

Where Would You Like to Have More Parks and Open Space? In 20 responses, residents suggested underserved neighborhoods—particularly those farther from Downtown—and recommended reclaiming underused sites for green space. Some also emphasized the need to ensure future housing developments include nearby parks and trails.

9.3.5 STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY

OVERVIEW
ETC Institute administered a parks and recreation needs assessment survey for the City of Mountain View during the months of February and March 2024. This survey, and the community-wide survey, were used to gather input to help determine park, facility, and recreation priorities for the community.

METHODOLOGY
ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households in Mountain View. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage‐paid return envelope. Residents Draft 1/12/26
171

who received the survey were given the option of returning the survey by mail or completing it online at MountainViewSurvey.org.

After the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute followed up with residents to encourage participation. To prevent people who were not residents of Mountain View from participating, everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey.

ETC Institute then matched the addresses that were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the online survey was not included in the final database for this report.

The goal was to collect a minimum of 450 surveys from residents. The goal was met with 450 surveys collected. The overall results for the sample of 450 surveys has a precision of at least +/‐ 4.6 at the 95% level of confidence.

The major findings of the survey are summarized in the following sections.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKS AND FACILITIES
Use of Parks and Facilities. Most respondents (96%) report visiting City of Mountain View parks/recreation facilities in the past year. The highest percentage of these respondents (29%) report visiting parks/facilities two to four times per week. Most (89%) rated the overall physical condition of facilities and parks as either “excellent” (28%) or “good” (61%).

Barriers to Use. Respondents were asked to select all the reasons that prevent their household from using City of Mountain View parks and facilities more often. Respondents most often selected lack of shade (22%), lack of restrooms (20%), and lack of amenities they want to use (17%).

Communication Methods. Respondents most often reported learning about Mountain View parks, recreation facilities, programs, and events via the recreation activity guide (63%), word of mouth (53%), and the City website (36%). The top three ways respondents prefer to learn about Mountain View parks, recreation facilities, programs, and events is via the recreation activity guide (52%), emails/eNewsletter (49%), and the City website (42%).

MOUNTAIN VIEW RECREATION PROGRAMS AND EVENTS
Organizations Used. Respondents were asked to select all the organizations their household has used for recreation and sports activities over the past year. City of Mountain View (80%) was selected most often followed by neighboring cities (59%) and public schools (33%).

Program/Event Participation. Forty‐one percent (41%) of respondents report participating in programs/events offered by the City of Mountain View over the past year. Of those who did participate, the highest percentage (42%) participated in two to three programs followed by one program (31%).

Most of these respondents (94%) rated the overall quality of programs as either “good” (59%) or “excellent” (35%).

Barriers to Participation. Respondents were asked to select all the reasons their household does not participate in City of Mountain View Community Services Department programs more often. Too busy/lack of interest (34%) was selected most often followed by not knowing what is offered (23%) and inconvenient program times (22%).

Draft 1/12/26
172

IMPORTANCE, FUNDING, AND BENEFITS OF RECREATION
Benefits of Parks, Facilities, Recreation Programs, and Events. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with 12 statements regarding potential benefits of parks, facilities, recreation programs, and events. Respondents most often agreed (selecting “agree” or “strongly agree”) that these items make Mountain View a more desirable place to live (97%), provide access to gathering and open spaces (93%), and improves mental health and reduces stress (86%).

Additional Taxes. Respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount of additional tax revenue they would be willing to pay to improve the City’s system with parks trails, recreation facilities, and programs. The highest percentage of respondents (31%) said $9 per month or more followed by 21% saying “nothing” and 20% said between $5‐6 per month.

Funding Allocation. Respondents were asked to disburse a hypothetical $100 for parks and recreation improvements. The highest amount of funding (on average) went towards improvements to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities ($25.26), followed by $24.51 towards the acquisition and construction of new park land and open space and $21.21 for adding amenities to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities.

Importance and Perception. Most respondents (86%) say it is “very important” for the City of Mountain View to provide high quality parks, recreation facilities, and programs. Given the COVID‐19 Pandemic, most respondents (72%) say their household’s perception of value of parks, trails, open spaces, and recreation has “significantly increased” (45%) or “somewhat increased” (27%). Based on their perception of value, over half of respondents (56%) think funding should increase and 43% think funding should stay the same.

Draft 1/12/26
173

RECREATION FACILITIES/AMENITIES NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Amenity/Facility Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 35 facilities/amenities and to rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various facilities/amenities. The three amenities/facilities with the highest percentage of households that have an unmet need:

1. Restrooms – 15,813 households

2. Shade structures – 15,584 households

3. Shaded picnic areas – 14,268 households
The estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 35 facilities/amenities assessed is shown in the chart below.

Figure 26: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Facility and Amenity Needs Draft 1/12/26
174

Amenities/Facilities Importance:

In addition to assessing the needs for each amenity/facility, ETC Institute also assessed the importance that residents placed on each item. Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, these were the four amenities/facilities ranked most important to residents:

1. Multi‐use hiking, biking, and walking trails (33%)

2. Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to parks (24%)

3. Restrooms (23%)

4. Walking paths in parks (21%)
The percentage of residents who selected each amenity/facility as one of their top four choices is shown in the chart below.

Figure 27: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households Draft 1/12/26
175

Priorities for Facility Investments: The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on recreation and parks investments. The PIR equally weighs (1) the importance that residents place on amenities/facilities and (2) how many residents have unmet needs for the amenity/facility.

Based on the PIR, the following amenities/facilities were rated as high priorities for investment:
• Multi‐use hiking, biking, walking trails (PIR=177)
• Restrooms (PIR=170)
• Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to parks (PIR=139) • Shade structures (PIR=125)
• Shaded picnic areas (PIR=122)
• Small neighborhood parks (PIR=118)
• Native habitat areas and landscaping (PIR=115)
• Trees (PIR=113)
• Swimming pool (PIR=113)
• Walking paths in parks (PIR=104)
• Large community parks (PIR=103)
The chart below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 35 amenities/facilities assessed on the survey.

Figure 28: Top Facility and Amenity Priorities for Future Investment Draft 1/12/26
176

RECREATION PROGRAM NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
Program Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 37 recreation programs and to rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various programs.

The three programs with the highest number of households that have an unmet need:

1. Adult fitness and wellness programs – 11,725 households

2. Exercise programs – 11,260 households

3. Recreation swim – 10,422 households
The estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 37 programs assessed is shown in the chart below.

Figure 29: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Program Needs Draft 1/12/26
177

Programs Importance: In addition to assessing the needs for each program, ETC Institute also assessed the importance that residents placed on each item. Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, these were the five programs ranked most important to residents:

1. Community and cultural special events (23%)

2. 55+ fitness and wellness programs (17%)

3. Recreation swim (16%)

4. Adult fitness and wellness programs (16%)

5. Water fitness programs/lap swimming (12%)
The percentage of residents who selected each program as one of their top four choices is shown in the chart below.

Figure 30: Programs Rated Most Important by Households
Draft 1/12/26
178

Priorities for Program Investments: The PIR was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on recreation and parks investments. The PIR equally weighs (1) the importance that residents place on programs and (2) how many residents have unmet needs for the program.

Based on the PIR, the following activities/programs were rated as high priorities for investment:
• Community and cultural special events (PIR=175)
• Adult fitness and wellness programs (PIR=167)
• Recreation swim (PIR=159)
• Exercise classes (PIR=144)
• 55+ fitness and wellness classes (PIR=132)
• Water fitness programs/lap swimming (PIR=119)
• Outdoor environmental education/nature camps (PIR=119) • Cultural enrichment programs (PIR=112)
• Counseling and mental health programs (PIR=108)

The chart below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 37 programs assessed on the survey.

Figure 31: Top Program Priorities for Future Investment Draft 1/12/26
179

Statistically Valid Survey Charts and Graphs
Figure 32: Household Composition by Age Group
Figure 33: Households Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months) Draft 1/12/26
180

Figure 35: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions Figure 34: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months) Draft 1/12/26
181

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Safety and cleanliness issues (homelessness, drug use/smoke, restroom conditions, graffiti/trash, encampments) are major deterrents.
• Lack of infrastructure improvements (lighting, ADA-friendly paths, bike/ped connectivity, parking, water fountains, shade) affects usability.
• Dog-related concerns (off-leash dogs, rules not enforced, lack of enclosed/off-leash areas, dog waste) are frequent complaints.
• Time constraints and access limitations (busy schedules, distance to parks, park rules/hours, unreliable scheduling) impact usage.
• Conflicts over space and overcrowding (pickleball and basketball demand, large parties, locked/fully booked fields, non-resident crowding) need to be addressed. • Residents desire more natural landscapes and a shift toward sustainability-focused park design.

Figure 36: Barriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often Draft 1/12/26
182

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Discovery by chance or in-person observation (driving by, walking around, exploring neighborhoods).
• Online search tools (Google Maps, Apple Maps, Yelp) are widely used to locate parks and facilities.
• Neighborhood and community communications (newsletters, mailing lists, local email groups). • School and library communications occasionally inform residents about parks and programs. • Social media and online community forums (e.g., Reddit) serve as alternative information sources.

Figure 37: How Residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events Draft 1/12/26
183

Figure 39: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months Figure 38: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events
Draft 1/12/26
184

Figure 40: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months Figure 41: Number of City Programs and Events Participated in by Households in Past 12 Months Draft 1/12/26
185

Figure 42: Overall Quality of City Programs or Events
Draft 1/12/26
186

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Time constraints and scheduling conflicts (work, caregiving, inconvenient class times, limited weekend or evening options) limit participation.
• Program variety and availability concerns (limited offerings compared to nearby cities, lack of classes for certain age groups, discontinued programs, seasonal or single-session availability). • Facility and program conditions (crowded pools and classes, parking limitations, cleanliness issues, safety hazards such as gopher holes).
• Personal or health-related limitations (medical issues, mobility challenges, balance problems). • Awareness and accessibility barriers (not knowing programs exist, language barriers, difficulty with registration processes).
• Activity-specific frustrations (tennis court use conflicts, lack of pickleball classes, program organization issues).
• Preference factors (avoiding large crowds, not interested in organized programs at this time).

Figure 43: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often Draft 1/12/26
187

Figure 44: Resident Agreement with Benefits of City Parks, Facilities, Programs, and Events Draft 1/12/26
188

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Expanded sports and recreation facilities (badminton courts, beach volleyball courts, BMX track, softball field, skating/rollerblade paths, running track access, pickleball at Questa Park). • Enhanced dog-friendly spaces (enclosed/off-leash dog parks, single-dog run spaces, more dog- friendly walking areas, safe areas away from other dogs). • Improved infrastructure and amenities (restrooms in small parks, shaded play structures, BBQ areas, coffee kiosks, gym/workout equipment, TRX wall, adult climbing equipment). • Better connectivity and accessibility (bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, trail linkages, walking paths that allow dogs, adequate parking).
• Safety and maintenance priorities (vegetation upkeep, fixing uneven surfaces, relocating bike racks, addressing safety concerns).
• Unique community features (graffiti wall/art board, multi-use school and City spaces that support recreation needs).
• Program and service gaps (more swimming lessons, better youth basketball facilities).

Figure 45: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities Draft 1/12/26
189

Figure 47: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households

Figure 46: How Well Household Needs Are Met for Recreation Facilities and Amenities Draft 1/12/26
190

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Expanded sports opportunities (badminton, tennis, youth lap swim, year-round swim for special needs).
• Educational and enrichment programs (ecology and climate classes, urban forestry, language classes, choir/singing).
• Youth-focused initiatives (child care paired with recreation, youth community conservation corps).
• Pet-related programming (dog training, socialization/manners for dogs). • Community events (interest in special City events with improved parking/access). • Increased awareness of offerings (need for better promotion and information access about existing programs).

Figure 48: Household Need for Recreation Programs
Draft 1/12/26
191

Figure 49: Programs Rated Most Important by Households
Figure 50: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs
Draft 1/12/26
192

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Expanded sports and recreation facilities (badminton courts, beach volleyball courts, pickleball courts, indoor pool).
• Improved park infrastructure and amenities (restrooms in every park, shaded picnic areas, water fountain upgrades, lighting on trails, close-by parking). • Connectivity and active transportation (dedicated bike paths, improved multi-use trails, increased pedestrian/bike/transit access).
• Dog-friendly enhancements (larger/nicer dog parks, unfenced dog-friendly areas, better animal control and responsible pet owner education).
• Environmental sustainability and landscaping (native/mediterranean plantings, reduced overwatering, landscaping efficiency audits).
• Historical and cultural elements (interpretive signage, preservation/restoration of orchard property and historic structures).
• Program and service expansion (adult day trips, more yoga, recreational swim and youth swim lessons, special needs programming and facilities).
• Policy and operational improvements (extended park hours, tennis court management changes, compensation for park employees).
• Cleanliness and safety (cleaner facilities, addressing homelessness in parks).

Figure 51: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Priorities Draft 1/12/26
193

Figure 53: Change in Perceived value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic

Figure 52: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities, and Programs Draft 1/12/26
194

Figure 54: Resident Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space Draft 1/12/26
195

Q19—"Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the future of Mountain View parks and recreation for the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan?” Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Park maintenance and infrastructure – improve turf quality, repair broken equipment, address gopher holes, maintain and upgrade restrooms, add shade structures, and ensure timely repairs. • Facility and amenity expansion – increase pickleball, tennis, and badminton courts; add splash pads, dog parks, restrooms in smaller parks, adventure features (zip lines, bmx track, skate ramps), indoor pools and gyms, and shaded picnic areas. • Connectivity and access – expand multi-use trails, link parks with greenways, improve bike/pedestrian infrastructure, enhance public transit access, and ensure neighborhood parks are within walking distance.
• Dog-related management – provide more enclosed or designated off-leash spaces, separate dog areas from playgrounds, enforce leash laws, and improve safety for both pets and people. • Environmental sustainability – increase native and biodiverse plantings, preserve mature trees, reduce overwatering, incorporate habitat planning, and limit light pollution. • Programming diversity and access – offer more programs for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities; increase cultural and steam offerings; expand swim hours; and add childcare-linked recreation options.
• Safety and cleanliness – address homelessness in parks, improve lighting, increase bathroom security, and reduce drug use and smoking in public areas. • Historical and cultural enhancements – add interpretive signage, preserve historic orchards, and recognize more diverse historical figures in park naming. • Equity and inclusion – maintain affordable programs, prioritize access for mountain view residents, and provide programming for underrepresented age groups and communities. • Community events and engagement – rotate events among neighborhoods, encourage volunteer involvement, and expand free or low-cost gatherings to build community connections.

