Agenda packet — Mountain View City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 3 of 4)

• Refine and strengthen the vision statement;

• Allocate trail acreage by Planning Area;

• Add an Action Item regarding learn-to-swim opportunities;

• Explore opportunities to work with “friends of parks” groups; and

• Add a review of POPA standards.

Staff revised the Plan to incorporate the Council’s feedback as summarized in Attachment 3 and described in more detail below.

New Biodiversity Goal and Integration of Natural Park Design

In response to community input and City Council direction, the Plan has been updated to include a new goal focused on promoting biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements within the City’s parks, open spaces, and trail corridors. Two supporting strategies were created to guide implementation and align with the City’s Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan , which is scheduled for Council review and adoption in June 2026. Existing biodiversity -related actions were reorganized under the new goal and strategies.

The new goal and strategies are as follows:

Along with setting a specific goal, the Plan improves how natural park design is integrated through the Park Design Guidelines. Revisions focus on native planting, expanding the tree canopy, increasing habitat value, supporting pollinators with landscaping , and designing for climate resilience. The design guidelines for each park type now include a “Biodiversity Anchor” to guide the inclusion of natural elements suited to park size, function, and context. These updates promote a balanced approach to park planning—supporting active recreation while also providing more opportunities for nature-based and restorative outdoor experiences.

Goal 2: Advance biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements as essential components of a resilient and inclusive park and open space system.

1. Strengthen ecological function and habitat value within parks, open spaces, and trail corridors in alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

2. Integrate long-term biodiversity stewardship into park planning, design, and asset management, guided by the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. 298
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 3 of 12 ends

Trail Corridor Acreage Reallocation and Planning Area Level of Service Updates

Historically, all 52.17 acres of trail corridor acres associated with Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek Trails have been designated to the North Bayshore Planning Area due to their connection to Shoreline at Mountain View. Following the Council’s directio n on January 27, 2026, the updated Plan revises this by assigning trail corridor acreage to the Planning Area where each trail segment is physically located. This change decreases the total parks and trail acreage in the North Bayshore Planning Area by 34. 05 acres and increases the parks and trail acreage in five of the other nine Planning Areas: Whisman (+14.09 acres), Stierlin (+2.27 acres), Central (+5.42 acres), Grant (+11.55 acres), and Rengstorff (+0.78 acres). This method recognizes that trails function as linear open space assets, offering local access and mobility between parks, neighborhoods, and other key destinations, as well as recreation opportunities and connections to nature that benefit multiple Planning Areas throughout the city.

As shown in Table 1 below, the revision to the Planning Area Level of Service updated the park acreage totals for each Planning Area, increasing acres per 1,000 residents for the five Planning Areas with trail corridors.

Due to the new methodology, the number of Planning Areas below the focus threshold changed from five Planning Areas with less than 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents to six Planning Areas with less than 2 acres per 1,000 residents . The five Planning Areas with the lowest park access remain the same (Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Stierlin, and Central). Additionally, the San Antonio Planning Area has been added to the list of areas below the focus threshold.

Four Planning Areas now exceed 3 acres per 1,000 r esidents, with Grant and Whisman joining North Bayshore and Miramonte in this group. The Plan was revised to include this new threshold and to emphasize that efforts to expand park acreage should target Planning Areas with less than 2 acres per 1,000 residents.

299
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 4 of 12 ends

Table 1: Level of Service by Planning Area

18.12 acres 196.88
acres
988 180.93
acres

18.34 acres 199.27
acres
Miramonte 55.45 acres 0 acres 55.45 acres 11,087 5.00 acres 0 acres 5.00 acres Grant 14.09 acres 11.55 acres 25.64 acres 5,931 2.38 acres1 1.95 acres 4.32 acres Whisman 17.29 acres 14.03 acres 31.32 acres 9,982 1.73 acres 1.41 acres 3.14 acres San
Antonio

26.56 acres 0 acres 26.56 acres 14,752 1.80 acres 0 acres 1.80 acres Central 16.17 acres 5.42 acres 21.59 acres 12,391 1.30 acres 0.44 acres 1.74 acres Stierlin 14.21 acres 2.27 acres 16.48 acres 9,979 1.42 acres 0.23 acres 1.65 acres Sylvan-Dale 9.96 acres 0 acres 9.96 acres 7,778 1.28 acres 0 acres 1.28 acres Thompson 2.93 acres 0 acres 2.93 acres 2,671 1.10 acres 0 acres 1.10 acres Rengstorff 2.92 acres 0.78 acres 3.70 acres 6,817 0.43 acres 0.11 acres 0.54 acres Citywide 338.34
acres

52.17 acres 390.51
acres
82,376 4.12 acres 0.63 acres 4.74 acres
Citywide
w/o North
Bayshore
159.58
acres

34.05 acres 193.63
acres
81,388 1.96 acres 0.42 acres 2.38 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. ** Trail corridor acreage is allocated to the Planning Area in which each segment is physically located, as noted above.

Note: The Park Acres per 1,000 residents value for the Grant Planning Area has been corrected in this version of the Plan. A previous draft contained an error in this calculation.

Additionally, reallocating trail corridor acreage required updating citywide acreage gap calculations and related cost estimates to meet the City’s goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The previous draft noted that the City had an estimated shortfall of 87 acres when excluding the North Bayshore Planning Area. Now that trail corridor acres have been distributed across the Planning Areas they traverse, this shortfall has decreased to 53.5 acres.

To address this revised shortfall, the cost is approximately $722 million, compared to the $1.2 billion previously noted. These updates enhance transparency and improve the accuracy of the Planning Area inventory of parks and open space, while still providing an analytical basis to guide future park acquisitions and investments in the Planning Areas with the least park access.

300
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 5 of 12 ends

Updated Vision Statement

During the discussion of the draft Vision, Goals, and Strategies, the City Council expressed interest in refining the vision statement to emphasize nature as the primary purpose of parks.

Councilmembers noted that although parks offer valued programs, events, and amenities, their primary role is to provide meaningful outdoor experiences connected to nature. The discussion reflected broader community feedback, highlighting pride in Mountain View’s parks and acknowledging their importance as essential public infrastructure that must be maintained and adapted to meet evolving community needs and population growth.

The updated Vision Statement is as follows:

Mountain View is an inclusive and resilient community where a rich network of parks, natural open spaces, and recreation opportunities builds community, enhances physical and emotional well-being, and inspires care for our natural environment.

Refinements and Additions to the Action Plan

In response to feedback received during the City Council review process, staff made several specific updates to the Action Plan. These include adding two new Action Items—one focused on expanding access to Learn- to-Swim opportunities and the other on inclu sive improvements in existing parks, in line with the City’s forthcoming Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self - Evaluation and Transition Plan —as well as refining three existing actions related to exploring “Friends of Parks” groups and reviewing poten tial updates to POPA standards as part of an update to Chapter 41.

New Action Items

Two new Action Items have been added to the Plan in response to City Council's direction and community feedback.

• Continue to Expand Learn- to-Swim Opportunities (Action 3.1.7) – This action reinforces the City’s commitment to youth water safety and equitable access to aquatics programming, increasing the number of Recreation-related actions from eight to nine.