Draft 1/12/26
196

Figure 55: Gender of Survey Respondents
Figure 56: Years Lived in Mountain View
Draft 1/12/26
197

9.3.6 Figure 58: Race of Survey Respondents
Figure 57: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish or Latino/a/x Draft 1/12/26
198

ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY

Figure 59: Household Composition by Age Group (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
199

29.15%

33.15%

13.85% 15.00%

7.92%

0.92%
More than 5
times a week
2-4 times a
week
Once a week 1-3 times a
month
Less than once a
month
Don't know
Q2a. How often have you visited City of
Mountain View parks and/or recreation
facilities during the past 12 months?
Figure 61: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com)

97.79%

2.21%
Yes No
Q2: Have you or any member of your
household visited any City of Mountain
View parks and/or recreation facilities
during the past 12 months?
Figure 60: Household Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
200

26.28%

59.28%

13.67%

0.76%
Excel l ent Good Fair Poor
Q2b. Overall, how would you rate the
physical condition of ALL the City of
Mountain View parks and recreation
facilities you have visited?
Figure 62: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
201

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Safety and cleanliness issues (homelessness, drug use, restroom conditions) are major deterrents.
• Lack of infrastructure improvements (restrooms, seating, bike lanes, shade) affects usability. • Dog-related concerns (off-leash dogs, lack of designated areas) are frequent complaints. • Time constraints and access limitations (park hours, work schedules) impact usage. • Conflicts over space and overcrowding (pickleball, large parties, locked fields) need to be addressed.
• Residents desire more natural landscapes and a shift toward sustainability-focused park design.

Figure 63: Barriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often (SurveyMonkey.com)

29.49%

27.73%

26.17%

16.50%

13.57%

11.52%

11.43%

11.23%

9.86%

9.08%

4.00%

2.44%

0.98%

35.06%
Lack of shade
Lack of amenities we want to use
Lack of restrooms
Use parks /facilitie s in othe r citie s/county
T oo far from our home
Do not feel safe using parks /facilitie s
Not aware of parks ' or facilitie s' locations
Lack of parking to access parks /facilitie s
Parks /facilitie s are not we ll m aintaine d
Criminal activity in the park
Lack of transportation
L ack of A DA acce ssibility
Language/cultural barriers
Other (pl ease speci fy)
Q3. Please CHECK ALL of the following
reasons that prevent you or members of
your households from visiting City of
Mountain View parks and recreation
facilities more often.

Draft 1/12/26
202

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Google Maps is the dominant tool residents use to find parks. • Word of mouth, schools, and local organizations play a significant role in spreading awareness. • Park signs, flyers, and bulletin boards remain important but may not be reaching all residents. • Digital engagement through social media and event websites could be expanded for better outreach.

60.48%

56.63%

41.57%

33.11%

22.93%

19.33%

15.57%

13.86%

12.40%

5.82%

3.42%

12.83%
Recreation activity guide
Word of mouth
City website
Em ails/E-newsl etter
Materials at parks or recreation facilities
Social Me dia
Banners
Newspaper
Promotions at speci al events
Fl yers
Conversations with City staﬀ
City Council , Board or Commission meetings
Other (pl ease speci fy)
Q4. From the following list , please
CHECK ALL the ways you learn about
City of Mountain View parks, recreation
facilities, programs, and events.

Figure 64: How Residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
203

1.37%

1.80%

8.33%

10.74%

12.80%

12.97%

13.32%

25.43%

28.52%

44.16%

53.01%

54.98%
City Council , Board or Commission meetings
Conversations with City staﬀ
Promotions at speci al events
Word of mouth
Banners
Newspaper
Fl yers
Materials at parks or recreation facilities
Social Me dia
City website
Em ails/E-newsl etter
Recreation activity guide
Q5. From the list, which THREE methods
of communication would you MOST
PREFER the City use to communicate
with you about parks, recreation facilities,
programs, and events?
1st 2nd 3rd
Figure 65: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com)
Draft 1/12/26
204

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Many residents rely on county, state, and open space preserves for outdoor recreation, indicating a desire for more natural spaces within City parks. • Private facilities and apartment amenities play a significant role in meeting recreation needs, suggesting gaps in publicly available options.
• Neighboring cities’ recreation offerings attract Mountain View residents, pointing to potential opportunities for program expansion.
• City-run facilities like the Senior Center and Teen Center are well-utilized, but some activities are sought through private or non-profit organizations.

88.17%

56.97%

35.58%

28.48%

17.35%

13.41%

12.97%

11.74%

8.41%

10.69%
City of Mountain View
Neighboring cities
Public schools
Private clubs (tennis, heal th, swim, ﬁtness)
YMCA
Y outh sports leagues
Pri vate summer camps
Places of worship (e.g., synagogues , churches )
Private schools /charter schools
Other (pl ease speci fy)
Q6. From the following list , please
CHECK ALL of the organizations that you
or members of your household have used
for recreation and sports activities during
the last 12 months.

Figure 66: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
205

Figure 67: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com)

50.13% 49.87%
Yes No
Q7. Has your household participated in
any programs or events offered by the
City of Mountain View Community
Services Department during the past 12
months?

24.27%

52.50%

14.11% 9.12%
One 2-3 4-6 7 or more
Q7a. How many programs or events
offered by the City of Mountain View
Community Services Department have
you or members of your household
participated in during the past 12
months?
Figure 68: Number of City Programs and Events Participate in by Household in Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com)
Draft 1/12/26
206

32.47%

60.79%

6.39%

0.35%
Excel l ent Good Fair Poor
Q7b. How would you rate the overall
quality of the City of Mountain View
Community Services Department
programs or events in which your
household has participated ?
Figure 69: Overall Rating of City Program and Event Quality (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
207

Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Better scheduling flexibility is needed for working adults, teens, and families. • Affordability is a concern, especially for private leagues and specialized programs. • More outreach is needed to raise awareness about available programs and streamline registration.
• Facility improvements (gym equipment, pool maintenance, accessibility upgrades) could enhance participation.
• Demand for expanded recreation offerings, including pickleball instruction, nature-based activities, and more adult fitness options.

30.94%

28.63%

27.98%

24.65%

20.03%

13.61%

10.27%

9.50%

8.09%

5.26%

4.62%

3.85%

3.47%

2.44%

1.41%

1.28%

1.03%

15.28%
Program times are not conveni ent
T oo busy/not i nterested
I don't know what is oﬀered
The program I want is not oﬀered
Classes are full
Fees are too hi gh
Use programs of other agenci es
Lack of quality programs
T oo far from our home
Lack of quality instructors
Old and outdated facilities
Registration process is diﬃcult
Lack of transportation
Lack of right program equipment
Language/cultural barriers
Poor customer service by staﬀ
Do not feel safe participating
Other (pl ease speci fy)
Q8. Please CHECK ALL of the following
reasons that prevent you or members of
your household from participating in City
of Mountain View Community Services
Department programs more often.

Figure 70: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
208

.
62%
56%
46%
44%
48%
39%
33%
30%
20%
20%
17%
14%
32%
36%
43%
44%
41%
44%
44%
35%
38%
36%
38%
29%
3%
5%
7%
9%
9%
13%
15%
22%
28%
27%
26%
33%
4%
9%
11%
12%
16%
19%
Makes Mountai n Vi ew a more desi rabl e pl ace to
live
Preserves open space and protects the
environment
Provides access to gathering and open spaces
Improves my (my household 's) mental health and
reduces stress
Improves my (my household 's) physical health
and ﬁtness
Provides positive social interactions for me (my
household /fam ily)
Is age -friendly and accessible to all age groups
Increases my (my household 's) property value
Positive ly im pacts e conom ic/business
devel opment
Helps to reduce crime in my neighborhood and
keep kids out of trouble
Provides volunteer opportunities for the
communi ty
Provides jobs /professional development for
youth
Q9. Please indicate your level of
agreement with the following statements
concerning some potential benefits of the
City of Mountain View's parks, facilities,
and recreation programs or events by
circling the corresponding number .

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Figure 71: Resident Agreements with Benefits of City Parks, Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
209

31%
29%
21%
25%
23%
23%
18%
22%
19%
28%
15%
15%
13%
12%
16%
18%
15%
13%
6%
11%
8%
13%
12%
8%
12%
9%
11%
10%
8%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
45%
41%
45%
40%
43%
39%
41%
36%
37%
26%
36%
36%
37%
37%
29%
24%
26%
27%
34%
28%
30%
23%
23%
23%
18%
20%
16%
16%
15%
11%
10%
11%
11%
10%
7%
17%
18%
24%
22%
25%
24%
25%
26%
31%
16%
30%
30%
31%
33%
24%
19%
25%
20%
37%
25%
37%
16%
28%
27%
20%
20%
17%
14%
18%
17%
19%
20%
17%
21%
18%
5%
6%
5%
9%
8%
5%
8%
9%
9%
7%
11%
12%
10%
14%
6%
5%
13%
6%
17%
9%
17%
18%
13%
17%
7%
17%
9%
7%
10%
8%
14%
19%
18%
24%
29%
2%
7%
4%
4%
1%
8%
8%
7%
4%
23%
8%
7%
9%
4%
24%
34%
21%
34%
7%
27%
9%
31%
24%
25%
43%
33%
46%
53%
50%
58%
51%
46%
51%
42%
44%
Walking paths in parks
Open grass areas
Benches
Large community parks
Trees
Plazas and public spaces
Bicycle and pedestrian access /connection to parks
Small neighborhood parks
Multi-use hiking , biking , walking trails (paved or…
Performi ng arts theater
Water/drinking fountains
Native habitat areas and landscaping
Safety lighting
Restrooms
Community center (mul ti-use space for events ,…
T ennis courts
Swi mmi ng pool
Playgrounds with accessible amenities
Shade structures
Bike parking
Shaded picnic areas
Access to Wi -Fi
Outdoor exerci se/ﬁtness area
Environmental /nature education
Outdoor basketball courts
Community gardens
Dog area /park
Lighted diamond sports ﬁelds (baseball , softball )
Lighted multi-sport ﬁelds (football , rugby, soccer ,…
Skateboarding parks
Pickle ball courts
Indoor basketball /volle yball courts (indoor gyms )
Bike skill are a/pump track
Game tabl es (ping pong , chess )
Splash pads or spray parks
Q10. Please indicate how well your needs are
being met for each of the facilities /amenities
listed below.

Fully Met Mostly Met Partly Met Not Met No Need
Figure 72: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
210

29%
25%
24%
24%
23%
18%
17%
17%
16%
15%
13%
13%
12%
12%
10%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Multi-use hiking , biking , walking trails
Large community parks
Restrooms
Bicycle and pedestrian access /connection to parks
Trees
Walking paths in parks
Swi mmi ng pool
Dog area /park
Native habitat areas and landscaping
Open grass areas
Access to Wi -Fi
Small neighborhood parks
Benches
Community center
Pickle ball courts
Community gardens
T ennis courts
Water/drinking fountains
Shade structures
Performi ng arts theater
Environmental /nature education
Safety lighting
Playgrounds with accessible amenities
Outdoor exerci se/ﬁtness area
Lighted multi-sport ﬁelds
Shaded picnic areas
Splash pads or spray parks
Plazas and public spaces
Bike parking
Indoor basketball /volle yball courts
Game tabl es (ping pong , chess )
Bike skill are a/pump track
Outdoor basketball courts
Lighted diamond sports ﬁelds
Skateboarding parks
Q11. Which FOUR facilities/amenities from
the list are MOST IMPORTANT to your
household?
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Tota l
Figure 73: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
211

15%
7%
10%
8%
10%
6%
7%
7%
7%
8%
6%
5%
8%
7%
5%
6%
5%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
3%
2%
3%
2%
3%
3%
30%
23%
18%
18%
16%
17%
16%
16%
15%
14%
15%
17%
14%
13%
14%
13%
13%
11%
13%
12%
12%
11%
10%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
3%
24%
26%
23%
17%
21%
28%
15%
20%
16%
16%
15%
28%
15%
18%
22%
19%
18%
16%
16%
20%
20%
13%
14%
15%
14%
19%
10%
15%
9%
17%
10%
11%
14%
13%
15%
14%
8%
10%
12%
15%
7%
13%
15%
7%
12%
8%
10%
9%
14%
6%
7%
16%
9%
9%
7%
7%
13%
12%
9%
11%
15%
9%
19%
9%
16%
9%
13%
10%
13%
12%
16%
20%
15%
8%
21%
32%
34%
50%
40%
33%
54%
46%
54%
53%
55%
37%
57%
56%
44%
53%
54%
59%
59%
50%
51%
63%
59%
56%
64%
50%
69%
58%
72%
60%
70%
65%
64%
62%
56%
62%
77%
Community and cultural special events
Cultural enrichment programs
Recreation swi m
V acation and summer break camps
Water ﬁtness programs /lap swim m ing
Adult ﬁtness and wellness programs
Y outh sports programs and camps
Adult performing arts programs
Y outh seasonal programs
Y outh swim lessons
Y outh visual/performing arts /crafts programs
Exerci se cl asses
T ennis lessons and leagues
Teen programs
Outdoor environmental /nature education
55+ ﬁtness and wellness programs
After school programs for youth of all ages
55+ performing arts programs (dance/musi c)
Y outh ﬁtness and wellness classes
Adult visual arts /crafts programs
STEM classes
Early childhood education / preschool programs
Adult swim lessons
Adult sports leagues
55+ visual arts /crafts programs
Counseling and mental health programs
55+ sports l eagues
Leadershi p/mentoring/character building
Cheer/gymnastics /tumbling programs
Programs for at -risk youth /cri me prevention
Golf lessons
Martial arts
Programs for people with special needs /disabilitie s
Pickle ball le ssons and le ague s
T rips and tours
Intergenerational programs
EGami ng/ESports
Q12. Please indicate how well your needs are
being met for each of the programs /activities
listed below.

Fully Met Mostly Met Partly Met Not Met No Need
Figure 74: Household Need for Recreation Programs (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
212

27%
23%
22%
19%
17%
16%
14%
14%
12%
12%
12%
12%
10%
10%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Community and cultural special events
55+ ﬁtness and wellness programs
Adult ﬁtness and wellness programs
Recreation swi m
Water ﬁtness programs /lap swim m ing
Outdoor environmental education /nature camps …
V acation and summer break camps
Y outh swim lessons
Pickle ball le ssons and le ague s
Exerci se cl asses
After school programs for youth of all ages
Y outh sports programs and camps
Teen programs
Cultural enrichment programs
Adult performing arts programs (dance/musi c)
Adult visual arts /crafts programs
Counseling and mental health programs
STEM (science , technology, engi neeri ng, and…
T ennis lessons and leagues
Adult sports leagues
Y outh seasonal programs
Y outh visual/performing arts /crafts programs …
55+ visual arts /crafts programs
Early childhood education / preschool programs
Adult swim lessons
55+ performing arts programs (dance/musi c)
T rips and tours
Programs for at -risk youth /cri me prevention
55+ sports l eagues
Golf lessons
Leadershi p/mentoring/character building
Programs for people with special needs /disabilitie s
Martial arts
EGami ng/ESports
Y outh ﬁtness and wellness classes
Intergenerational programs
Cheer/gymnastics /tumbling programs
Q13. Which FOUR programs/activities from
the list are MOST IMPORTANT to your
household?
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Figure 75: Programs Rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
213

34.50%

10.12%

15.69% 19.46% 20.23%
$9 or more per
month
$7-$8 per month $5-$6 per month $3-$4 per month Nothing Q14. What is the maximum amount of
additional tax revenue you would be
willing to pay to improve the City of
Mountain View's system with the parks,
trails, recreation facilities and programs
you have indicated are most important
Figure 76: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com)
Draft 1/12/26
214

$27.85
$23.72
$20.65
$13.52
$10.97
$3.28
Q15. If you had $100, how would you allocate
the funds among the parks and recreation
categories listed below?
Other
Expand program oﬀerings
Replace or enhance existing park
landscaping with native and
biodiverse plantings
Add amenities to existing parks ,
pools , and recreation faci l i ties
Improvements to existing parks ,
pools , and recreation faci l i ties
Acquisition and construction of
new park land and open space
Figure 77: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Priorities (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
215

50.76%

24.24% 23.48%

1.01% 0.51%
V alue has
signiﬁcantly
i ncreased
V alue has
somewhat
i ncreased
No change V alue has
somewhat
decreased
V alue has
signiﬁcantly
decreased
Q17. Given the COVID-19/Coronavirus
pandemic, how has your and your
household's perception of the value of
parks, trails, open spaces, and recreation
changed?
Figure 79: Change in Perceived Value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic (SurveyMonkey.com)

88.47%

10.40%

0.75% 0.38%
V ery important Somewhat important Not i mportant Not sure Q16. How important do you feel it is for
the City of Mountain View to provide high
quality parks, recreation facilities and
programs?
Figure 78: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com)
Draft 1/12/26
216

Most Common themes from “Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the future of Mountain View parks and recreation for the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan?” • Invest in more park space and ensure all neighborhoods have nearby access to parks. • Expand pickleball and tennis facilities to accommodate growing demand. • Create more enclosed dog parks and enforce off-leash rules. • Prioritize environmental sustainability, tree preservation, and native plant landscaping. • Improve park safety by enforcing rules, adding lighting, and addressing homelessness concerns. • Expand recreation programs for all ages, especially affordable youth sports and adult fitness options.
• Enhance aquatic facilities, including extended swim hours and an Olympic-size pool. • Improve pedestrian and bike safety with better crossings and infrastructure. • Support community engagement through events, shaded seating, and gathering spaces. • Ensure parks and programs are inclusive, affordable, and accessible to all residents.

66.62%

29.79%

0.80%

8.51%
Increase funding Maintain existing
funding levels
Reduce funding Not sure
Q18. Based on your perception of value,
how would you want the City of Mountain
View to fund future parks , recreation,
trails and open space needs ?
Figure 80: Resident Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
217

Q19—"Do you have any other comments you would like to make about the future of Mountain View parks and recreation for the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan?” Common themes from “OTHER” responses:
• Park maintenance and infrastructure – Improve turf conditions, repair broken equipment, address gopher holes, upgrade and maintain restrooms, add shade structures, and ensure timely repairs.
• Facility and amenity expansion – Add or enhance pickleball, tennis, and badminton courts; splash pads; dog parks; restrooms in smaller parks; adventure features such as zip lines, BMX tracks, and skate ramps; indoor pools and gyms; and shaded picnic areas. • Connectivity and access – Expand multi-use trails, link parks with greenways, improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, enhance public transit connections, and ensure neighborhood parks are within walking distance.
• Dog-related management – Provide more enclosed or designated off-leash spaces, separate dog areas from playgrounds, enforce leash laws, and improve safety for both pets and people. • Environmental sustainability – Increase native and biodiverse plantings, preserve mature trees, reduce overwatering, incorporate habitat planning, and limit light pollution. • Programming diversity and access – Offer more programs for adults, seniors, and people with disabilities; expand cultural and STEAM offerings; increase swim hours; and add recreation options linked to childcare.
• Safety and cleanliness – Address homelessness in parks, improve lighting, enhance bathroom security, and reduce drug use and smoking in public spaces. • Historical and cultural enhancements – Add interpretive signage, preserve historic orchards, and name parks after a more diverse range of historical figures. • Equity and inclusion – Maintain affordable programs, prioritize access for Mountain View residents, and increase programming for underrepresented age groups and communities. • Community events and engagement – Rotate events among neighborhoods, encourage volunteer participation, and expand free or low-cost gatherings to strengthen community connections.

Draft 1/12/26
218

91.85%

8.15%
Yes No
Q21. Are you a Mountain View resident?
Figure 82: Survey Respondents Residency (SurveyMonkey.com)

34.42%

64.50%

0.41% 0.68%

9.08%
Male Femal e Non-binary Prefer to sel f-
describe
Prefer not to
answer
Q20. Your gender identity:

Figure 81: Gender of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
219

14.91%

85.09%
Yes No
Q22. Are you or other members of your
household of Hispanic, Spanish, or
Latino/a/x ancestry?
Figure 84: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish, Latino/a/x (SurveyMonkey.com)

20.45%

16.44%

14.04%

10.16%

20.99%

17.91%
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31+
Q21a. How many years have you
lived in Mountain View?
Figure 83: Years Lived in Mountain View (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
220

23.63%

1.00% 0.50%

62.50%

0.38%

12.00%
As i an or As i an
Indian
Black or African
Ameri can
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Whi te or
Caucasian
Native Hawaiian
or other Paciﬁc
Islander
Other (pl ease
speci fy)
Q23. Which of the following best
describes your race?
Figure 85: Race of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com) Draft 1/12/26
221

9.3.7 SURVEY COMPARISON
The Survey Comparison Report provides a comprehensive analysis and comparison of findings from two significant surveys conducted for the City : the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the Online Community Survey via SurveyMonkey.

The objective of these surveys was to gather insightful feedback from the city's residents and park users, aiming to understand their satisfaction levels, preferences, and expectations regarding park facilities, programs, and services offered by the City.

The ETC Statistically Valid Survey, recognized for its rigorous methodology and representative sampling, offers a detailed snapshot of community sentiment and perceptions, providing statistically reliable results.

Conversely, the Online Community Survey, f acilitated through SurveyMonkey, allowed for broader participation, enabling a wide range of stakeholders to express their opinions and preferences.

By comparing the insights gathered from both surveys, this report aims to highlight common trends, divergences, and unique perspectives that emerged from the different methodologies employed. Such a comparative analysis is crucial for the City’s strategic planning and decision -making processes, ensuring that both the statistically significant viewpoints and the broader community feedback are considered in shaping the future of the City's offerings.

Statistically Valid Survey
• 450 households (Goal of 450)
• Precision rate of at least +/- 4.6% at
the 95% level of confidence
• Residents were able to return the
survey by mail, by phone or
completing it online
• Only scientific and defensible
method to understand community
needs
•Translation services available in
multiple languages including Spanish.

Online Community Survey
• 1,371 responses
• No precision rate or level of
confidence due to there being no
selection criteria for respondents
• Questionnaire identical to the
Statistically Valid Survey
• Provides further insight on
community expectations
• Administered in English, Spanish,
Mandarin and Russian
Draft 1/12/26
222

The following shows a side-by-side comparison of key results from each survey by question.

DEMOGRAPHICS
In the demographic section of this report, we analyze the community demographics served by the City based on responses from the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the Online Community Survey via SurveyMonkey. Due to ETC’s approach of random sampling and ensuring a 95% level of confidence and a margin of error of +/- 5%, their survey results more accurately reflect the community’s demographics and are statistically reliable in comparison to online only surveys.

We examine respondent demographics such as age, gender, tenure in Mountain View, and race to gain insights into the community's composition. Our findings are compared with the 2023 demographic estimates from The Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) to understand how the survey data aligns with broader demographic trends.

Full demographic data can be found in Section 3.3.

AGE
Table 27: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Household Ages

Ages 0-19 26% 20% 22%
Ages 20-34 14% 10% 23%
Ages 35-54 32% 28% 30%
Ages 55-74 22% 24% 19%
Ages 75+ 6% 18% 6%

The most significant differences are in the 20-34 age group, where the ETC Survey reports 9% fewer and the SurveyMonkey 13% fewer than city demographics. Additionally, the SurveyMonkey survey overrepresents the 75+ age group by 12%. Smaller but notable discrepancies include the 55-74 age group, with the Online Community Survey showing 5% more than city demographics. These variations highlight the importance of survey methodology in accurately reflecting community demographics.

Draft 1/12/26
223

GENDER
Table 28: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Gender.

Female 50% 65% 51%
Male 49% 34% 49%
Non-Binary 1% 1% 0%
The SurveyMonkey survey included 65% female respondents, compared to 50% in the ETC survey and 51% in the city’s demographics. Male respondents made up 34% of the SurveyMonkey survey, which is 15% lower than both the ETC survey and city demographics (each at 49%). Non-binary respondents represented 1% in both surveys and 0% in city data. These differences highlight how online-only survey methods can produce samples that may not accurately reflect the community’s demographic composition.

YEARS LIVED IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Table 29: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Years Lived in Mountain View

0-5 19% 20%
6-10 14% 16%
11-15 12% 14%
16-20 10% 10%
21-30 22% 21%
31+ 21% 18%
The ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey show similar results for years lived in Mountain View by respondents. In the 6-10 years category, the ETC survey reports 14%, which is 2% lower than the SurveyMonkey survey's 16%.

For the 11-15 years category, the ETC survey shows 12%, 2% lower than the SurveyMonkey survey's 14%. In the 31+ years category, the ETC survey reports 21%, which is 3% higher than the SurveyMonkey survey's 18%.

Draft 1/12/26
224

RACE/ETHNICITY
Table 30: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Race.

White Alone 46% 63% 40%
Black Alone 2% 1% 2%
American Indian 1% 1% 1%
Asian 33% 24% 37%
Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0%
Some Other Race 3% 12% 9%
Two or More Races N/A N/A 12%
Hispanic (Ethnicity) 18% 15% 18%
The SurveyMonkey survey significantly overrepresents White Alone respondents at 63%, which is 23% higher than the city demographics (40%) and 17% higher than the ETC survey (46%).

For the Asian population, the ETC survey reports 33%, closer to the city demographics (37%) than the SurveyMonkey survey (24%). Additionally, the SurveyMonkey survey reports 12% for Some Other Race, which is 3% higher than city demographics (9%) and much higher than the ETC survey (3%).

These discrepancies underscore the reliability of the ETC survey in providing a more accurate reflection of the city's racial and ethnic composition.

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
In comparing the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey to the city demographics from ESRI, it is evident that the ETC survey more accurately reflects the city's demographic composition:

Age:
• The SurveyMonkey survey overrepresents the 75+ age group by 12%. • The 20-34 age group is underrepresented in both surveys, with the ETC reporting 9% fewer and SurveyMonkey 13% fewer than city demographics.

Gender:
• The SurveyMonkey survey reports 65% female respondents, which is 14% lower than the city demographics (51%) and 15% higher than the ETC survey (50%). • For male respondents, the SurveyMonkey survey reports 34%, which is 15% lower than both the city demographics and the ETC survey (both at 49%). •
Race/Ethnicity:

Draft 1/12/26
225

• The SurveyMonkey survey significantly overrepresents White Alone respondents by 23% compared to city demographics.
• The Asian population is underrepresented in both surveys, with the ETC reporting 4% fewer and SurveyMonkey 13% fewer than city demographics.
• The SurveyMonkey survey overreports Some Other Race by 3%, compared to city demographics.

These discrepancies highlight that the ETC survey's figures for age, gender, and race/ethnicity are closer to the city's actual demographics, underscoring the importance of rigorous survey methodologies. The following results showcase the contrast and similarities between the two survey findings.

Visitation/Participation

HAVE YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD VISITED ANY CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKS AND/OR RECREATION FACILITIES DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS? Table 31: Comparison of Visitation to City Park/Recreation Facilities and Participation in Programs.

Visited parks and/or
recreation facilities in the
past 12 months
96% 98%
Participated in programs in
the past 12 months
41% 50%

HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU VISITED CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKS AND/OR RECREATION FACILITIES DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
Table 32: Comparison of Frequency of Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility.

5+ times a week 19% 29%
2-4 times a week 29% 33%
Once a week 19% 14%
1-3 times a month 19% 15%
Less than once a month 14% 8%

Draft 1/12/26
226

HOW MANY PROGRAMS OR EVENTS OFFERED BY THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HAVE YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATED IN DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS? Table 33: Comparison of Participation in City Recreation Programs.

1 program/event 31% 24%
2-3 programs/events 42% 53%
4-6 programs/events 20% 14%
7+ programs/events 7% 9%

The comparative analysis of visitation and participation data from the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the Online Community Survey via SurveyMonkey shows higher engagement among online respondents.

A greater proportion of SurveyMonkey respondents reported visiting parks and/or recreation facilities in the past 12 months (98% vs. 96%) and participating in programs (50% vs. 41%) compared to those surveyed by the ETC Institute.

The frequency of park visits reveals that SurveyMonkey participants visit recreation facilities more frequently, with 29% visiting 5+ times a week compared to 19% in the ETC survey. Additionally, 33% of online respondents reported visiting 2-4 times a week, slightly higher than the 29% reported in the ETC survey.

Participation in programs also differed, with more online respondents participating in 2-3 programs/events (53% vs. 42%) and slightly fewer participating in 1 program/event (24% vs. 31%).

These findings suggest that the online community survey might attract a more actively involved segment of the community, indicating a potential area of focus for targeted engagement and program development efforts.

PHYSICAL CONDITION/QUALITY

OVERALL, HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF ALL THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKS AND/OR RECREATION FACILITIES YOU HAVE VISITED? Table 34: Comparison of Quality of Parks/Recreation Facilities

Excellent 28% 26%
Good 61% 59%
Fair 10% 14%
Poor 1% 1%

Draft 1/12/26
227

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS OR EVENTS IN WHICH YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAS PARTICIPATED? Table 35: Comparison of Quality of Recreation Programs or Events.

The ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey show similar ratings for the physical condition of Mountain View parks and recreation facilities. Most respondents rated the facilities as either excellent or good, with 28% and 61% from the ETC survey and 26% and 59% from the SurveyMonkey survey, respectively. A small percentage rated the facilities as fair (10% ETC, 14% SurveyMonkey) or poor (1% in both surveys).

For the overall quality of programs or events, both surveys again show similar results. In the ETC survey, 35% rated the quality as excellent and 59% as good, compared to 32% and 61% in the SurveyMonkey survey.

Both surveys had 6% of respondents rating the quality as fair and 0% as poor.

These findings suggest a high level of satisfaction with both the physical condition of the facilities and the quality of the programs offered.

Excellent 35% 32%
Good 59% 61%
Fair 6% 6%
Poor 0% 0%

Draft 1/12/26
228

Barriers

REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLDS FROM VISITING CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES MORE OFTEN. (TOP FIVE RESPONSES) Table 36: Top Five Barriers to Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility.

REASONS THAT PREVENT YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD FROM PARTICIPATING IN CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS MORE OFTEN. (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
Table 37: Top Five Barriers to Participating in City Recreation Programs.

The comparison between the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey highlights several barriers preventing households from visiting Mountain View parks and recreation facilities more often.

The top barriers in both surveys include lack of shade (22% ETC, 29% SurveyMonkey) and lack of restrooms (20% ETC, 26% SurveyMonkey). Other notable barriers are the lack of desired amenities (17% ETC, 28% SurveyMonkey) and using parks/facilities in other areas (13% ETC, 17% SurveyMonkey).

Lack of shade (22%) Lack of shade (29%)
Lack of restrooms (20%) Lack of amenities we want to use (28%) Lack of amenities we want to use (17%) Lack of restrooms (26%) Use parks/facilities in other cities/county (13%) Use parks/facilities in other cities/county (17%) Too far from our home (12%) Too far from our home (14%)

Too busy/not interested (34%) Program times are not convenient (31%) I don’t know what is offered (23%) Too busy/not interested (29%) Program times are not convenient (22%) I don’t know what is offered (28%) The program I want is not offered (18%) The program I want is not offered (25%) Classes are full (12%) Classes are full (20%)

Draft 1/12/26
229

Distance from home is also a factor, with 12% in the ETC survey and 14% in the SurveyMonkey survey citing it as a reason.