• Incorporate Inclusive Improvements in Existing Parks (Action 1.2.9) – This action directs staff to identify opportunities to integrate inclusive design enhancements into existing parks, guided by the City’s ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan.

301
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 6 of 12 ends

Refinements to Existing Action Items

Three existing actions were updated to incorporate further guidance from the Council:

• Exploration of “Friends of Parks”-Type Groups: For both Actions 3.2.1 and 5.1.7, a milestone was added to evaluate opportunities for community -based support models within the City Council Work Plan project to develop a volunteer framework , as well as through the evaluation of establishing a nonprofit foundation to support City parks and recreation programs.

• Review of POPA Standards – Action 5.1.2 was updated to incorporate a review of Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) standards as part of the review and update to Chapter 41 of the City Code, Park Land Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof.

In total, the Action Plan now contains 52 actions to support the five goals and 10 strategies outlined in the Plan.

PRC Recommendation to Adopt the Plan

On March 17, 2026, the PRC reviewed the updated draft Plan, incorporating community input and the Council’s direction from the January 27, 2026, Study Session. The PRC expressed general support for the Plan and the revisions made in response to prior Commission, City Council, and community input, including the strengthened emphasis on biodiversity elevated as a goal, the refined vision statement, Planning Area-based analysis, and improved organization and clarity.

Commissioners acknowledged the significant amount of work completed in updating the Plan.

Commissioners noted that the Plan aligns well with the City’s goals and reflects meaningful incorporation of community input, resulting in a Plan that the City can be proud of.

The Commission also highlighted the Plan’s comprehensive assessment of parks and recreation programs, improvements to the Level of Service analysis and maps, and a more intuitive overall structure. The Action Plan was well received, particularly the expanded number of action items, updated implementation timelines, the addition of milestones, and a commitment to ongoing tracking and annual reporting to the Commission.

In addition to this overall support, the PRC provided targeted feedback to further refine the plan:

• Define underserved Planning Area s using a combination of three factors: (1) acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (2) access to parks within a 10 -minute walk, and (3) reliance on school fields to meet recreational needs;
• Prioritize the expansion of parks and open spaces in underserved Planning Areas; 302
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 7 of 12 ends

• Acknowledge that achieving the citywide Level of Service goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is not currently feasible in every Planning Area;
• Prioritize locally native species for trees and landscaping in parks and open spaces; • Identify incremental, near-term opportunities to expand native planting and tree canopy in all City parks; and
• Elevate the role of trees and biodiversity in park design.

A summary of the overall feedback themes and revisions made in the Plan is included in Attachment 4, March 2026 PRC and Community Feedback – Summary of Feedback Themes and Plan Revisions, and is discussed further below.

The PRC and public commenters also expressed concerns about whether there would be sufficient funding and staff capacity to implement the Plan. They asked for more detailed information about the costs and funding sources for all of the actions in the Plan. In particular, Commissioners wanted to know which action items are currently fully funded, partially funded, or unfunded. Staff acknowledged these concerns and noted that the Plan’s cost estimates are planning-level and intended to provide general order-of-magnitude guidance, and that future funding availability cannot be predicted at this time.

Staff also noted that several funding strategies are under consideration by the City, including a potential revenue measure and an updated Nexus Study, which will help inform future funding capacity. Notably, without significant funding from a revenue measure, it will be difficult to achieve some of the ambitious strategies included in the Plan. To provide greater transparency, staff will include updates on funding availability and progress toward securing and appropriating funds for specific Action Plan items as part of the Plan’s annual review and reporting process.

Following the discussion at the meeting, the PRC made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, incorporating into the Plan ways to prioritize expansion of parks and open spaces to underserved areas of the city, taking into account dependence on school fields and 10-minute walking distance, in addition to looking at acres per thousand. The recommendation also includes identifying opportunities and implementing near- term improvements to benefit all parks and open spaces with an emphasis on planting native canopy trees and landscaping consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

ANALYSIS

Defining and Prioritizing Underserved Planning Areas

During the March 17, 2026 PRC meeting, Commissioners underscored the need to clearly define what constitutes an “underserved” Planning Area. In particular, the Commission noted that 303
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 8 of 12 ends

relying solely on the traditional Level of Service metric of 3 acres per 1,000 residents does not fully capture how residents experience access to parks and open space. Commissioners also recognized that achieving this standard is not currently feasible in every Planning Area due to constraints such as limited land availability , high land costs, and the built -out nature of the community. As a result, the PRC emphasized the need to consider additional factors, including whether residents can reasonably walk to a park and the extent to which some Planning Areas rely on school fields to meet recreational needs.

In response, the Plan establishes a more comprehensive, equity -focused framework for identifying underserved Planning Areas. The Plan defines underserved Planning Areas using three factors: (1) park acres per 1,000 residents, (2) access to parks within a 1 0-minute walk, and (3) reliance on school fields. This multi- factor approach provides a more accurate, nuanced understanding of how well the park system serves residents across the city, particularly in areas where reliance on school fields may suggest adequate service under traditional metrics but could result in reduced access if those fields were unavailable. The Plan also notes that achieving the citywide Level of Service goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents in every Planning Area is not currently feasible.

Consistent with this approach, the Plan prioritizes expanding parks and open spaces in underserved Planning Areas. This prioritization is embedded in the Plan’s implementation strategy and will guide decisions on land acquisition, park development, and cap ital investment over time. While opportunities to develop new parks are often constrained by land availability and funding, this approach ensures that when opportunities arise, they are evaluated through the lens focused on Planning Areas with the greatest need.

Native Planting, Tree Canopy, and Near-Term Park Improvements

The Plan places strong emphasis on integrating California native, regional native, and near-native species into park design , while balancing climate resilience and urban conditions . The Plan also emphasizes elevating the role of trees and landscaping as essential components of Mountain View’s parks and open spaces. This reflects feedback from the community and the PRC expressing a strong interest in prioritizing locally native planting and expanding tree canopy across the system. For the purposes of the Plan, “locally native” is defined as California native, regional native, and near- native species, consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. This clarification ensures a common understanding of plant selection and aligns the language between the two plans.

The Plan further recognizes trees as critical infrastructure in parks and open spaces, delivering a wide range of benefits, including shade, cooling, urban heat reduction, habitat support, stormwater management, and overall climate resilience. The Plan als o clarifies that while shade structures may be appropriate in certain contexts, shade should be prioritized through tree canopy wherever feasible , while recognizing site -specific ecological conditions and constraints . 304
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 9 of 12 ends

In addition, the Plan amplifies the role of biodiversity in park design, integrating natural elements and habitat features to support a more connected ecological network as part of the City’s broader biodiversity framework.

These priorities are embedded throughout the Plan’s design guidelines, action items, and performance metrics, and closely align with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. The Plan also emphasizes near -term, incremental opportunities to expand native plan ting and tree canopy across all parks, recognizing that these improvements can be implemented more quickly and broadly than large-scale capital projects. These improvements are identified as a key immediate priority and offer an opportunity to deliver visible, system-wide benefits while longer-term park development efforts take more time to move forward . Collectively, this approach supports a more sustainable, resilient, and ecologically connected park system while advancing the City’s biodiversity goals.