For participation in City programs, the primary barriers include being too busy or not interested (34% ETC, 29% SurveyMonkey) and inconvenient program times (22% ETC, 31% SurveyMonkey).

A lack of awareness about what is offered is also significant (23% ETC, 28% SurveyMonkey), along with the unavailability of desired programs (18% ETC, 25% SurveyMonkey).

Lastly, full classes are a concern, with 12% in the ETC survey and 20% in the SurveyMonkey survey noting this issue. These insights suggest that the City should look at opportunities to expand capacity for full classes pending resources
Needs

NEED FOR RECREATION FACILITIES/AMENITIES BY PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO

INDICATED A NEED (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
Table 38: Top Five Facility/Amenity Needs.

Walking paths in parks (90%) Trees (99%)
Benches (89%) Walking paths in parks (98%)
Trees (88%) Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (paved or unpaved) (96%)
Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to
parks (88%)
Benches (96%)
Restrooms (88%) Large community parks (96%)

Draft 1/12/26
230

NEED FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES BY PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO

INDICATED A NEED (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
Table 39: Top Five Needs for Recreation Programs

The comparison between the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey reveals key needs for recreation facilities and amenities. Both surveys highlight a strong demand for walking paths in parks (90% ETC, 98% SurveyMonkey) and benches (89% ETC, 96% SurveyMonkey).

Trees are also a high priority, with 88% in the ETC survey and 99% in the SurveyMonkey survey. Other important amenities include bicycle and pedestrian access (88% ETC) and large community parks (96% SurveyMonkey).

For recreation programs and activities, community and cultural special events are the top need, with 63% of ETC respondents and 79% of SurveyMonkey respondents indicating a need.

Both surveys also show significant demand for adult fitness and wellness programs (49% ETC, 67% SurveyMonkey) and recreation swim (49% ETC, 66% SurveyMonkey). Exercise classes and cultural enrichment programs are also highly desired, though the SurveyMonkey survey indicates a slightly higher overall need for these programs.

Community and cultural special events (63%) Community and cultural special events (79%) Adult fitness and wellness programs (49%) Cultural enrichment programs (68%) Recreation swim (49%) Adult fitness and wellness programs (67%) Exercise classes (48%) Recreation swim (66%)
Cultural enrichment programs (47%) Exercise classes (63%)

Draft 1/12/26
231

Importance

FACILITIES/AMENITIES MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS BY PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS

WHO SELECTED THE ITEMS AS ONE OF THEIR TOP FIVE CHOICES (TOP FIVE RESPONSES) Table 40: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Facilities/Amenities.

PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS BY PERCENTAGE OF

RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED THE ITEMS AS ONE OF THEIR TOP FIVE CHOICES (TOP FIVE

RESPONSES)
Table 41: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Programs.

The comparison between the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey highlights key facilities and amenities that are most important to households. Both surveys rank multi-use hiking, biking, and walking trails highly (33% ETC, 29% SurveyMonkey). Re strooms and bicycle/pedestrian access are also top priorities in both surveys. The ETC survey emphasizes small neighborhood parks (20%), while the SurveyMonkey survey places importance on large community parks (25%) and trees (23%).

Multi‐use hiking, biking, walking trails (paved or
unpaved) (33%)
Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (paved or
unpaved) (29%)
Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to
parks (24%)
Large community parks (25%)
Restrooms (23%) Restrooms (24%)
Walking paths in parks (21%) Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to parks (24%)
Small neighborhood parks (20%) Trees (23%)

Community and cultural special events (23%) Community and cultural special events (27%) 55+ fitness and wellness programs (17%) 55+ fitness and wellness programs (23%) Recreation swim (16%) Adult fitness and wellness programs (22%) Adult fitness and wellness programs (16%) Recreation swim (19%) Water fitness programs/lap swimming (12%) Water fitness programs/lap swimming (17%)

Draft 1/12/26
232

For programs and activities, community and cultural special events are the top priority in both surveys (23% ETC, 27% SurveyMonkey). Both surveys also value 55+ fitness and wellness programs, with higher importance in the SurveyMonkey survey (17% ETC, 23% SurveyMonkey ). Recreation swim, adult fitness programs, and water fitness/lap swimming are important across both surveys, with the SurveyMonkey respondents indicating a slightly higher interest in these activities.

PRIORITY INVESTMENT RATING
The Priority Investment Rating (PIR), crafted by ETC Institute, serves as an analytical framework designed to assist agencies in objectively assessing where to focus their parks and recreation investment efforts.

This tool helps in pinpointing which facilities / park types / amenities and programs / offerings / activities the community views as most deserving of funding and development priority.

It evaluates the significance residents assign to various facilities / park types / amenities and programs / offerings / activities and their expressed unmet needs — aspects that are either partially addressed or completely overlooked, compared against the highest -rated facility/program. Recognizing the critical balance between addressing unmet needs and valuing the community's prioritization, the PIR assigns equal weight to these factors.

Each facility or program is then scored on a 0-200 scale, facilitating a comprehensive approach to guiding future investment decisions in parks and recreation projects.

More information regarding PIR can be found here.

Draft 1/12/26
233

PIR FOR FACILITIES/AMENITIES (TOP FIVE)
Table 42: Top Five Facilities/Amenities to Prioritize

Table 43: Top Five Programs to Prioritize.

PIR FOR PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES (TOP FIVE)
The comparison between the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey highlights the top priorities for investment in facilities and amenities. Both surveys indicate a strong preference for multi-use hiking, biking, and walking trails, with priority investment ratings of 177 in the ETC survey and 200 in the SurveyMonkey survey.

Restrooms are also a top priority in both surveys, with ratings of 170 (ETC) and 173 (SurveyMonkey). The SurveyMonkey respondents place higher importance on large community parks (178) and trees (172), whereas the ETC survey emphasizes shade structures (125) and shaded picnic areas (122).

For programs and activities, community and cultural special events are the highest priority in both surveys, with priority investment ratings of 175 (ETC) and 200 (SurveyMonkey). Adult fitness and wellness

Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (paved or
unpaved) (177)
Multi-use hiking, biking, walking trails (paved or
unpaved) (200)
Restrooms (170) Large community parks (178)
Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to
parks (139)
Restrooms (173)
Shade structures (125) Trees (172)
Shaded picnic areas (122) Bicycle and pedestrian access/connection to parks (167)

Community and cultural special events (175) Community and cultural special events (200) Adult fitness and wellness programs (167) Adult fitness and wellness programs (135) Recreation swim (159) Recreation swim (135)
Exercise classes (144) 55+ fitness and wellness programs (129) 55+ fitness and wellness programs (132) Water fitness programs/lap swimming (120)

Draft 1/12/26
234

programs and recreation swim also receive high ratings in both surveys. The ETC survey gives a slightly higher priority to exercise classes (144) and 55+ fitness programs (132), while the SurveyMonkey survey highlights water fitness programs/lap swimming ( 120) as a key area for investment. (see Actions 2.1.4,

2.1.5, and 2.1.6)

OVERALL PERCEPTIONS

WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO

PAY TO IMPROVE THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW'S SYSTEM WITH THE PARKS, TRAILS,

RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS YOU HAVE INDICATED ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO YOUR HOUSEHOLD?
Table 44: Comparison of Additional Tax Revenue Respondents Would be Willing to Pay.

The comparison of willingness to pay additional tax revenue to improve Mountain View's parks, trails, recreation facilities, and programs shows that a significant portion of respondents from both the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey are willing to contribute.

In both surveys, the highest percentage of respondents are willing to pay $9 or more per month (31% ETC, 35% SurveyMonkey). Other notable categories include $5 -$6 (20% ETC, 16% SurveyMonkey) and $3 -$4 (19% in both surveys).

A similar percentage of respondents in both surveys (21% ETC, 20% SurveyMonkey) indicated they are not willing to pay anything additional.

Per
Month

$9+ 31% 35%
$7-$8 9% 10%
$5-$6 20% 16%
$3-$4 19% 19%
Nothing 21% 20%

Draft 1/12/26
235

IF YOU HAD $100, HOW WOULD YOU ALLOCATE THE FUNDS AMONG THE PARKS AND RECREATION CATEGORIES? (TOP FIVE RESPONSES)
Table 45: How Respondents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Categories

When asked how they would allocate $100 among various parks and recreation categories, respondents from the ETC Statistically Valid Survey and the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey showed differing priorities. The ETC survey respondents prioritized improving and maintaining existing parks and recreation facilities ($25.36) and expanding existing indoor facilities ($18.29).

In contrast, SurveyMonkey respondents favored the acquisition and construction of new park land and open space ($27.85) and improvements to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities ($23.72).

Both surveys valued the expansion of program offerings ($13.00 ETC, $11.13 SurveyMonkey) and enhancing park landscaping with native and biodiverse plantings ($11.13 ETC, $13.52 SurveyMonkey), though to varying extents.

SUMMARY
Demographic Representation: The ETC Survey more accurately reflects community demographics in terms of age, gender, duration of stay in Mountain View, and race when compared to the Online Survey.

The Online Survey particularly overrepresented the 75+ age group and White demographic, while underrepresenting the 20-34 age group, females, and Asian populations.

Visitation/Participation: The Online Survey respondents reported higher engagement, with a greater proportion indicating they visited parks, used facilities, and participated in programs within the past 12 months compared to the ETC Survey respondents. This suggests that the online platform may attract a segment of the community more actively involved with City offerings.

Physical Condition/Quality: Respondents from both surveys rated the physical condition and quality of parks, facilities, and programs positively. Minor differences in perceptions were noted, suggesting overall satisfaction with the condition and quality of the City assets.

Improve/maintain existing parks and recreation
facilities ($25.36)
Acquisition and construction of new park land
and open space ($27.85)
Expand existing indoor facilities ($18.29) Improvements to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities ($23.72)
Develop new indoor facilities ($16.83) Add amenities to existing parks, pools, and recreation facilities ($20.65)
Expand program offerings ($13.00) Replace or enhance existing park landscaping with native and biodiverse plantings ($13.52)
Replace or enhance existing park landscaping
with native and biodiverse plantings ($11.13)
Expand program offerings ($11.13)

Draft 1/12/26
236

Barriers to Participation: Key barriers preventing more frequent visitation and participation included lack of shade, lack of restrooms, and inconvenient program times. The Online Survey also highlighted a lack of desired amenities and full classes as significant barriers.

Needs and Priorities: Walking paths, trees, and small neighborhood parks were among the top needs for facilities and amenities. Both surveys showed high demand for community and cultural special events and adult fitness and wellness programs. The Online Survey respondents showed a stronger need for large community parks and cultural enrichment programs.

Importance and Investment Priority: Multi-use hiking, biking, and walking trails, restrooms, and bicycle/pedestrian access were prioritized by both surveys. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) highlighted multi-use trails and community and cultural special events as top investment priorities, with slight variations in priorities between the two surveys.

Overall Perceptions and Investment Preferences: Both groups of respondents favored improving and maintaining existing facilities and developing new trails and indoor spaces. There was a significant willingness to pay additional tax revenue to improve the City's parks and recreation offerings, with a notable percentage of respondents willing to pay $9 or more per month.

The analysis highlights the ETC Statistically Valid Survey as the most accurate and reliable source for understanding community needs and preferences due to its rigorous methodology and representative sampling. While the SurveyMonkey Online Community Survey captures diverse opinions and fosters broad engagement, the ETC survey better reflects the City of Mountain View's entire demographic. This comparative analysis ensures that input is accurately weighted and validated for informed decision- making by City leadership and staff.

9.3.8 IMAGINEMVPARKS.COM
As part of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, the ImagineMVParks.com platform served as a key tool for public engagement and sharing information about the plan progress. The site successfully generated awareness and informed participation, with limited active engagement through the Ideas widget of the platform.

The below website data is from July 2024.

PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW
• Total Page Visits: 7,270
ENGAGEMENT LEVELS:
• Aware Participants (Visited the Page): 5,113
• Informed Participants (Viewed Content): 735
• Engaged Participants (Contributed): 157

KEY PUBLIC INPUT TRENDS
Leveraging the Ideas widget on the project website, website visitors were asked to “Share your ideas for the future of Mountain View’s parks and recreation facilities and programs.” This prompt created 76 Draft 1/12/26
237

ideas with 710 likes and 68 comments from a total of 149 contributors. These were the top 10 themes emphasized in these comments, in no particular order:

1. More Pedestrian and Bike Connectivity – Many responders want improved pathways connecting neighborhoods, parks, and amenities to encourage walking and biking over driving.

2. Equitable Park Access – There is a strong desire for parks in every neighborhood, particularly in underserved areas with fewer green spaces.

3. Pickleball and Multi-Use Recreation Spaces – The demand for dedicated pickleball courts and the ability to share fields/courts between multiple sports is a recurring theme.

4. Water and Restroom Facilities – Calls for more hydration stations, pet water bowls, and publicly accessible restrooms are frequent across multiple comments.

5. Sustainability and Native Landscaping – Many comments advocate for replacing grass with native plants, creating pollinator gardens, and increasing biodiversity to support wildlife.

6. Urban Forests and Shade Trees – Residents emphasize the need for increased tree canopy, both for shade, habitat and biodiversity, particularly along pathways and in playgrounds.

7. Linear Parks and Multi-Use Green Spaces – There is strong support for distributed green spaces, including linear parks along streets, medians, and existing corridors.

8. Dog Parks and Pet-Friendly Spaces – Calls for more off-leash dog parks, better maintenance of existing ones, and the conversion of informal off-leash areas into official spaces.

9. Enhanced Park Maintenance and Safety – Residents request improvements in park upkeep, including better waste management, less intrusive landscaping practices, and safer play areas.

10. Expanded Park Features and Amenities – Suggestions include splash pads, outdoor exercise equipment, bike parking, and creative elements like historical markers.

In addition to the Ideas widget, website visitors passively engaged with website content:
• 168 documents downloaded, indicating strong interest in official reports. • 130 visits to Key Dates page and 96 FAQ views, suggesting residents sought project updates.

KEY TAKEAWAYS & OPPORTUNITIES
• The open-ended Ideas tool was the most effective engagement feature, suggesting a preference for community-driven brainstorming.
• Users primarily consumed information rather than engaging interactively.

Overall, the ImagineMVParks platform played a valuable role in gathering insights on community priorities.

Draft 1/12/26
238

9.4 APPENDIX D - Staff Input
An integral part of the Public Input Summary is the insights gathered from an all-staff kick-off meeting held on August 22, 2023. Staff in attendance included all full-time and regular part-time employees for the Community Services Department, approximately 90 staff members in attendance. This session was designed to guide the team through the entirety of the strategic plan process. Not only did it serve as an informative walkthrough, but it also provided a platform for staff to voice their perspectives. They shared their insights on the Department's current strengths, identified potential opportunities, and expressed their views on what the foremost outcome of the Strategic Plan could be. The common themes from this foundational meeting are summarized below.

9.4.1 STRENGTHS
Staff Quality and Dedication: Numerous mentions such as "Amazing quality staff," "Caring staff," "Dedicated staff," "Willingness of staff," "Professionalism," and "Exceptional Customer Service" highlight the City’s strength in its personnel.