Additional Targeted Refinements

In addition to the key themes discussed above, the Plan includes several targeted refinements in response to community and PRC feedback. These updates include adding a reference to the City’s forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance for park design guidelines associated with lighting. The Plan also incorporates the Recreation Swim program within the existing Action item for expanding Learn-to-Swim programs.

A detailed summary of feedback themes and corresponding revisions is provided in Attachment

4. Next Steps

Staff will begin implementing the Strategic Plan immediately following adoption, with a focus on advancing near-term “Immediate” (0–2-year) action items while also initiating foundational steps and milestones to support Short- , Mid -, and Long -Term actions. Early efforts will include coordinating across departments, aligning work plans and resources, and identifying opportunities to integrate Plan actions into existing and upcoming projects. Concurrently, staff will establish baseline data for each performance metric identified in the Plan. Developing these baseline measurements will be a critical first step to enable meaningful tracking of progress over time and to inform future decision- making, ensuring that annual reporting reflects measurable outcomes and trends.

After one full year of implementation, and annually thereafter, staff will create and update a publicly accessible dashboard to monitor progress on action items and related performance metrics. Staff will conduct community outreach in multiple languages to raise awareness about the dashboard and the City’s progress on the Plan. Additionally, staff will submit an annual 305
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 10 of 12 ends

progress report to both the PRC and City Council, summarizing implementation status, key achievements, and any recommended adjustments to timelines or priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT

The Strategic Plan provides planning -level cost estimates intended to illustrate the scale of investment needed to expand, maintain, and enhance Mountain View’s parks and recreation system over time. Existing funding sources—including the General Fund, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Park Land Dedication and in-lieu fees, and limited reserve funds—support ongoing operations and incremental capital improvements, but are insufficient to address the significant unmet park and recreation needs identified in the Plan, particularly in underserved Planning Areas.

Consistent with Council direction to allocate trail corridor acreage proportionally by Planning Area, rather than attributing all trail acreage to North Bayshore, the current park land shortfall outside of North Bayshore is estimated at approximately 53.5 acres.

Based on current market conditions , land acquisition cost s are estimated at approximately $10 million per acre, with an additional cost of $3 million to $6 million per acre for park design and construction. Using an average total cost of approximately $13.5 million per acre for acquisition and development, the estimated current funding need associated with the identified park land shortfall is approximately $722 million. The total investment needed is significant and surpasses what current funding sources can provide. Funding from a revenue measure will be necessary to achieve the bold initiatives included in the Plan.

Looking ahead, the Housing Element projects a 2040 population of approximately 148,200 residents. Although approximately 11.24 acres of park land have already been acquired or dedicated for future development, the projected park land shortfall is expected to increase over time absent additional investment. Addressing future park and recreation needs will require sustained, long-term funding commitments over multiple planning and budget cycles.

In addition to new park acquisition and development, substantial r einvestment in existing parks will also be necessary . Renovation of a typical five-acre neighborhood park is estimated to cost approximately $6 million to 8 million, depending on the scope of improvements and amenities provided, while larger-scale renovations may cost approximately $15 million.

The updated Action Plan includes 52 actions encompassing new park development, improvements to existing parks, biodiversity and habitat initiatives, lifecycle updates, inclusive and accessibility enhancements, expanded aquatics access, and staffing and operational capacity upgrades. While some actions may be implemented through existing resources or phased through the annual budget and CIP processes, many actions will require new or expanded funding sources.
306
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 11 of 12 ends

The Plan highlights various supplemental funding strategies that could provide additional financial support; however, no single funding source would be sufficient to address the full scope of identified needs. Accordingly, consistent with the FY 2025 -27 Council Work Plan, the City is exploring the po tential for a voter-approved revenue measure for the 2026 General Election .

Such a measure could provide a significant long -term funding source to advance major park acquisition, development, and reinvestment projects identified in the Strategic Plan.

LEVINE ACT

California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to- play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide other feedback for the final Plan.

2. Do not adopt the Plan.

3. Provide other direction.

307
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan Adoption
May 26, 2026

Page 12 of 12 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING

In addition to the standard agenda posting, the notice for this meeting was posted to the City website and project website, ImagineMVParks.com. Staff sent a notice to all neighborhood associations and registrants from recreation programs from 2020 to the present. Notice has been provided to City stakeholders, including, but not limited to, City -recognized youth sports organizations, Mountain View Masters, Los Altos Mountain View Aquatics Club, Mountain View Tennis Academy, Mountain View Tennis Club, Mountain View Pickleball Club, Mountain View Los Altos Community Services Agency, Mountain View Whisman School District, Los Altos School District, Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District, Soil + Water, Friends of Mountain View Parks, Greenspaces MV, S anta Clara Valley Bird Alliance, Canopy, and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.

Prepared by:

Kristine Crosby
Assistant Community Services Director

John R. Marchant
Community Services Director

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
Approved by:

Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager

Attachments: 1. Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan

2. November 2025 PRC and Community Feedback – Summary of Feedback Themes and Plan Revisions

3. January 2026 Council and Community Feedback – Summary of Feedback Themes and Plan Revisions

4. March 2026 PRC and Community Feedback – Summary of Feedback Themes and Plan Revisions

308

PARKS AND RECREATION

STRATEGIC PLAN
Attachment 1
309
310

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
Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor
Chris Clark, Vice Mayor
Ellen Kamei, Councilmember
Alison Hicks, Councilmember
John McAlister, Councilmember
Lucas Ramirez, Councilmember
Pat Showalter, Councilmember
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 View Project Leadership Team
Kristine Crosby, Assistant Community Services Director
Tim Y oungberg, Parks and Open Space Manager
Parks and Recreation Commission
Joe Mitchner, Chair
Sandy Sommer, Vice Chair
Ronit Bryant
Jonathan Davis
IdaRose Sylvester
Steve Filios (former member)
City Manager’s Office
Danielle Lee, Chief Sustainability Officer
Lenka Wright, Chief Communications Officer
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
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
Community Services Department
Brenda Sylvia, Assistant Community Services Director
Colin James, Recreation Manager
Lindsay Wong, Senior Management Analyst
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
311
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Executive Summary ..................................................................................................12 Chapter 2 - Introduction .............................................................................................................26 Chapter 3 - Community Profile................................................................................................. 30

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Cost of Living .....................................................................................................................30

3.3 Demographics .....................................................................................................................32

3.4 Population Density ............................................................................................................40

3.5 Healthy Places Index ..........................................................................................................41

3.6 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................42

3.7 Summary..............................................................................................................................43 Chapter 4 – Public Input ...........................................................................................................44

4.1 Public Input Highlights .......................................................................................................45

4.2 Public Input Summary Key Findings ................................................................................46 Chapter 5 - Analysis ................................................................................................................... 49

5.1 Recreation Program Assessment ......................................................................................49

5.2 Operations Assessment ....................................................................................................69

5.3 Parks And Facility Assessment .........................................................................................83

5.4 Level of Service Analysis .................................................................................................120 Chapter 6 – Guidelines For New Park Design And Park Improvements ..............................146