Parks and Facilities: Comments like "Accessibility of Parks," "Quality facilities and programs," "Well maintained," "Abundance of parks and open spaces," and "General cleanliness of parks" emphasize the quality, number, and maintenance of parks and facilities.

Program Diversity and Inclusivity: With mentions like "Variety of Programs," "Number of programs for all ages," "Offering diverse performances and events," "Provides inclusive activities," and "cross- generational programming," it's evident that the range and inclusivity of recreation programs are a significant strength.

Teamwork and Collaboration: Repeated mentions of "Teamwork," "Work as a team," "Collaboration," and "Team Effort," underscore the City’s collaborative spirit and team-oriented approach.

Communication and Community Engagement: Comments such as "Communication," "Great customer relations," "Community engagement," and "Diversity of the community coming together" highlight the City’s strength in communication and its positive relationship with the community.

9.4.2 OPPORTUNITIES
Staffing and Diversity: Feedback consistently highlighted opportunities to expand staffing and leadership. Comments such as “Need more staff,” “Better onboarding of new staff,” and “Support diverse staff” and enhance hiring practices point to the importance of creating a welcoming and inclusive workplace where new employees are effectively integrated and all staff feel supported.

Facility Upgrades and Expansion: Comments like "Better facilities," "Refurbish," "Remodel," "Physical Improvements," "Improve aging infrastructures," and "Updating 'weathered' facilities" suggest a need and opportunity for facility renovations and expansions.

Program Expansion and Inclusivity: Staff feedback pointed to a strong interest in expanding offerings and ensuring accessibility for all. Comments such as “Inclusion,” “Trying new programs,” and “Inclusion/Adaptive programming for folks with disabilities” highlight the need for both innovation and inclusive design. Other suggestions emphasized therapeutic recreation and the importance of programs that reflect the diverse needs of the community.

New Facilities and Features: Comments such as "Indoor Sports Center," "Splash Pad," "Sports complex," "Bike park," and "Waterpark for youth" indicate a desire for new and diverse recreational facilities and features.

Draft 1/12/26
239

Green Initiatives and Natural Resources: Feedback like "More fruit trees," "Better allocation of funds for natural resource programs," "More native plants/natural pollinators," "Clean energy for all equipment," "Tree planting," and "City green belt-walking and biking paths" suggests opportunities for the Department to invest in environmentally friendly initiatives and enhance natural resources.

9.4.3 PRIORITIES
Staffing and Appreciation: Numerous mentions such as "Staff to be appreciated," "More staffing," "Happy/prouder staff," "Hire more staff," and "Increase and diversify staff" emphasize the importance of recognizing, increasing, and supporting the staff.

Strategic Planning and Decision Making: Comments like "A plan that places value on the work of community services," "Data-based decision making," "A plan with a purpose," and "A plan for the community that is used/followed/implemented" highlight the need for a clear, actionable, and data- driven strategic plan.

Facility and Space Management: Feedback such as "Create more open space areas without buildings and concrete," "No sand in parks," "Upgrade our facilities," "More open space and less high-rise buildings," and "Five new parks bigger than a postage stamp" indicate priorities related to the development, maintenance, and enhancement of parks and facilities.

Inclusion and Diversity: Mentions like "What we offer is authentically inclusive, diverse, and accessible," and "Equity and inclusion in programs, staffing, and within the management team" underscore the importance of ensuring programs and staffing reflect the diverse needs and backgrounds of the community.

Programs and Offerings Enhancement: Comments such as "Better product for the community," "Special events staff-supervisor/coordinator/hourlies," "Enforcement of rules," "More affordable and accessible aquatic offerings and facilities," and "Multiple bike and skateparks accessible to kids" suggest a priority to improve and expand the range of programs and offerings provided by the City.

Draft 1/12/26
240

9.5 APPENDIX E - Prog ram Inventory
The Program Inventory, compiled in fall 2023, reflects all programs and services offered by the City over the previous 12 months across a variety of categories.

AQUATICS
Adult Swim Lessons American Red Cross Classes - Lifeguard, CPR & First Aid, Babysitter's
Birthday Party Rental Package (Rengstorff Only) Drop-In Water Exercise Friday Night Family Swim Lap Swim
Los Altos Mountain View Aquatics Club (LAMVAC) Mountain View Masters Multi-Purpose Room Rental (Rengstorff Only) Pool Rentals Recreation Swim Swim Lessons - Learn to Swim Levels 1-6 Swim Lessons - Parent & Tot Swim Lessons - Preschool Levels 1-3 Teen Lap Swim

ENRICHMENT
Adult Latin Dance STEM using Legos
STEM coding Community Gardens
Music & Arts Youth Dance Classes and Camps
Girl Scouts of Northern California Math Enrichment
Hai Chinese Sign Language
Filming Making, Special Effects Music Classes -Guitar, Keyboard Cooking Classes STEM Robotics
Science Classes and Camps Acting/Singing
Engineering using Legos Sailing, Windsurfing

FACILITY RESERVATIONS
Commercial Use Permits Cuesta Park Family BBQ Tables
Cuesta Park Large Group BBQ Area Field Rentals
General Use Notifications Gym Rentals
Historic Adobe Building Historic Rengstorff House
Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts Mountain View Community Center Mountain View Senior Center Rengstorff Park Family BBQ Tables Draft 1/12/26
241

Rengstorff Park Large Group BBQ Area

FITNESS AND WELLNESS
BollyX, POUND, Zumba classes Adult Yin Yoga, Restorative/Stretch Yoga classes Morning Yoga, Restorative Yoga classes Adult Pilates, NIA Dance classes Adult Bombay Jam classes

OUTDOOR EDUCATION
Barnyard Visiting Hours Deer Hollow Farm Wilderness Summer Camp Tots & Family Farm Tours DHF Special Events
School Year Classes

SENIOR PROGRAMMING
Clubs Drop-in Senior Center Programs
Lifelong Learning Classes Movie Series
Resource Fair Senior Advisory Committee
Senior Nutrition Program Social Services
Special Events Volunteer Classes
Workshops

SPECIAL EVENTS
Summer Outdoor Movie Night Series Community Tree Lighting Celebration Concerts on the Plaza Council Policy H-4 Plaza Use Permits Council Policy K-14 Special Event Permits Earth Day
Fourth of July Fireworks Harvest History Festival
KidStock Lunar New Year
Magical Bridge Performance Series Monster Bash
Multicultural Festival Music on Castro
National Night Out Together in Pride
Banner and Sound Amplification Permits Summer Camp Fair

Draft 1/12/26
242

SPORTS
Adult Drop-In Programs Adult Cornhole League
Adult Softball League Batting Cage Rental Program - Adult Ultimate Frisbee Adult volleyball classes
Youth Futsal classes/camps Youth soccer classes/camps
Youth basketball, volleyball classes/camps Youth skateboarding camps Youth soccer, basketball, volleyball, baseball, flag
football, track & field classes/camps
Tennis - Adult Group Lessons
Tennis - Camps Tennis - Court Rentals
Tennis - Private Lessons Tennis - Youth Group Lessons
Youth martial arts classes

VOLUNTEER
Citywide Volunteer Services Deer Hollow Farm Docent
Deer Hollow Farm Interns Deer Hollow Farm Livestock Volunteer Junior Leader Program Junior Lifeguard Program
Rengstorff House Docent Santa Letters
Senior Center Volunteers Special Events
Teen Center Activity Leader Teen Center Tutor
Habitat restoration and Vegetation Maintenance
at Shoreline
Volunteer Fair
Volunteer Ushers at Performing Arts Centers

YOUTH AND TEEN PROGRAMMING
Beyond The Bell-Afterschool Program Breakfast with Santa Club Rec Elite Camp Club Rec H20 Adventures Camp
Club Rec Juniors Camp Club Rec Seniors Camp
Club Rec Spring Break Camp Club Rec Winter Wonderland Camp Find Your Fit: Teen Career Day Parents Night Out-preschool aged Preschool Enrichment Classes Preschool-Astro Kids Summer Camp Preschool-Busy Bees Summer Camp Preschool-Nature Playschool Preschool-Playschool Preschool-Tot Time
Draft 1/12/26
243

Santa's Workshop Teen College Tours
Teen Enrichment Classes Teen Enrichment Trips
Teen Job Fairs and Find Your Fit Teen Open Gym
Teen Wellness Retreat The Beat-After School Program
The View Teen Center Drop-In The View Teen Center Special Events The View Teen Center: Adulting 101 Workshops The View Teen Center: AfterHours The View Teen Center: Bike To Boba Youth Advisory Committee

Draft 1/12/26

244

9.6 APPENDIX F – Park Assessment Scoring
This scoring memo was used as a guide in determining a score for key metrics during the Park Assessment by WRT.

General Information
Park Name
Score Categories
Access and Connectivity
Condition
Functionality
Safety and Comfort
Scoring Instructions
All items should be scored on a 1 to 10 scale
Poor (0 - 4.0)
Fair (4.1 - 6.0)
Good (6.1 – 8.0)
Great (8.1 – 10)
Access and Connectivity
Signage and Wayfinding
Quality of signage relative to ‘control park’ for each park type. Locations of sign, wayfinding will be evaluated.

1. No park signage

5. Entrance sign and minimal secondary signs, limited information

10. Well-designed signage system – unobtrusive, understandable Edge Permeability

1. Entrances/Access obscured

5. Entrances/Access defined - not noticeable beyond 100 yards

10. Entrances/Access clearly defined - able to be distinguished from a significant distance or multiple entrances not inhibiting access
Universal Design and Connectivity
Only visual analysis will be conducted.

1. Very poor universally accessible circulation condition

5. Limited universally accessible circulation or in moderate condition

10. Extensive universally accessible circulation to all major park areas

Draft 1/12/26
245

Presence of Safe Pedestrian Crossings
(n/a when park entrance is located along a very small, low-traffic, quiet street)

1. Unsafe crossing relative to street width/traffic volume

5. Standard crossing treatment present

10. Crossing treatment prioritizes pedestrian and/or is directly integrated into park circulation Sidewalks and Surrounding Circulation

1. No sidewalks/ Park entrances don’t connect to external circulation/activity areas

5. Sidewalks present/ Park entrances in vicinity of external circulation/activity areas

10. Sidewalks integrated into and enhance park circulation/ Park entrances directly relate to/act as extensions of external circulation/activity areas
Path Connectivity Within Park

1. Pathways circuitous/confusing, missing connections

5. Pathways adequate

10. Destinations clearly connected and intuitive - circulation very easy to understand Parking
Parking to be evaluated per park type. Community parks could include on-site parking, school fields to have shared parking, neighborhood parks could have on-site or adjacent street parking. Parking to be evaluated based on connectivity between parking and park elements.

1. Insufficient parking, very poor connectivity

5. Adequate parking, adequate connectivity

10. Sufficient parking and connectivity
Accessible by Bike Route and Adequate Bike Parking
Bike parking quantity per size of park and appropriately located.

1. No marked bike route connecting near park (within 100 yards), no bike parking observed on site

5. Adequate bike route connects directly to park (Class II, III, or IV), bike parking observed / but not conveniently located or adequate

10. Safe, low-stress bike route connects directly to park (Class I , IV/ Fully Separated), ample bike parking for park and neighboring areas
Connectivity to Adjacent Open Space / Trail
Parks not adjacent to open space or trail will not be rated. Evaluated using GIS data and verify with Google Earth.

1. Park adjacent to open space but lacking connection/trail

5. Park adjacent to open space with minimal connection to trail

10. Park well integrated to adjacent open space with trail connections

Draft 1/12/26
246

Public Transportation Nearby

1. No public transportation within ¼ mile

5. Public transportation within ¼ mile (walkable)

10. Public transportation within 5-minute walk
Condition
Hardscape Condition
Potholes / cracks, looser pavers, deterioration, overall attractiveness, and relevance.

1. Poor condition, tripping concerns, not in appropriate locations

5. Fair condition, in appropriate locations

10. Excellent condition and in appropriate locations
Vegetation Condition
No overgrown grass or dirt patches, overall maintenance of planted areas, appropriate pruning, presence of weeds.

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Tree Canopy
Ample amount of distribution throughout site and overall attractiveness

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Recreation Amenities Condition
Equipment condition (broken/protruding parts, rust), mulch, rubber, etc. Relevance of play equipment, variety of play equipment. Cracks, weeds, low spots, lighting, equipment condition.

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Buildings / Facilities
Only parks with a restroom / building will be evaluated. Usable (not locked), sufficient provision for scale of the park, reasonably maintained (no severe maintenance issues)

1. No effective restrooms (not provided for larger parks, inaccessible or strongly undesirable due to cleanliness concerns)

5. Adequate restrooms

10. Well provisioned for the site – bathrooms as amenities

Draft 1/12/26
247

Lighting Condition and Availability
Fixture condition (broken/protruding parts, rust, cracking, graffiti/vandalism)

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Trash Receptacles Condition and Availability
Fixture condition (broken/protruding parts, rust, cracking, graffiti/vandalism)

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Seating / Benches Availability and Condition
Fixture condition (broken/protruding parts, rust, cracking, graffiti/vandalism)

1. Poor condition

5. Fair condition

10. Excellent condition
Functionality
Diversity of Activities / Uses
Variety of amenities serving different user types characterized by interests, age groups, passive/active activities

1. Few amenities and programming available for users.

5. Standard programming, such as playground, seating, area, and lawn are available.

10. Diversity of passive/active activities, serving people of different ages, and different interests.

Appropriate Amenity Adjacencies
Are amenities placed in a logical and balanced way to minimize any disruption

1. Amenities are not logically placed

5. Amenities are somewhat logically placed

10. All amenity areas are placed in the most logical place on site Distribution of shady and sunny areas
Ample amount of distribution of shade on site through evergreen tree canopy or shade structures.

Evaluation will prioritize use zones.

1. No consistent shade present on site

5. Moderate but limited amount of shade on site

10. Ample shade with variety of uses available on site

Draft 1/12/26
248

Compatibility with neighbors
Privacy from park, presence of high noise recreation activity near residences, non-compatible adjacent uses like industrial

1. Adjacent uses are not appropriate

5. Adjacent uses could raise concerns

10. Adjacent uses are appropriate
Safety and Comfort
Traffic Calming
For parks adjacent to higher speed roads, parks on calm neighborhood streets will not be evaluated.

1. No traffic calming measure – excessive traffic speed common

5. Limited traffic calming measures on higher trafficked streets

10. Well integrated and designed traffic calming measures that successfully slow traffic Mitigation of Views / Noise from Surrounding Land Uses
Effective mitigation of unappealing surrounding land uses, such as industrial facilities, derelict structures, etc. (n/a if no such adjacent uses)

1. Park does not mitigate unappealing surrounding land uses or noise

5. Park has some screening of unappealing surrounding land uses or noise

10. Park completely screens unappealing surrounding land uses, unappealing surroundings or noise imperceptible
Graffiti and Vandalism

1. Significant signs of graffiti, vandalism, or purposely broken furniture

5. Some signs of graffiti, vandalism, or purposely broken furniture

10. No signs of graffiti, vandalism, or purposely broken furniture Evidence of Illicit or Unauthorized Use
Illicit uses such as evidence of camping, littering, graffiti

1. Active evidence of illicit uses, camping, or vacancy

5. Trace evidence of illicit uses

10. No evidence of illicit uses
Line of Sight / Openness
Evaluation will only apply to use zones of park, i.e., parks next to open spaces or creeks will not be negatively scored by the presence of taller/un-maintained vegetation.