6.1 Park Design Guidelines By Assessment Criteria ........................................................... 147

6.2 Park Design Guidelines By Park Type .............................................................................151

6.3 Integration of Biodiversity Into Park Design .................................................................164 Chapter 7 – Framework For Prioritizing New Park Planning And Park Improvements .....168

7.1 Framework For Park And Facility Investment Priorities ............................................... 169

7.2 Summary And Improvement Priorities ............................................................................171

7.3 Cost of New Park Development And Improvements .................................................. 178

7.4 Areas of Focus For Park Improvement And Expansion ................................................179 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
4 312
Table of Contents
Chapter 8 – Goals, Strategies And Actions ............................................................................. 182

8.1 Vision Statement ...............................................................................................................183

8.2 Goals ..................................................................................................................................183

8.3 Core Values .......................................................................................................................184

8.4 Strategies ..........................................................................................................................185

8.5 Action Plan Development And Framework .................................................................. 187

8.6 Action Plan ....................................................................................................................... 196

8.7 Performance Metrics ......................................................................................................233 Chapter 9 – Appendices ...........................................................................................................236

9.1 Appendix A - 2014 Parks And Open Space Plan Outcomes ....................................236

9.2 Appendix B – Related Plans ..........................................................................................248

9.3 Appendix C - Public Input ..............................................................................................251

9.4 Appendix D - Staff Input ...............................................................................................334

9.5 Appendix E - Program Inventory ..................................................................................336

9.6 Appendix F – Park Assessment Scoring ...................................................................... 342

9.7 Appendix G – Park Acres And Amenities By Planning Area .....................................363

9.8 Appendix H - Funding And Revenue ..........................................................................388 City of Mountain View
5 313
List of Figures
Figure 1: Mountain View’s Estimated Population Growth ................................................................................................33 Figure 2: Mountain View’s Population by Age Segments .................................................................................................34 Figure 3: Mountain View’s Racial Composition .................................................................................................................36 Figure 4: Mountain View’s Hispanic Population ................................................................................................................37 Figure 5: Income Comparison ..............................................................................................................................................38 Figure 6: Population Density................................................................................................................................................40 Figure 7: Healthy Places Index Score ...................................................................................................................................41 Figure 8: Public Input Graphic ..............................................................................................................................................44 Figure 9: Community Services Department Organizational Chart for Fiscal Y ear 2025-26. ...................................70 Figure 10: Planning Area Map...............................................................................................................................................84 Figure 11: Transit Map .............................................................................................................................................................87 Figure 12: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and MVWSD School Fields) .............................................................90 Figure 13: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks only) .........................................................................................................91 Figure 14: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and Major Transportation Barriers) ...................................................92 Figure 15: Parks by Park Type ................................................................................................................................................99 Figure 16: Overall Score Summary for City Parks and Trails ..........................................................................................104 Figure 17: Overall Score Summary of Parks and Trails ....................................................................................................105 Figure 18: Map of Shoreline Recreational Areas ..............................................................................................................128 Figure 19: Planning Area Map ...............................................................................................................................................131 Figure 20: Trail Corridor Acres Allocated by Planning Area ..........................................................................................133 Figure 21: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area ..........................................................................................................137 Figure 22: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area ........................................................138 Figure 23: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area ............................................................138 Figure 24: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Facility and Amenity Needs ....................................263 Figure 25: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households ...............................................................264 Figure 26: Top Facility and Amenity Priorities for Future Investment ........................................................................265 Figure 27: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Facility and Amenity Needs ....................................266 Figure 28: Programs Rated Most Important by Households.........................................................................................267 Figure 29: Top Program Priorities for Future Investment .............................................................................................269 Figure 30: EHousehold Composition by Age Group ....................................................................................................270 Figure 31: Households Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months)............................................270 Figure 32: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months) .........................................271 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
6 314
List of Figures
Figure 33: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions ..............................................................271 Figure 34: Barriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often ......................................................272 Figure 35: How residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events ...........................273 Figure 36: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events .....274 Figure 37: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months ....................................275 Figure 38: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months ............................................................276 Figure 39: Number of City Programs and Events Participated in by Households in Past 12 Months ....................276 Figure 40: Overall Quality of City Programs or Events .................................................................................................277 Figure 41: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often ...............................................................................279 Figure 42: Resident Agreement with Benefits of City Parks, Facilities, Programs, and Events ..............................279 Figure 43: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities .........................................................................280 Figure 44: How Well Household Needs Are Met for Recreation Facilities and Amenities ......................................281 Figure 45: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households ...............................................................282 Figure 46: Household Need for Recreation Programs..................................................................................................283 Figure 47: How Well Household Needs Are Met for Programs ..................................................................................284 Figure 48: Programs Rated Most Important by Household .........................................................................................285 Figure 49: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs ...............................................................................................................286 Figure 50: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Park and Recreation Priorities .......................................286 Figure 51: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programs ................................288 Figure 52: Change in Perceived value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic ......................................................................................................................................288 Figure 53: Resident Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space ....................289 Figure 54: Gender of Survey Respondents .....................................................................................................................290 Figure 55: Y ears Lived in Mountain View ...........................................................................................................................291 Figure 56: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish or Latino/a/x .......................................................................291 Figure 57: Race of Survey Respondents ..........................................................................................................................292 Figure 58: Household Composition by Age Group (SurveyMonkey.com) ................................................................293 Figure 59: Household Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com) ........................................................................................................293 Figure 60: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com) ........................................................................................................294 Figure 61: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions (SurveyMonkey.com).......................294 City of Mountain View
7 315
List of Figures
Figure 62: Varriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often (SurveyMonkey.com) .....................................................................................................................................295 Figure 63: How Residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................................................................................................................296 Figure 64: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com) .......................................................................................................................................297 Figure 65: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................................................................................................................298 Figure 66: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com) ....................299 Figure 67: Number of City Programs and Events Participate in by Household in Past 12 Months ........................299 Figure 68: Overall Rating of City Program and Event Quality (SurveyMonkey.com)............................................300 Figure 69: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................301 Figure 70: Resident Agreements with Benefits of City Parks, Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com) ...............................................................................................302 Figure 71: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities (SurveyMonkey.com) ...................................303 Figure 72: Facilities and Amenities rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) .........................304 Figure 73: Household Need for Recreation Programs (SurveyMonkey.com) ..........................................................305 Figure 74: Programs Rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) ................................................306 Figure 75: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................................................307 Figure 76: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Priorities (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................................................................................................................307 Figure 77: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com) ......................................................................................................................................308 Figure 78: Change in Perceived Value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic (SurveyMonkey.com) ...........................................................................308 Figure 79: Residents Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space (SurveyMonkey.com) ........................................................................................................309 Figure 80: Gender of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com) ................................................................................311 Figure 81: Survey Respondents Residency (SurveyMonkey.com) .................................................................................311 Figure 82: Y ears Lived in Mountain View (SurveyMonkey.com) .................................................................................3112 Figure 83: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish, Latino/a/x (SurveyMonkey.com) ...................................312 Figure 84: Race of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com) ...................................................................................313 Figure 85: Access and Connectivity Score Map of City Parks and Trails ...................................................................349 Figure 86: Access and Connectivity Score Summary of City Parks and Trails ..........................................................350 Figure 87: Condition Score Map of City Parks and Trails ...............................................................................................352 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
8 316
List of Figures
Figure 88: Condition Score Summary of City Parks and Trails ....................................................................................353 Figure 89: Functionality Score Map of City Parks and Trails ........................................................................................355 Figure 90: Functionality Score Summary of City Parks and Trails ..............................................................................356 Figure 91: Safety and Comfort Score Map of City Parks and Trails.............................................................................358 Figure 92: Safety and Comfort Score Summary of City Parks and Trails ..................................................................359 Figure 93: Overall Park Score Map of City Parks and Trails ..........................................................................................361 Figure 94: Overall Score Summary of City Parks and Trails .........................................................................................362 Figure 95: Park Land Planning Areas Map .......................................................................................................................368 Figure 96: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area ........................................................................................................373 Figure 97: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area ........................................................374 Figure 98: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area ............................................................375 Figure 99: Trail Acreage Distribution by Planning Area ..................................................................................................376 Figure 100: Recreation Facility Distribution by Planning Area .....................................................................................377 Figure 101: Playground Distribution by Planning Area ....................................................................................................378 Figure 102: Picnic Table Distribution by Planning Area ..................................................................................................379 Figure 103: Multi-Purpose Fields (Rectangle) Distribution by Planning Area ..........................................................380 Figure 104: Ball Fields (Diamond) Distribution by Planning Area ................................................................................381 Figure 105: Basketball Court Distribution by Planning Area ........................................................................................382 Figure 106: Tennis Court Distribution by Planning Area ...............................................................................................383 Figure 107: Pickleball Court Distribution by Planning Area ..........................................................................................384 Figure 108: Outdoor Swimming Pool Distribution by Planning Area .........................................................................385 Figure 109: Skate Park Distribution by Planning Area ...................................................................................................386 Figure 110: Fenced Dog Park Distribution by Planning Area .........................................................................................387 City of Mountain View
9 317
List of Tables
Table 1: Cost of Living Index for City of Mountain View ....................................................................................................31 Table 2: Historically Underserved Population Comparison ..............................................................................................39 Table 3: Ages Served by Core Program Areas....................................................................................................................56 Table 4: Pricing Strategies by Core Program Areas...........................................................................................................57 Table 5: Level of Program Benefit Distribution ..................................................................................................................58 Table 6: Cost Recovery Distribution ....................................................................................................................................59 Table 7: Program Lifecycle Distribution ...............................................................................................................................62 Table 8: Program Direction Distribution .............................................................................................................................63 Table 9: Program Proficiency Distribution ..........................................................................................................................64 Table 10: Planned Active Transportation Projects ..............................................................................................................94 Table 11: Parks and Trails Assessment Criteria, October 2023 .......................................................................................101 Table 12: Highly-Assessed Parks ..........................................................................................................................................119 Table 13: Parks, Open Space and Amenity Inventory (Total Acreage and Amenities) ................................................123 Table 14: Proposed School Acreage Percentage ...............................................................................................................126 Table 15: Shoreline Acreage Distribution ...........................................................................................................................128 Table 16: Adjusted Inventory of Parks, Open Spaces and Amenities .............................................................................129 Table 17: Trail Corridor Acreage by Planning Area ...........................................................................................................134 Table 18: LOS by Planning Area ..........................................................................................................................................135 Table 19: Population Density by Planning Area ................................................................................................................140 Table 20: Level of Service without School Field Access by Planning Area ..................................................................142 Table 21: Underserved Planning Area Criteria Summary ................................................................................................143 Table 22: Citywide Acres/1,000 Resident (2020, 2040) ............................................................................................145 Table 23: Purchased or Dedicated Sites for Future Parks and Trail Extensions ...........................................................172 Table 24: Existing City Land Categorized as Open Space Over 0.50 Acres ..............................................................173 Table 25: Park Enhancement Priority .................................................................................................................................174 Table 26: Community and Regional Parks Update Priority .............................................................................................175 Table 27: Neighborhood Park Update Priority...................................................................................................................176 Table 28: Mini Park Update Priority ....................................................................................................................................177 Table 29: Strategic Plan Performance Metrics ...............................................................................................................234 Table 30: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Household Ages .................................................................................315 Table 31: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Gender ..................................................................................................316 Table 32: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Y ears Lived in Mountain View ...........................................................316 Table 33: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Race .......................................................................................................317 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
10 318
List of Tables
Table 34: Comparison of Visitation to City Park/Recreation Facilities and Participation in Programs ...................319 Table 35: Comparison of Frequency of Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility ........................................................319 Table 36: Comparison of Participation in City Recreation Programs ..........................................................................320 Table 37: Comparison of Quality of Parks/Recreation Facilities ....................................................................................321 Table 38: Comparison of Quality of Recreation Programs or Events ...........................................................................321 Table 39: Top Five Barriers to Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility .........................................................................322 Table 40: Top Five Barriers to Participating in City Recreation Programs...................................................................323 Table 41: Top Five Facility/Amenity Needs. .....................................................................................................................324 Table 42: Top Five Needs for Recreation Programs .......................................................................................................324 Table 43: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Facilities/Amenities........................................................................325 Table 44: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Programs ........................................................................................326 Table 45: Top Five Facilities/Amenities to Prioritize ........................................................................................................327 Table 46: Top Five Programs to Prioritize .........................................................................................................................328 Table 47: Comparison of Additional Tax Revenue Respondents Would be Willing to Pay .......................................329 Table 48: How Respondents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Categories ..............................330 Table 49: Park Assessment Overall Score Summary for City Parks and Trails ...........................................................347 Table 50: Park Acres by Planning Area ............................................................................................................................369 Table 51: Park Amenities by Planning Area ........................................................................................................................371 City of Mountain View
11 319
CHAPTER 1

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. Six
Planning Areas —Rengstorff, Thompson,
Sylvan-Dale, Stierlin, Central, and San
Antonio—currently fall below 2 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
12 320
school sites in recognition of public access
limitations, either due to fee-based access,
off-limits habitat areas, and school hours.

The methodology was also changed to
allocate trail acreage to the Planning Area in
which trail segments are located, rather than
including all Permanente Creek Trail and
Stevens Creek Trail acreage in the North
Bayshore Planning Area. This approach
reflects the community’s feedback about
the importance of natural spaces as part
of the City’s overall parks and open space
system and the need for pedestrian and
bicycle connections to improve access to
parks throughout the Planning Areas.

Removing the North Bayshore Planning
Area from the equation, an additional 53.5
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.

City has acquired and/or developed nearly
20 acres of park land since the 2014
Parks and Open Space Plan
However , access to parks in specific
Planning Areas has decreased over
time
Six Planning Areas fall below 2 acres
per 1,000 residents
City as a whole achieves the 3-acre per
1,000 resident (3 ac/1,000) goal
3 ac
<2
ac1,000 1,000/ /
City of Mountain View
13 321

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.