1. Overgrown vegetation within 3’-8’, or hidden areas present near use zones

5. Some overgrown vegetation but generally open near use zones within 3’-8’

10. No overgrown vegetation inhibiting clear sightlines through park within 3’-8’ “Eyes on the Park”
Draft 1/12/26
249

Evaluation of park edges for natural surveillance and amount of activation through sidewalks, neighboring use, stoop conditions, walls.

1. Poor edge condition activation

5. Moderate edge condition activation

10. 5- Excellent edge condition activation

Draft 1/12/26
250

9.6.1 PARK ASSESSMENT OVERALL SCORE SUMMARY
Table 46: Park Assessment Overall Score Summary for City Parks and Trails Park Name Park
Classification
Access and
Connectivity
Score
Condition
Score
Functionality
Score
Safety and
Comfort Score
Overall
Rating
Shoreline at Mountain
View Regional Park 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.7 6.4
Shoreline Athletic Fields Regional Park 7.2 7.7 7.2 7.6 7.4 Charleston Park Community Park 8.6 7.7 7.2 8.9 8.1
Cuesta Park Community Park 6.1 6.8 7.2 7.1 6.8
Eagle Park Community Park 6.7 7.0 6.8 8.6 7.3
Rengstorff Park Community Park 6.7 5.6 6.0 7.4 6.4
Sylvan Park Community Park 6.8 7.3 7.0 8.0 7.3
Bubb Park Neighborhood Park 6.2 5.8 5.6 8.0 6.4
Fayette Greenway Neighborhood Park 6.2 6.6 5.4 7.3 6.4
Heritage Park Neighborhood Park 6.4 6.7 8.0 6.4 6.9
Klein Park Neighborhood Park 6.0 5.9 6.6 7.0 6.4
McKelvey Ball Park Neighborhood Park 6.4 7.3 7.8 7.3 7.2 Pioneer Park Neighborhood Park 7.1 8.7 7.6 8.8 8.0
Pyramid Park Neighborhood Park 8.4 8.3 8.6 9.4 8.7
San Veron Park Neighborhood Park 6.0 6.1 7.0 7.6 6.7
Chetwood Park Mini Park 6.7 6.0 4.6 9.3 6.6
Creekside Park Mini Park 7.5 6.6 5.6 6.6 6.6
Dana Park Mini Park 6.9 4.0 6.6 8.6 6.5
Del Medio Park Mini Park 6.8 6.6 6.8 8.6 7.2
Devonshire Park Mini Park 7.5 6.1 6.4 8.3 7.1
Evandale Park Mini Park 7.3 8.4 8.0 9.6 8.3
Fairmont Park Mini Park 6.0 6.3 6.6 8.8 6.9
Fayette Park Mini Park 7.0 8.9 7.4 7.8 7.8
Gemello Park Mini Park 6.9 5.4 6.4 7.5 6.6
Jackson Park Mini Park 7.4 5.5 7.8 8.5 7.3
Magnolia Park Mini Park 7.4 5.9 6.6 9.0 7.2
Mariposa Park Mini Park 8.5 6.7 8.2 8.1 7.9
Mercy-Bush Park Mini Park 7.0 6.9 7.6 8.8 7.6
Mora Park Mini Park 7.3 8.3 6.6 9.3 7.9
Rex-Manor Park Mini Park 5.2 4.6 5.4 7.5 5.7
Schaefer Park Mini Park 6.4 7.3 7.8 7.3 7.2
Sierra Vista Park Mini Park 6.2 5.9 5.8 8.6 6.6
Thaddeus Park Mini Park 5.6 5.7 4.8 8.1 6.0
Varsity Park Mini Park 5.8 5.6 5.6 8.8 6.4
Wyandotte Park Mini Park 7.3 7.4 8.4 8.8 8.0
Bay Trail Trail 5.6 6.0 6.7 9.3 6.9
Hetch Hetchy Trail Trail 6.5 5.4 6.0 9.2 6.8
Permanente Creek Trail Trail Corridor 6.2 4.2 5.3 8.7 6.1 Stevens Creek Trail Trail Corridor 5.6 6.8 6.0 8.3 6.7
Draft 1/12/26
251

Figure 86: Access and Connectivity Score Summary of City Parks and Trails Figure 1: Access and Connectivity Score Summary (City Parks and Trails)

Draft 1/12/26
252

Figure 87: Access and Connectivity Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
253

Access and Connectivity Highest and Lowest Scoring Parks

HIGHEST SCORING PARK - MARIPOSA (GREAT)
Mariposa Park can be regarded as the benchmark for Access + Connectivity. The parks’ interior connectivity and exterior connectivity to the community is excellent. The park is directly adjacent to a quiet residential street and cul de sac, and its paths meet the surrounding sidewalks. The path network, in the shape of a butterfly, connects the various amenities and strengthens the park narrative. The path is accessible and ADA picnic tables are available. Public transportation is located three minutes walking to the park, and three bike racks are located at the front of the park.

Well-connected and accessible paths at Mariposa Park
LOWEST SCORING PARK – REX MANOR PARK (FAIR)
Rex Manor Park scored low for Access and Connectivity. The park is located over a 10-minute walk from the nearest bus stop, and although it is close to an informal and formal bike network, there is no place to park bikes on site. Some portions of the sidewalk, surrounding and inside the park, are in poor condition. A crosswalk leads directly into the park; ivy grows on the fencing. However, the entry could be improved with more signage and vibrant plantings.

Entry at Rex Manor Park has no signage and outdated planting

Draft 1/12/26
254

Figure 88: Condition Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
255

Figure 89: Condition Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
256

Condition Highest and Lowest Scoring Parks
HIGHEST SCORING PARK – PIONEER PARK (GREAT)
Pioneer Park scored the highest for condition. Its amenities and landscape features – rock garden and sculpture - are in great condition. Trashcans are consistently placed along the path. Seat walls and benches show only a few scratches. The planting includes healthy and large trees, and a high volume of groundcovers and shrubs.

Pioneer Park is planted with many healthy, mature trees and a variety of understory planting. Its amenities are in great condition.

LOWEST SCORING PARKS – DANA PARK (POOR)
Dana Park scored low because of its lack of trashcans, and benches. The dirt path is uneven and muddy in some parts. There is ample tree canopy, and some groundcover vegetation, albeit lacking in variety.

The park has no recreational amenities or playground, so these elements were not scored for condition.

The path at Dana Park is unpaved, and there are few amenities and facilities.

Draft 1/12/26
257

Figure 90: Functionality Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
258

Figure 91: Functionality Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
259

Functionality Highest and Lowest Scoring Parks
HIGHEST SCORING PARKS – PYRAMID PARK (GREAT)
Pyramid Park offers many amenities, for various user types and age groups. More passive amenities are located on the side of the park close to neighbors, so cause little disturbance. Once mature, the newly planted trees will provide well-distributed shade at edges and at the basketball court. The large park serves the adjacent community well, and a few families are using the park even in the early morning.

Diversity of uses and good distribution of trees at Pyramid Park.

LOWEST SCORING PARK – CHETWOOD PARK (FAIR)
Chetwood Park offers few amenities – a few picnic tables, lawn, and benches. The single path is located uncomfortably close to the front door of residences. Benches face the residences instead of the park.

Chetwood Park has few amenities, and the main path is located very close to the neighbors.

Draft 1/12/26
260

Figure 92: Safety and Comfort Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
261

Figure 93: Safety and Comfort Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
262

Safety and Comfort Highest and Lowest Scoring Parks
HIGHEST SCORING PARKS – EVANDALE PARK (GREAT)
Evandale Park is in a peaceful residential neighborhood, and open to apartment complexes on three of its edges. The park is small and has an open layout in which no amenities are obscured by vegetation coverage or other impediments.

An open layout surrounded by an active edge at Evandale Park

LOWEST SCORING PARK – HERITAGE PARK (GOOD)
Heritage Park scored Good in this category, showing it meets many expectations and offers a positive experience to its users, though it scored lower than the other parks in Mountain View for safety and comfort. The park is located next to a busy road without road calming measures near the entrance of the park.

Furthermore, due to the length of the park and the presence of the historic building in the middle of the site, visibility to the back of the park is limited. Since the road frontage is the only access to the park, it creates a limited line of sight into the park.

A historical building divides the front of the site from the back, impeding “line of sight” and a sense of safety.

Draft 1/12/26
263

Figure 94: Overall Park Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
264

Figure 95: Overall Score Summary of City Parks and Trails

Draft 1/12/26
265

9.7 APPENDIX G – Park Acres and Amenities by Planning Area

9.7.1 PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTIONS
The following summaries provide an overview of each Planning Area, highlighting key geographic features, land use patterns, and considerations related to park access and recreational needs.

1. Central (12,391 acres) - The Central Planning Area encompasses the heart of Mountain View, including much of the Downtown core and surrounding neighborhoods. Bounded by El Camino Real to the south and Central Expressway to the north, this area is characterized by a mix of high-density residential, commercial, and civic uses, including Castro Street’s retail corridor and City Hall. While Central contains several mini parks and benefits from school field access and an aquatics facility, it falls below the City’s park land goal and relies in part on school sites for certain amenities, including athletic fields. Transportation barriers such as Central Expressway and Caltrain reduce effective walking access in some locations, reinforcing the need for additional neighborhood-serving park space and improved pedestrian connections. Planned mini park development will help address localized gaps, but continued investment will be needed to meet growing demand associated with higher residential density.

2. Grant (5,931 acres) - Located in the southern portion of the city, the Grant Planning Area is predominantly residential, with a mix of low-density residential and limited commercial use. It is bordered by the City of Los Altos to the south and City of Sunnyvale to the east, and includes portions of Grant Road and Phyllis Avenue. The area has no mini parks or community parks and is highly reliant on school fields for park access, including playgrounds, sports fields, and baseball diamonds. While overall per-capita acreage is higher due to lower housing density, access is uneven, with portions of the area falling outside the 10-minute walk when school fields or transportation barriers are considered. Future investments should focus on enhancing neighborhood-level amenities, improving access to existing open spaces, and addressing gaps in picnic and gathering facilities.

3. Miramonte (11,087 acres)- Miramonte occupies the south-western part of Mountain View, bordered by the City of Los Altos to the west and the Grant Planning Area to the east. This Planning Area is largely low-intensity residential, including residential neighborhoods along Miramonte Avenue and with higher- intensity residential/mixed-use development south of El Camino Real. The area exceeds the City’s park land goal and includes several larger parks with a good distribution of picnic amenities. However, Miramonte also relies on school sites for a portion of its athletic fields, and small pockets fall outside the 10-minute walk when barriers are considered. Maintaining park quality while improving safe access and connectivity will be important as surrounding areas experience incremental growth.

4. North Bayshore (988 acres)- North Bayshore Planning Area is Mountain View’s largest geographic Planning Area by land area, located north of Highway 101. It is home to Shoreline at Mountain View regional park, major employers including Google, Intuit and NASA Ames, and extensive wetlands and open space. While park acreage is substantial, much of it serves regional, ecological, or trail functions rather than neighborhood-scale daily use. The population of this Planning Area is low and could increase significantly if housing identified in the North Bayshore Precise Plan is developed. Portions of the area remain outside the 10-minute walk assessment due to size and limited internal connectivity, highlighting the importance of trail extensions and access improvements as employment and residential activity continues to evolve.

5. Rengstorff (6,871 acres)- The Rengstorff Planning Area lies just south of Highway 101. The area is a mix of light industrial and residential uses with dense residential neighborhoods along Rengstorff Avenue. It is bounded by Central Expressway to the south and Highway 101 to the north. The area has no community park and limited overall park acreage, placing it below the City’s park land goal. When Draft 1/12/26
266

transportation barriers are considered, additional portions of the area fall outside comfortable walking access to parks. With continued residential intensity and limited existing park space, Rengstorff represents a priority area for targeted investment, improved connections, and potential future park development.

6. San Antonio (14,752 acres) - Situated in the southwestern part of Mountain View, San Antonio is a rapidly evolving area with significant residential and commercial development near San Antonio Road.

This Planning Area is bounded by Central Expressway to the north, El Camino Real to the south, the City of Palo Alto to the west, and Rengstorff Avenue to the east. San Antonio is a rapidly evolving Planning Area with significant residential and commercial development concentrated near San Antonio Road.

While the area benefits from major recreational facilities clustered at Rengstorff Park—including aquatics, tennis courts, pickleball courts, a skate park, and a fenced dog park—future growth is expected to increase demand for park access citywide and within surrounding neighborhoods. Currently planned neighborhood park development and joint-use opportunities will play a key role in supporting this growth, alongside continued emphasis on connectivity and equitable access.

7. Stierlin (9,979 acres)- Stierlin is centrally located between the Whisman, Central and Rengstorff Planning Areas, bordered by Middlefield Road to the north, Rengstorff Avenue to the west, Central Expressway to the south and Highway 85 to the east. Land use within the area comprises a mix of residential, light industrial, and commercial uses, with an increasing number of new housing developments. The area has no community parks and relies on school fields for several athletic amenities, placing it below the City’s park land goal. When school fields are excluded and transportation barriers are considered, portions of Stierlin fall outside the 10-minute walk to a park. Currently planned neighborhood park projects will add acreage and help address service gaps, but continued focus on access, distribution, and amenity diversity will be essential as residential density increases.

8. Sylvan-Dale (7,778 acres)- The Sylvan-Dale Planning Area is located along the eastern edge of Mountain View and includes neighborhoods along Sylvan Avenue, Dale Avenue, and areas near Highway

85. The Planning Area is predominantly residential, with a mix of housing types and a limited supply of park land, consisting of only two parks that provide a small number of playground and neighborhood- serving amenities. Overall park acreage in Sylvan-Dale falls below the City’s park land goal, and when major transportation corridors such as Highway 85 are considered, portions of the area fall outside a comfortable 10-minute walk to a park. As a result, park access, connectivity, and opportunities to enhance or expand neighborhood-scale park space remain key planning considerations for this area.

9. Thompson (2,671 acres)- Thompson is one of Mountain View’s smallest and least populated Planning Areas, located just south of Rengstorff Planning Area and bound by Central Expressway to the south, North Rengstorff Avenue to the east and the City of Palo Alto border to east. The area contains small residential clusters along with limited commercial development. Due to its constrained size and lower population, existing park acreage is minimal. The area relies heavily on school fields for access to playgrounds, fields, and baseball diamonds, and approximately half of the Planning Area falls outside the 10-minute walk when school sites are excluded and transportation barriers are considered. The City has recently acquired properties within this Planning Area to establish a new park for the neighborhood and improved access to adjacent areas may further help meet local recreational needs. This area remains a focus for park expansion.

10. Whisman - Whisman is located west of Downtown and includes a mix of housing, office parks, and light industrial uses. Bounded by Highway 85, Central Expressway, and Highway 101, the area has seen recent residential growth. The area contains several mini parks and school fields but no community park, and access varies across the Planning Area. Portions of Whisman fall outside the 10-minute walk assessment when school fields are excluded or transportation barriers are considered. Anticipated Draft 1/12/26
267

growth associated with East Whisman Precise Plan zoning updates and planned development will increase demand for park amenities, making strategic investment and improved access a key consideration moving forward.