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

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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
14 322
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, California native,
regional native and near-native planting,
and biodiversity (consistent with the
Biodiversisty and Urban Forest Plan);
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
15 323
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.
■ 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
16 324
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.
■ 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
City of Mountain View
17 325
1 2
3 4

CITY-WIDE

TOTAL PARK
ACRES IS 4.40
ACRES/1,000

RESIDENTS
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:

Conducting an inventory of current
parks, open space, and outdoor
and indoor amenities, with updated
measurements.

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).

Reallocation of trail acreage by Planning
Area, rather than including all trail
acreage in the North Bayshore Planning
Area, in recognition of the importance
of natural spaces as part of the City’s
overall parks and open space system
and the need for pedestrian and bicycle
connections to improve access to parks.

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 / 1,000 residents,
meeting the 3 ac/1,000 goal.

When looking at the City’s ten Planning
Areas, only the North Bayshore, Miramonte,
Grant, and Whisman Planning Areas reach
or exceed the 3-acre goal, when allocating
trail acreage by Planning Area. Six Planning
Areas—Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale,
Stierlin, Central, and San Antonio—fall
significantly short of the citywide goal, with
less than 2 acres per 1,000 residents. The
Plan acknowledges that it is not feasible to
achieve the citywide Level of Service goal
of 3 acres per 1,000 residents in every
Planning Area. To better understand where
gaps in access are most acute, the Plan also
identifies “underserved” Planning Areas
using a combination of three factors: under
2 acres of parks, trails, and open space per
1,000 residents, reliance on school fields
to meet recreational demand, and limited
access to parks within a 10-minute walk when
accounting for City parks only and major
transportation barriers. While a large majority
of residents live within a 10-minute walk of a
park when school fields are included, access
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
18 326
decreases when these sites are unavailable
and further decreases when transportation
barriers such as highways, rail corridors,
and major roadways are considered. These
conditions are most pronounced in the same
six Planning Areas that fall below 2 acres per
1,000 residents, reinforcing their priority for
future investment.

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

City of Mountain View
19 327

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 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 natural elements (such as
accessible walking loops and nature trails,
open green spaces, and naturalized habitat
areas), shaded picnic spaces, playgrounds,
and sports fields and courts 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,
recognizing the critical role trees play
in providing shade, supporting habitat,
reducing urban heat, managing storm water,
and enhancing climate resilience. Planting
strategies emphasize the use of California
native, regional native, and near-native
species (as detailed in the BUFP) to support
ecological function, pollinators, and long-
term sustainability across the park system.

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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
20 328
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, with a focus on areas lacking sufficient
parks and open space. 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,
LAND ACQUISITION is estimated at approximately $10 million per acre DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION costs average of $3-6 million per acre A NEW 5-ACRE PARK COULD COST
$10 million / acre
$3-6 million / acre
$65-80 million
new 5-acre park
City of Mountain View
21 329
Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Stierlin, Central, and
San Antonio Planning Areas. 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, as
well as investments in expanding tree canopy,
enhancing native habitat and pollinator
gardens, implementing climate-resilient
landscaping, and addressing 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
■ Increased tree canopy and other natural
elements
■ Shade
■ 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.
22 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
330

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: Mountain View
is an inclusive and resilient community
where a rich network of parks, natural
open spaces, and recreation opportunities
builds community, enhances physical and
emotional well-being, and inspires care for
our natural environment.

The Plan identifies five 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.

Advance biodiversity, habitat
protection, and natural elements
as essential components of a
resilient and inclusive park and
open space system.

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
Quality
01 03
04 05
02 City of Mountain View
23 331
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 52 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:

Budget ranges are included to indicate the funding needed for each action:

GOALS

BUDGET RANGE

TIMEFRAMES

ACTIONS

ACTIONS
Parks, Trails and Open Space
Biodiversity
Recreation Programs and Facilities
Operations and Maintenance
Funding and Marketing
Ø = Existing staff time only
$ = Up to $250,000
$$ = $250,000–$1,000,000
$$$ = $1,000,000–$5,000,000
$$$$ = $5,000,000+
15 actions
5 actions
9 actions
13 actions
10 actions
17 actions
10 actions
9 actions
7 actions
9 actions
Immediate: less than 2 years
Short-term: 3–5 years
Mid-term: 6–10 years
Long-term: 10+ years
13 actions
19 actions
14 actions
6 actions
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
24 332
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. The two highest
priorities are projects that expand parks
and open space in Planning Areas identified
as underserved and projects that can be
implemented relatively quickly to increase
tree canopy and native plantings in all City
parks. Beyond that, 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 10 metrics
with 19 individual measures 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.

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.
25 333
CHAPTER 2

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,
provide access to nature, and enhance
everyday quality of life. Whether it’s visiting
a neighborhood park, taking part in a class,
enjoying native landscapes and wildlife,
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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
26 334
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 citywide 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
2 acres per 1,000 residents (Rengstorff,
Thompson, Sylvan-Dale, Stierlin, Central,
and San Antonio) 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 and trail acres toward the City’s total
park acres, the City would need to develop
approximately 53.5 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 and achieve
2 acres per 1,000 residents at the Planning
Area level within this Plan timeframe and
anticipated population growth will exacerbate
this gap.

Accordingly, the Plan prioritizes the
neighborhoods and Planning Areas with the
least park access. To better define where
needs are most acute, the Plan identifies
“underserved” Planning Areas using a
combination of factors, including park
acreage under 2 acres per 1,000 residents,
reliance on joint-use school fields to meet
recreational demand, and limited walkable
access to parks when accounting for City
parks only and major transportation barriers.

These conditions are most pronounced in
the same six Planning Areas that fall below 2
acres per 1,000 residents, reinforcing their
priority for future investment. 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
City’s first
parks-focused
planning effort
Open Space
Vision
Statement
Parks and Open
Space Plan, 7th
update
First Recreation Plan
adopted
1987 1992 20142008
City of Mountain View
27 335
orientation for this Plan. In addition, this
Plan takes a new approach to 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, and by allocating trail acreage
to individual Planning Areas rather than
assigning 100% of trail acreage to the North
Bayshore Planning Area.

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 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 10th 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.
10-15
Years
The Strategic Plan offers a comprehensive
vision for the next 10 to 15 years
28 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
336
EQUITY

IS A CENTRAL
THEME

THROUGHOUT

THIS PLAN
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, while also providing essential
benefits such as shade, habitat, stormwater
management, and improved environmental
conditions. 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 ensure that
its parks and recreation system remains
responsive, resilient, and reflective of
the community it serves - today and for
generations to come.

City of Mountain View
29 337
CHAPTER 3

COMMUNITY PROFILE

3.1 Overview 3.2 Cost of Living
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.

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. Y ou can see
the detailed information at BestPlaces.net/
city/california/mountain_view.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
30 338
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.

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.

Cost of Living Mountain View California
Overall 231 149.9
Grocery 120.2 105.1
Health 107.7 98.3
Housing 644.7 234.8
Utilities 88.6 102.4
Transportation 138.6 133.1
Miscellaneous 155.4 118.7
Table 1: Cost of Living Index for City of Mountain View Source:BestPlaces.net
City of Mountain View
31 339

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
32 340

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.

While the rate of growth is expected to
gradually slow, these projections reflect a
continued pattern of consistent population
expansion within the city.
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
Source:BestPlaces.net
2020 CENSUS: 82,376
2025 ESTIMATE: 88,760
ANNUAL GROWTH: 1.55%
INCREASE: 7.75%
City of Mountain View
33 341

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 declin e 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.

Figure 2: Mountain View’s Population by Age Segments
Source:ESRI, 2025

19.25% 18.86% 18.26% 17.88% 17.51%

30.02% 27.68% 26.39% 24.76% 23.40%

29.16% 30.73% 31.05% 32.00% 32.70%

16.21% 16.84% 17.46% 17.98% 18.45%

5.35% 5.88% 6.84% 7.38% 7.94%
2020 Census 2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
2035
Projection
2040
Projection

POPULATION BY AGE SEGMENTS
75+
55-74
35-54
18-34
0-17
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
34 342

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
35 343
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.

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
Figure 3: Montain View’s Racial Composition
Source:ESRI, 2025

42.36% 38.20% 35.20% 32.11% 29.42%

1.49%

1.57%

1.56%

1.61% 1.63%

0.81%

0.79%

0.82%

0.81% 0.81%

35.07% 38.84% 41.22% 43.93% 46.24%

0.28% 0.27% 0.29% 0.29% 0.29%

8.60% 8.79% 9.08% 9.26% 9.45%

11.39% 11.55% 11.83% 11.99% 12.16%
2020
Census
2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
2035
Projection
2040
Projection
RACE
Two or More Races
Some Other Race
Pacific Islander
Asian
American Indian
Black Alone
White Alone
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
36 344
Figure 4: Mountain View’s Hispanic Population
Source:ESRI, 2025
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.

Ethnicity
Mountain View’s Hispanic or Latino
population, encompassing residents of any
race, is projected to experience gradual
growth over the next two decades.

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.

17.25% 17.49% 18.00% 18.27% 18.56%

82.75% 82.51% 82.00% 81.73% 81.44%
2020
Census
2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
2035
Projection
2040
Projection

HISPANIC POPULATION
Hispanic / Latino Origin (any race) All Others
City of Mountain View
37 345

3.3.5 INCOME
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.

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.

THE INCOME LEVELS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW SIGNIFICANTLY
EXCEED THOSE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE U.S.

Figure 5: Income Comparison
Source:ESRI, 2025
$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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
38 346

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%).

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.

Table 2: Historically Underserved Population Comparison Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2025
2025 Demographic Comparison Mountain View California United States Historically
Underserved
Population
Characteristics
Foreign Born 42.8% 26.7% 13.9%
Language other Than English
Spoken at Home 49.3% 44.1% 22.0%
% of Renters 61.2% 44.2% 35.0%
With a Disability 4.0% 7.3% 9.1%
No Health Insurance 2.9% 6.9% 9.6%
Persons in Poverty 5.5% 11.8% 10.6%
City of Mountain View
39 347

3.4 Population Density
As shown in Figure 6 below, 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,
Sylvan-Dale,
Stierlin, Central,
and San Antonio,
with San Antonio
and Sylvan-
Dale being the
most densely
populated with
30 to 40 acres
per 1,000,
followed by
Rengstorff and
Central with 60
acres per 1,000.

Figure 6: Population Density
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
40 348

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.

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
City of Mountain View
41 349
Higher scores (closer to 100) reflect
more favorable community conditions for
health. The map in Figure 7, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
42 350

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.
43 351
CHAPTER 4

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.

Figure 8: Public Input Graphic
Source: Next Practice Partners
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
44 352

4.1 Public Input Highlights
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.

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.

City of Mountain View
45 353
■ 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:
• $25.26 for improvements to existing
parks, pools, and recreation facilities,
• $24.51 towards to acquisition and
construction of new park land and
open space,

• $21.21 for adding amenities to existing
parks, pools, and recreation facilities,
and
• $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.

Strong Community Engagement
The City’s responsiveness and ability
to foster connections through
programs and events were widely
acknowledged.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
46 354

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

2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2.2).
■ 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 Goal 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 Goal 2 and
Action 4.2.3).
■ Ensuring Inclusivity and Equity
Continued focus is needed on
inclusive programming and accessible
facilities (see Actions 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6,

3.1.7, and 4.1.8).
■ 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).

City of Mountain View
47 355
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.

THE PUBLIC

INPUT SUMMARY

IS MORE THAN

A COLLECTION

OF DATA - IT

REPRESENTS

THE VOICES OF

MOUNTAIN VIEW

RESIDENTS
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
48 356
CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS

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

5.1 Recreation Program Assessment
City of Mountain View
49 357
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.

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.

7. Proficiency
The skill level required for successful
participation.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
50 358
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 of Mountain View
51 359
City staff identified the following recreation core program areas currently offered by the City:

Aquatics
Outdoor
Education
Special
Events
Enrichment
Sports
Facility
Reservations
Volunteers
Fitness and
Wellness
Senior
Programming
Y outh and Teen
Programming
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
52 360

AQUATICS

ENRICHMENT

FACILITY RESERVATIONS
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.

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
53 361

FITNESS AND WELLNESS

OUTDOOR EDUCATION

SENIOR PROGRAMMING
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.

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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
54 362

SPECIAL EVENTS
SPORTS

VOLUNTEERS
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.

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
55 363

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.

Table 3: Ages Served by Core Program Areas
Source: City of Mountain View
Age Segment Analysis
The Age Segment analysis identifies how
each core program area serves different age
groups, as noted in Table 3 below.

Aquatics, Enrichment, Sports, and Special
Events are open to all age groups, while
Outdoor Education and Y outh 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.

AGES SERVED
Core Program Area Preschool (5
and Under)
Elementary
(6-12) Teens (13-17) Adult (18+) Senior (55+) All Ages
Programs
Aquatics X
Enrichment X
Facility Reservations X X
Fitness and Wellness X X
Outdoor Education X X X
Senior Programming X
Special Events X
Sports X
Volunteer X X X
Y outh and Teen
Programming X X X
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
56 364
Table 4: Pricing Strategies by Core Program Areas
Source: City of Mountain View
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).

PRICING STRATEGIES
Core
Program
Area
Age
Segment
Family /
Household
Status
Residency Weekday /
Weekend
Prime /
Non-Prime
Time
Group
Discounts
By
Location
By
Competition
(Market
Rate)
By Cost
Recovery
Goals
By
Customer's
Ability to
Pay
Aquatics X X X X X X X
Enrichment X X X
Facility
Reservations X X X X X X
Fitness &
Wellness X X
Outdoor
Education X X X
Senior
Programming X X X
Special
Events EVENTS DO NOT CHARGE FEES
Sports X X X X
Volunteer VOLUNTEERISM DOES NOT INCLUDE FEES
Y outh & Teen
Programming X X X
City of Mountain View
57 365
Table 5: Level of Program Benefit Distribution
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.

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, 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.

Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark Classification Community Benefit Community-Individual Blend Individual Benefit Characteristics
Broad appeal, fundamental
to community well-being,
promotes inclusion,
accessible to all, typically
publicly funded.

Appeals to both general
community and individual
interests, offers specialized
services but with a broad audience
in mind, may require membership
or nominal fees.