Figure 96: Park Land Planning Areas Map

Draft 1/12/26

268

9.7.2 PARK ACRES BY PLANNING AREA

Table 47: Park Acres by Planning Area
Planning Area 2020
Population
Estimate
Park/School Site Name Park Type Total
Open Space
Acres
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
City
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
MVWSD
Adjusted
Open Space
Acres
Acres per 1,000
Residents
Using Adjusted
Acres
Central 12,391 Castro School Field
Dana Park
Eagle Park and Pool
Fairmont Park
Landels School Field
Mariposa Park
Mercy-Bush Park
Pioneer Park
School Field
Mini
Community
Mini
School Field
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
Sub-total

2.04 0.41

6.92 0.37

4.17 0.62

0.66 3.39

18.58 0

0.41 6.92

0.37 0

0.62 0.66

3.39 12.39

2.04 0
0 0

4.17 0
0 0

6.21 1.25

0.41 6.92

0.37 2.55

0.62 0.66

3.39 16.17

1.30 Grant 5,931 Cooper Park
Imai School Field
Neighborhood/School Field
School Field
Sub-total

11.69 3.92

15.61 4.94
0 4.94

6.75 3.92

10.67 11.69

2.40 14.09

2.63 Miramonte 11,087 Gemello Park
Bubb Park
Bubb School Field
Cuesta Park and Annex
Graham School/Athletic Field
McKelvey Ball Park
Schaefer Park
Varsity Park
Mini
Neighborhood
School Field
Community
School Field
Neighborhood
Mini
Mini
Sub-total

0.49 3.56

3.86 37.81

9.55 4.72

0.57 0.46

61.02 0.49

3.56 0

37.81 0

4.72 0.57

0.46 47.61
0 0

3.86 0

9.55 0
0 0

13.41 0.49

3.56 2.36

37.81 5.48

4.72 0.57

0.46 55.45

5.00 Draft 1/12/26
269

Planning Area 2020
Population
Estimate
Park/School Site Name Park Type Total
Open Space
Acres
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
City
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
MVWSD
Adjusted
Open Space
Acres
Acres per 1,000
Residents
Using Adjusted
Acres
North
Bayshore
988

Charleston Park and Plaza
Shoreline at Mountain View
Stevens Creek Trail
Permanente Creek Trail
Community
Regional
Trail Corridor
Trail Corridor
Sub-total

6.76 789.5

50.2 1.97
857.43

6.76 798.5

50.2 1.97
857.43
0 0
0 0
0 6.76
172

50.2 1.97
230.93
233.73

Rengstorff 6,817 Sierra Vista Park
Heritage Park
Wyandotte Park
Mini
Neighborhood
Mini
Sub-total

0.81 1.21

0.90 2.92

0.81 1.21

0.90 2.92
0 0
0 0

0.81 1.21

0.90 2.92

0.43 San Antonio 14,752 Del Medio Park
Klein Park
Rengstorff Park
Fayette Greenway
Mora Park
Fayette Park
Mini
Neighborhood
Community
Neighborhood
Mini
Mini
Sub-total

0.37 1.31

22.63 1.30

0.43 0.52

26.56 0.37

1.31 22.63

1.30 0.45

0.52 26.56
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0.37

1.31 22.63

1.30 0.43

0.52 26.56

1.80 Stierlin 9,979 Crittenden School/Athletic Field
Jackson Park
Rex-Manor Park
San Veron Park
Stevenson School Field
School Field
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
School Field
Sub-total

10.30 0.82

0.41 2.10

6.78 20.41
0 0.77

0.41 2.10

1.10 4.38

10.3 0
0 0

5.62 15.92

6.73 0.82

0.41 2.10

4.15 14.21

1.42 Draft 1/12/26
270

Community
Mini
Sub-total

9.28 0.68

9.96 9.28

0.68 9.96
0 0
0 9.28

0.68 9.96

1.28 Thompson 2,671 Monta Loma School Field
Thaddeus Park
School Field
Mini
Sub-total

3.62 0.71

4.33 0

0.71 0.71

3.62 0

3.62 2.22

0.71 2.93

1.10 Whisman 9,982 Whisman Park
Vargas School Field
Magnolia Park
Chetwood Park
Creekside Park
Devonshire Park
Evandale Park
Pyramid Park

Neighborhood/School Field
School Field
Mini
Mini
Mini
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
Sub-total

9.90 1.58

0.93 0.98

0.81 0.68

0.25 2.77

17.90 4.74
0 0.93

0.98 0.81

0.68 0.25

2.77 11.16

5.16 1.58
0 0
0 0
0 0

6.74 9.90

0.97 0.93

0.98 0.81

0.68 0.25

2.77 17.29

1.73 TOTAL 82,376 1,025.72 969.04 56.57 390.51 4.74

Draft 1/12/26
271

9.7.3 PARK AMENITIES BY PLANNING AREA
Table 48: Park Amenities by Planning Area
Planning
Area
(population)

Park/ School Site Name
(acres)
Playground

Picnic
Tables

Multi-
Purpose
Fields,
Rectangular

Ball
Fields,
Diamond

Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts

Pickleball
Courts
Outdoor
Swimming
Pools
Skate
Park
Fenced
Dog
Parks
Central
(12,391)
Dana Park (0.41)

Eagle Park (6.92) 2 9 1

1 Fairmont Park (0.37) 1 3

Mariposa Park (0.62) 2 3

Mercy-Bush Park (0.66) 1 3

Pioneer Park (3.39)

2 Castro School Field (2.04) 3

1 1

Landels School Field (4.16) 4

1 1 2

Subtotal 18.57 acres 13 20 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 0
Grant
(5,931)
Cooper Park (11.69) 1

1.5 2 1 4

Imai School Field (3.92) 3

2 1 3

Subtotal 15.61 acres 4 0 3.5 3 4 4 0 0 0 0
Miramonte
(11,087)
Gemello Park (0.49) 2 4

Bubb Park (3.56) 2 9

Cuesta Park and Annex
(37.81)
3 11

12 McKelvey Ball Park (4.72)

2 Schaefer Park (0.57) 1 3

Varsity Park (0.46) 2 1

0.5 Draft 1/12/26
272

Planning
Area
(population)

Park/ School Site Name
(acres)
Playground

Picnic
Tables

Multi-
Purpose
Fields,
Rectangular

Ball
Fields,
Diamond

Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts

Pickleball
Courts
Outdoor
Swimming
Pools
Skate
Park
Fenced
Dog
Parks
Bubb School Field (3.86) 2

1 1 2

Graham School/ Athletic
Field (9.55)

2 1 5

Subtotal 61.02 acres 12 28 3 4 7.5 12 0 0 0 0
North
Bayshore
(988)
Charleston Park and
Plaza (6.76)

Shoreline at Mountain
View (172)
2 2 2

1 Subtotal 178.76 acres 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
Rengstorff
(6,817)
Sierra Vista Park (0.81) 2 3

Heritage Park (1.21)

2 Wyandotte Park (0.90) 1 2

Subtotal 2.92 acres 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Antonio
(14,752)
Del Medio Park (0.37) 1 2

Klein Park (1.31) 1 3

0.5 Rengstorff Park (22.63) 7 23 2

2 8 3 2 1 1
Fayette Greenway (1.30)

Mora Park (0.43) 1 2

Fayette Park (0.52) 1 2

Subtotal 26.56 acres 11 32 2 0 2.5 8 3 2 1 1
Stierlin
(9,979)
Jackson Park (0.82) 2 3

Rex-Manor Park (0.41) 1 1

Draft 1/12/26

273

Planning
Area
(population)

Park/ School Site Name
(acres)
Playground

Picnic
Tables

Multi-
Purpose
Fields,
Rectangular

Ball
Fields,
Diamond

Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts

Pickleball
Courts
Outdoor
Swimming
Pools
Skate
Park
Fenced
Dog
Parks
San Veron Park (2.10) 2

1 Crittenden School/Athletic
Field (10.3)

1 1 6

Stevenson School
Field (6.78)
3 3 1 3 2.5 3

Subtotal 20.41 acres 8 7 2 4 9.5 3 0 0 0 0
Sylvan-Dale
(7,778)
Sylvan Park (9.28) 2 9 1

4 Evelyn Park (0.68) 1 2

Subtotal 9.96 acres 3 11 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Thompson
(2,671)
Thaddeus Park (0.71) 1

Monta Loma School
Field (3.62)
4 4 1 1 2.5

Subtotal 4.33 acres 5 4 1 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Whisman
(9,982)
Magnolia Park (0.93) 1 3

Chetwood Park (0.98)

4 Creekside Park (0.81) 1 8

Devonshire Park (0.68) 1 4

Evandale Park (0.25) 1 1

Pyramid Park (2.77) 2 5 1

1 1
Whisman Park (4.74) 1 14 1 1 2 4

Vargas School Field (1.58) 2

1 1 1

Subtotal 12.74 acres 9 39 3 2 4 4 0 0 0 1
Draft 1/12/26
274

Planning
Area
(population)

Park/ School Site Name
(acres)
Playground

Picnic
Tables

Multi-
Purpose
Fields,
Rectangular

Ball
Fields,
Diamond

Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts

Pickleball
Courts
Outdoor
Swimming
Pools
Skate
Park
Fenced
Dog
Parks
Citywide
Total
350.88 acres 70 148 20.5 17 33 35 3 3 1 3

Draft 1/12/26
275

9.7.4 MAPS OF PARKS AND AMENITIES BY PLANNING AREA

Figure 97: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
276

Figure 98: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

277

Figure 99: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
278

Figure 100: Recreation Facility Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

279

Figure 101: Playground Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
280

Figure 102: Picnic Table Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

281

Figure 103: Multi-Purpose Fields (Rectangle) Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
282

Figure 104: Ball Fields (Diamond) Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

283

Figure 105: Basketball Court Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
284

Figure 106: Tennis Court Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

285

Figure 107: Pickleball Court Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
286

Figure 108: Outdoor Swimming Pool Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

287

Figure 109: Skate Park Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26
288

Figure 110: Fenced Dog Park Distribution by Planning Area

Draft 1/12/26

289

9.8 APPENDIX H - Funding and Revenue

9.8.1 FUNDING AND REVENUE SOURCES
The City has several funding sources and revenue-generation strategies to support the acquisition, development, enhancement, and maintenance of its parks, facilities, and recreation programs.

This section outlines the City’s current funding mechanisms and provides insights into potential opportunities to optimize financial resources, enhance services, and strengthen sustainable revenue streams. Each funding category is evaluated on implementation feasibility (how likely it is to be implemented in Mountain View), risk (what might be the risks or downsides of implementing these mechanisms), and potential uses, with an eye toward both operational and capital funding needs.

Examples of how other agencies have implemented each mechanism is also noted.

9.8.2 EXTERNAL FUNDING SOURCES
External funding sources encompass a variety of options, including corporate sponsorships, partnerships, foundations, private donations, and volunteerism. These sources are pivotal for both ongoing operational support and one-time capital projects.

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• Corporate Sponsorships: Sponsorships are currently available for special events and scoreboards at McKelvey Ball Park and Shoreline Athletic Fields. High feasibility and low implementation risk suggest expanding corporate sponsorships to additional programs and facilities and increasing the number of sponsors per special event. Uses could include smaller scholarship programs, specific urban forest environmental programs or naming of facilities. In addition, sponsorship levels for special events could be reviewed to increase sponsorship level amounts based on event attendance and sponsor exposure. (see Action 4.1.3) Based on the presence of global corporations in Mountain View, stewardship opportunities could provide additional financial support for the City and its park and recreation offerings. A strong sponsorship package will help funders understand the exact benefits they will receive (see Action 4.1.8). The City of Fremont has a clearly defined benefit packet in an easy-to-read format as shown here.
• Partnerships: Existing partnerships with entities like the Friends of Deer Hollow Farm, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, and Friends of Rengstorff House, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and local school districts have proven to be effective partnerships for program delivery.

Additional partnerships with local businesses or other government agencies could enhance service delivery. This could include technology collaboration for either in-kind support or technology integration to enhance offerings or collaboration with health and wellness providers/hospitals that see parks and recreation as a complementary function. o For example, San Jose Friends of San Jose Rose Garden put together a case study showing the improvements from targeted volunteerism and the funding that has followed. See here.
• Financial Donations – Through the Friends Groups, there are options for individual donations either through Fundraising events or a variety of donation opportunities. The City has a formal Donation Policy and process to accept donations, though overall, the donations are currently minimal
Draft 1/12/26
290

o Friends of Deer Hollow Farm accepts donations that support field trip scholarships, livestock feed and care, operations, and farm enhancements. o Senior Center Trust -The Mountain View Senior Center currently has a trust that provides minimal support to the center. While it is available to receive donations, contributions have been minimal. Donations to the Senior Center are accepted through the Giving Tree Program and allow donors to make contributions in exchange for a personalized message displayed on the Senior Center's Giving Tree. o The Parks and Open Space Division has a Memorial Bench Donation Program that covers the cost of the bench and installation done by the staff. o Often, the Recreation Division receives donations of smaller items like equipment or games for programs.
o Other local examples include:
o Parks Donation Program through the County of Santa Clara o Memorial Benches, Tables, etc. through Larkspur Parks, CA (via Public Works) o Commemorative Benches and Picnic Tables through San Mateo County Parks Foundation – currently paused due to overwhelming demand.

• Volunteerism: While a volunteer program may not be a revenue generator, it can be a good opportunity to reduce or offset operational spending and build community connections and advocacy. Mountain View benefits from a robust volunteer program. Opportunities exist to expand volunteer engagement further, especially through programs like "Adopt a Spot”, which could help reduce operating costs for the City by saving staff maintenance time that is spent on specific locations. This can be augmented via the Council Workplan that outlines a City Volunteer Framework to support opportunities for volunteer organizations to work with the City. (see Action 2.2.1)
The Independent Sector annually gathers data and conducts research on volunteerism in the nonprofit sector and helps entities calculate the value of volunteer time. As of April 2024, their estimated national value of each volunteer hour is currently $33.49 nationally. Volgistics estimates that the value of each volunteer hour in California is $35.56 per hour.

Opportunities to E xplore
• Crowdfunding: This remains underutilized, likely due to the absence of a City-affiliated foundation to receive donations. Exploring crowdfunding could provide a community-driven funding stream for specific projects. Websites such as www.GoFundMe.com and www.Patronicity.com are the most commonly used and could be explored via a Foundation or a Friends Group (e.g., Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Friends of Deer Hollow Farm or Friends of Rengstorff House).
o For example, The Michigan Economic Development Corporation is partnered with the Village of Byron for the Byron Pocket Park crowdfunding campaign and has pledged $50,000 in matching funds if the campaign raises $50,000 on its own. See the press release here and the campaign page here. Other examples include Baseball Field lights in Nephi, UT and Splash Pad crowd fundraiser in Culver, OR as shown here.

• Foundations/Gifts and Private Donations: The City has limited experience securing foundation grants for parks and recreation, which indicates a potential growth area. Establishing Draft 1/12/26

291

relationships with local foundations could open new avenues for capital projects or fundraisers with the ability to attract funds that a 501c(3) could receive. (see Action 4.1.5) o Join the National Association for Park Foundations to gain access to resources and examples from other agencies that have foundations.
o Learn from local agencies such as the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Foundation and the Napa Parks and Recreation Foundation could prove beneficial.

Also, the Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation serves a similar population to Mountain View.
o Nationally, Park Pride, in Atlanta, is an outstanding model of a park foundation that leads the way in being a champion for the city parks and a convenor for funders. • Philanthropy: Having a Foundation would also help the City pursue philanthropic gifts from individuals or other foundations that have increasingly supported local parks and entities to improve the quality of life and well-being of communities. (see Action 4.1.7) A few examples are cited below.
o The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) provided $100,000 as a pilot program/grant to Elevate MV, Mountain View’s guaranteed basic income pilot program in Fiscal Year 2022-23. Another option is building Donor-Advised Funds (DAF) by a public charity like the SVCF or Los Altos-Mountain View Community Foundation. The DAFs support of the San Mateo County Parks Foundation is a local example. o The Lilly Endowment recently awarded the largest gift in Indianapolis’ history - $80 million for park improvements.

9.8.3 CAPITAL FUNDING
Capital Funding focuses on acquiring, replacing, enhancing and adding physical assets, including facilities, parks, and infrastructure.

Capital Improvement P rogram
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning tool used to coordinate location, timing, and funding of capital improvements to maintain and manage City infrastructure that enhances the overall quality of life in Mountain View. City infrastructure consists of physical structures, systems, and facilities needed to provide critical services to the community such as streets, sidewalks, and storm drain systems, as well as parks, trails, open space, and recreational facilities.

The City adopts a five-year CIP biennially, with a full plan developed in odd-numbered years and a focus only on the upcoming fiscal year in even-numbered years. There are a number of potential funding sources for CIP projects. For parks and recreation projects, the main funding source is the City’s Park Land Dedication Fund. However, some building projects have been funded by the CIP Reserve and Construction/Conveyance Tax. Most CIP projects are managed by the Public Works Department, with park and recreation projects supported by Community Services Department staff.

The list of active parks and recreation CIP projects, as well as the planned CIPs for Fiscal Year 2025-26 through Fiscal Year 2029-30 can be found on the City’s website at MountainView.gov/CIP.

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• Park Land Dedication Ordinance - POPA: Chapter 41 of the Mountain View City Code, Park Land Ordinance or Fees in Lieu Thereof, was updated in 2021 to allow developers to meet their obligations to provide open space by either dedicating land to the City for a park and/or to build privately owned, publicly accessible open space (POPA) and receive credit towards their park Draft 1/12/26
292

land dedication obligations, preserving public access to open space in high-density areas. The ordinance should be reviewed to determine if additional updates will provide more benefits to both the City and developers.
• Development Fees (e.g., Park in-lieu fees): Chapter 41 of the Mountain View City Code is a good example of residential development fees to support the acquisition, development, and renovation of parks and recreation facilities. As the city grows, this funding source will continue to support park infrastructure. The City’s Park in Lieu Fee ordinance requires developers to pay their fair share toward the purchase, development and/or improvement of park and recreational facilities in addition to or in replace of dedicating land to the City or developing a POPA.

Fees collected through this ordinance are to be used for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the residential development from which fees are collected in accordance with the service area requirements outlined in Chapter 41 of the Mountain View City Code. Fees collected shall be used to purchase land, buy equipment, construct improvements or rehabilitate a proposed or existing mini-park, neighborhood park, community park, recreational facility, Stevens Creek Trail, community gardening facility or combination thereof.

Opportunities to E xplore
• Impact Fees/Retail Impact Fees: Concurrent with the development of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, the City of Mountain View is conducting a nexus study on park and recreation development impact fees, as outlined in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, program 1.8 Park Land Ordinance Update. These fees could be essential for maintaining and upgrading parks and recreation facilities. The nexus study evaluates the City’s current fee structure and methodology, compares the City’s existing in-lieu fees to other cities, explore the adoption of a park and recreation impact fee, and reevaluates the cumulative impact of all residential fees on development.

• Capital Reserve Fees: Adding capital reserve fees - nominal additions to existing facility reservation rates - could generate dedicated revenue for future asset replacement or upgrades, though such fees may face public resistance (see Action 4.1.6). For example, the City could charge a small additional fee for a BBQ area reservation, with those funds placed in a separate reserve account to be used on maintenance and improvements for that facility. Clear communication about the purpose and long-term benefits of the fund could help mitigate public concerns.

9.8.4 USER FEES
User fees contribute directly to the operational costs of programs and facilities and can be adjusted based on market demand through the City’s Annual Budget Process and review of the Master Fee Schedule.

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• Recreation Service Fees and General Fees/Charges: Some recreation programs currently generate revenue, while certain programs (e.g., Senior Center Program) do not charge fees. The City conducted a Citywide Master Fee Study in spring 2025 which resulted in modifications to existing fees, the creation of new fees, and/or the removal of existing fees. The new Master Fee Draft 1/12/26

293

Schedule was approved by the City Council on June 10, 2025 and may provide a modest increase in revenue. The City should continue to review fees annually to modify as needed. In addition, as mentioned above, the City has a Recreation Cost Recovery Policy that establishes uniform guidelines, cost-recovery levels, and goals for Recreation programs, events, activities, and services. The Recreation Cost Recovery Policy could be reviewed to validate that programs are designated at the appropriate cost-recovery levels. This process may result in additional fee modifications based on assigned cost-recovery levels.
• Reservations and Equipment Rentals: The City currently has fees to reserve facilities and rent specific equipment. Future revenue growth could be achieved by adding new amenities or premium rental options. The City has two Council Policies that govern Facility Reservations:

Council Policy H-5, Use of the City’s Facilities, and Council Policy H-7, Athletic Field Use Policy as detailed in a previous section. Both policies should be reviewed to validate definitions of user groups, peak and off-peak hours for each facility, and field use priorities and fees. • Permits: The City currently charges a variety of permits (Plaza Use, Special Events, Commercial Use, etc.) and these fees could be reviewed to determine if they should be increased. Expanding permits for existing commercial park usage could also increase revenue. • Demand pricing: Setting fees based on peak times and locations is another current strategy for facility reservations, which could be expanded to other offerings as determined by staff.

Opportunities to E xplore
• Ticket Sales/Admissions: The City could analyze the feasibility of charging admission for specific activities or certain events that can be held indoors with clear entry and access points. The cost vs. benefit of implementing ticket sales/admission charges should be analyzed and considered on a case-by-case basis.

9.8.5 GRANTS AND DONATIONS
Grants are a vital funding source for both capital projects and programs, especially those aligned with environmental, equity, health, or recreational goals. However, recent shifts in federal and state budgets have resulted in substantial changes to grant availability and priorities. As a result, it is important for the City to remain adaptable and stay informed about evolving funding opportunities and eligibility requirements.

To maximize return on investment for staff time and resources, it is recommended that the City prioritize pursuing grants of $100,000 or more, and those with a higher likelihood of award based on project alignment and competitiveness. Identifying capacity or staff resources to proactively pursue, apply for, and manage grant funding will be critical to sustaining these efforts and ensuring long-term success in securing external resources (see Actions 3.1.7 and 4.1.5).

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• State of California – Office of Grants and Local Services - The State of California provides local government grants to revitalize existing park infrastructure and to address outdoor access gaps in underserved neighborhoods. City of Richmond, City of Antioch, City of Oakland, and the County of El Dorado all received competitive grants from Prop 68 within the past two years.

Mountain View was successful receiving state funds for the Magical Bridge Playground in Rengstorff Park. An application for the Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center was not selected for funding.

Draft 1/12/26
294

o Per Capita Program: Provides funding to local governments on a per capita basis for the rehabilitation, creation, and improvement of local parks. o Urban County Per Capita: Offers grants to cities and districts in urbanized counties (counties with populations of 500,000 or more) that provide park and recreation services in jurisdictions with populations of 200,000 or fewer. Entities eligible under this program are also eligible to receive funding through the General Per Capita Program.

Opportunities to E xplore
• Land and Water Conservation Fund through the State of California: The City has previously used funds from this grant program but is not currently using them. This grant program may support the acquisition or development of land to create new outdoor recreation opportunities for the health and wellness of Californians.
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): The City receives annual federal allocations through the State CDBG and HOME programs, which support housing and community development activities that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income residents. Under the State CDBG Program, grant funds may be used for public service programs, as well as the construction or rehabilitation of public and recreational facilities - particularly those serving seniors and vulnerable populations. The HOME Program provides additional funding to create and preserve affordable housing opportunities, which can complement CDBG-funded community infrastructure and service initiatives. The City currently directs its CDBG resources toward public service grants that assist local nonprofits and community programs.
• Recreational Trail Program: This program has not yet been explored and could be explored for trail maintenance needs. The Recreational Trails Program funds recreational trails and trails- related projects annually.
• Urban Forestry Assistance Grants (CUF-A): With recent biodiversity initiatives, tree-related grants align well with the City’s goals and should be pursued. 2023 recipients include: Cities of Berkeley, Concord, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, Petaluma, Pittsburg, San Jose, and Vallejo. • Habitat Conservation Fund: Eligible projects include nature interpretation programs to bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas, protection of various plant and animal species, and acquisition and development of wildlife corridors and trails. The next anticipated application period is due in 2026-27.

The National Recreation and Park Association provides a list of Grant and Fundraising Resources that are listed here.

Playcore provides a listing of national and state-specific grants here. Grant opportunities can be sorted by service or facility type such as Adult Fitness, Dog Parks and Trails.

Some additional national sports entities support grassroots programs through their foundations including the following websites:
• MLB: See here.
• NFL PLAY 60 initiative grant and NFL Youth Football Grant: Agencies need to partner with the local NFL Club who would apply to the NFL for the grant. See here. • US Soccer Foundation – Safe Places To Play Program: See here. • US Tennis Association Facility Funding: See here.

Draft 1/12/26

295

• USA Track & Field Foundation Grant Program: See here.

9.8.6 TAX SUPPORT
Taxes provide a steady revenue base and are often foundational to the long-term sustainability of City services.

Information about City tax revenue is found in the City’s adopted budget here. Detailed information with interactive dashboards and graphics is available through the Open Gov platform here.

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• Property and Conveyance Taxes: In November 2024, Mountain view voters passed by 72% an increase in the City’s Property Transfer Tax (Measure G). The increased tax is imposed on residential and commercial property sales above $6 million. The City anticipates that approximately $9.5 million on average annually may be generated from Measure G with 30-35% to be earmarked for parks and open space.
• Special Improvement District/Benefit District: Currently, Mountain View has a downtown Parking Maintenance Assessment District which was enacted over forty years ago and which collects a property tax assessment district for the long-term maintenance and construction of public parking in the Downtown.

There are also two Business Improvement Areas within the city (BIA #1 and BIA #2), which assess Downtown businesses through the annual Business License Renewal Process. The funds collected by the City are then provided to the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, acting on behalf of the Downtown Business Association, to market and promote the downtown. • Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and Sales Tax: Both contribute to the general operating fund, which indirectly supports parks and recreation. In cities like North Tahoe, projects funded by Transient Occupancy Taxes are also publicly marketed to the public. See here. The City could explore seeking voter approval to increase the City’s TOT, which is lower than others in the region. Salt Lake County passed a 0.1% Sales Tax titled ZAP (Zoo, Arts and Parks) in November 2024 with 79% of the voters supporting it. More information here.

Opportunities to E xplore
Bond Measure: The City currently has a AAA bond rating, reflecting its good financial stewardship and strong economic base, resulting in access to capital at favorable interest rates. The City could explore seeking voter approval of a General Obligation bond to help address infrastructure needs for parks and facilities. This would require community outreach to identify feasibility and community support for this initiative. (see Action 4.1.1)

9.8.7 FRANCHISES AND LICENSES
Franchises and licenses provide opportunities for unique revenue streams through partnerships with private businesses.

Currently Doing and Could Expand
• Concession Management and Private Concessionaires: The City currently partners with private operators for several concession spaces, including Bean Scene Café, Lakeshore Bistro, and Michael’s at Shoreline. Staff should continue to periodically review and update concession and vendor agreements as needed to ensure that terms and anticipated revenues align with current market conditions and the local financial environment.

Draft 1/12/26
296

The City could also consider expanding into food and beverage concessions at other facilities, for example swim product sales at the pool. Some cities use vendors such as Sysco, CoreMark, and US Foods to provide concessions for park and recreation facilities. • Advertising Sales: Existing scoreboard sponsorships demonstrate the feasibility of using advertising to generate revenue. This could include expanding ad sales to other park areas or to publications, like the Recreation Activity Guide. Staff should assess the viability of staff time against the potential revenue to determine if this is a revenue stream to pursue.

Opportunities to E xplore
• Naming Rights: There is potential for high-profile projects to attract naming sponsors through the City’s existing Sponsorship Policy. Examples of other agency’s Naming Rights programs are noted below.
o South Tahoe Parks Foundation, CA has set a fundraising goal of $1 million for the City’s new Recreation and Aquatic Center opening in 2026 and is providing these offerings for naming rights.
o City of Pleasanton, CA’s Bernal Community Park secured Stanford Medicine as the Naming Rights Sponsor for their Sports Complex.
o San Diego Parks and Recreation, CA have details on naming rights offerings on their website.
o Parks and Recreation Foundation of San Carlos, CA has these categories for naming rights.
o Davie County Recreation and Parks, FL has this naming guide for potential partners. o Fargo Park District, ND has this naming rights policy to guide their decision-making. o Several agencies nationwide have successfully utilized this source of revenue for their signature spaces and facilities, such as City of Columbus, Indiana, Nexus Park in Columbus, IN.

9.8.8 MISCELLANEOUS FUNDING
This category captures a range of non-traditional or one-time funding sources, including fees, fines, and unique financial mechanisms that do not fall under standard revenue streams. While typically limited in scale or frequency, these sources can provide important support for targeted projects - especially land acquisition or strategic opportunities that arise outside of regular planning cycles.

Currently Doing
• Acquisition Reserve Funds: The City currently has two Acquisition Reserve Funds that may be used to acquire property for park land and other City uses:
o General Fund Open Space Acquisition Reserve shall be used for the purpose of acquiring open space to meet the needs of the City and as authorized by the City Council. Proceeds from excess City-owned properties shall fund this Reserve as directed by the City Council. This Reserve may be used for due diligence for site acquisition of future parks sites which may include appraisals, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, Closing Costs, and Security/Fence Post-Acquisition. o General Fund Strategic Property Acquisition Reserve shall be used for the purpose of setting aside funds for the City to use for the acquisition of strategic property(ies). This Reserve has been used on a limited basis to acquire park land.

Draft 1/12/26

297

9.8.9 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) also shares the Park and Recreation Professionals’ Guide to Fundraising which provides a variety of tips and tools for successfully seeking and obtaining external funding for an agency.

9.8.10 SUMMARY
The City has effectively utilized a diverse range of funding sources to support its mission. Recreation's participation and revenues for programs and events have increased significantly year over year and the community survey indicates high participation and quality ratings for the offerings.

There are existing opportunities to generate additional revenue. However, it is important to note that realizing new revenue streams may require increased and dedicated staff resources to address the added workload.

There are recommendations that could be a game-changer for capital projects, including exploring a bond measure, establishing a foundation or similar entity to streamline grant applications and enable private donations. Additionally, strategic expansion of user fees and concession management could also help, albeit to a smaller degree compared to some other tools. By leveraging these strategies and building on its existing partnerships, the City could generate additional funding to accomplish the vision and goals in this Strategic Plan.

Mountain View City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Mountain View City Council
January 27, 2026