Tailored to personal growth and
individual interests, niche markets,
typically fee-based, and may be
more exclusive.

Examples Teen Programs, Volunteer
Programs, Special Events
Facility Reservations, Lifelong
Learning Classes, Swim Lessons
Enrichment, Fitness and Wellness,
Sports
National
Average 31% 39% 30%
Program
Distribution 33% 25% 42%
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
58 366
Table 6: Cost Recovery Distribution
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 5.1.4).

Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark 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.

Classification Fully Subsidized Somewhat Subsidized Self-Sufficient Revenue Generating Definition
Fully subsidized
programs are offered at
no cost to participants
and may be funded
through a combination
of City resources,
partnerships, or other
funding sources to
ensure community-
wide accessibility.

Somewhat Subsidized
programs are offered
at a reduced cost to
participants and may
be funded through a
combination of City
resources, participant
fees, and partnerships to
balance community access
with cost recovery.

Self-Sufficient
programs break
even, with
participant fees
fully covering all
operational costs,
ensuring no profit
or loss.

Revenue Generating
programs cover their
costs and produce
extra income, which
can be reinvested,
typically serving niche
markets or offering
premium services.

Examples
Senior Programming,
Most Special Events.

Volunteer Program
Swim Lessons,
Recreation-led Camps,
Field Rentals
Lap Swim,
Adult Softball
Enrichment Classes
and Camps, Fitness
and Wellness Classes
and Camps, Facility
Reservations
National Average 35% 28% 13% 24%
Program
Distribution 38% 24% 9% 30%
City of Mountain View
59 367
■ 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
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 3.1.2 and 5.1.4 for reviews
of existing cost recovery and financial
assistance programs to continue to maintain
program access and sustainability).
60 368
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. Swim lessons,
for example, routinely reach full enrollment
with waitlists, underscoring both strong
community demand and the importance of
identifying opportunities to expand capacity
over time (See Action 3.1.7). 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.

City of Mountain View
61 369
Table 7: Program Lifecycle Distribution
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.

Lifecycle Definition Actual Program
Distribution
National Average
Distribution
Launch New Programs within last year. 13%
29% 36%
Rising Programs that show participant growth. 16%
Stable Programs that show sustained participation to minimal growth. Expectation is to offer because it fills. 65% 66% 56%
Maxed
Programs where participation level is status quo to
declining, due to extreme competition or limited
resources impeding growth.
1%
Decline
Declining participation. Programs in this stage should
be reevaluated for potential updates, changes, or
reinvention to make it relevant again.
5% 5%
8%
Cancelled
Programs cancelled due to due to prolonged lack of
interest, resource constraints, or the introduction of a newer, more relevant program.
0%
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
62 370
Table 8: Program Direction Distribution
Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark 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.

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.

Classification Self Directed Leader Directed Facilitated Cooperative Definition
Self-directed
recreation
opportunities for
individuals and groups
to participate without
leadership, under only
general supervision.

Recreation
opportunities
where participant
involvement is
directed by a leader,
including skills
instruction classes.

Facilitate assistance
to individuals and
groups of individuals
that provide or want
to provide recreation
programs and leisure
services independently
from the agency.

Cooperative
agreements with
public, commercial,
and nonprofit
entities to provide
programming.

National Average 24% 49% 8% 19%
Program
Distribution 20% 36% 14% 30%
City of Mountain View
63 371
Advanced (3%)
ailored 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.

Table 9: Program Proficiency Distribution
Source: City of Mountain View, Next Practice Partners Programming Benchmark Classification Beginner Intermediate Advanced All Abilities Definition
Programs designed
for individuals who are
new to the activity
or have limited
experience.

Programs for those
who have some
experience and
knowledge in the
activity but are looking
to improve or refine
their skills.

Programs tailored for
individuals who have
extensive experience
and are looking for
high-level training or
challenges.

Programs designed
to be inclusive
and cater to
participants of all
proficiency levels.

National Average 6% 8% 2% 85%
Program Distribution 6% 4% 3% 87%
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
64 372

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.

City of Mountain View
65 373
Instagram
Facebook
Mountain View Recreation Division
1,200+ followers, mirroring Facebook’s engagement.

The View Teen Center
803 followers; teen-focused content
Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts
298 followers; venue-specific content
Mountain View Recreation Division
6,100+ followers, with strong engagement, particularly for special events.

City of Mountain View Senior Center
959 followers; dedicated to senior-specific programs and activities.

The View Teen Center
528 followers; focused on teen programming.

Rengstorff House
777 followers; venue-specific content.

Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts
3,900+ followers; venue-specific content.

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:

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
66 374
City of Mountain View (@MountainViewGov)
18,000+ followers
City of Mountain View (@MountainViewGov)
6,487 followers
City of Mountain View (@MountainViewGov)
6,276 followers
City of Mountain View Y ouTube Channel (@MountainViewGov) 1,000+ subscribers; the City’s main Y ouTube 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.

Additional City-Managed Accounts
Supporting Community Services Department Content:

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.

City of Mountain View
67 375

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 5.1.4).
■ 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 4.1.1,

4.1.6, 4.1.8, and 4.1.9 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
68 376

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.

5.2 Operations Assessment
City of Mountain View
69 377
Figure 9: Community Services Department Organizational Chart for Fiscal Y ear 2025-26.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
70 378

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 Y ear
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 of Staffing and Level of
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

4.1.1).

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 4.1.10) Meanwhile, the
City of Mountain View
71 379
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:

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.

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 3.1.1 has been included in the Action
Plan to update Council Policy H-5.

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 Y outh 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

3.1.3.)
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.

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.

H-5
H-7
J-2
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
72 380
As the City expands services and focuses
more on equity and financial sustainability,
a policy update is recommended (see
Action 5.1.4). A modernized cost recovery
framework would support alignment with
current community needs, evolving program
offerings, and market conditions.

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 3.1.2).

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, offer lasting value to the
public, and align with City goals for livability,
equity, and environmental quality (see
Action 5.1.2).

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 5.1.2).

FAP
Chapter
41 City of Mountain View 73
381
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 4.1.1 calls for a comprehensive
staffing audit to evaluate current capacity
and identify recommendations aligned with
the City’s evolving service levels.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
74 382
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 4.1.4 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 active
transportation goals. Action 4.1.5 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 4.1.3 supports establishing dedicated
biodiversity expertise to implement the
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan and
strengthen coordination across park projects
and operations.

City of Mountain View
75 383
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 Y ear, 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 4.1.6 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
76 384
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

4.1.8 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 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 4.1.7).

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.

City of Mountain View
77 385
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 pl an. 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

4.1.2).

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 Y ears 2025-27 City Council Work
Plan (see Action 3.2.1).

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
78 386

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 4.1.1).

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 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

4.1.10).

City of Mountain View
79 387
City Council Policy and City Code Ordinances
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 3.1.1)
■ Policy H-7: The City could enhance the
process for recognizing Y outh 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 3.1.3)
■ 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 5.1.4)
■ 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 3.1.2)
■ 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 5.1.2)
Each of the policies and code
ordinances provided should be
reviewed and updated as necessary
to meet current operational and
community needs.review → update
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
80 388
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

4.1.1). 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 4.1.4)
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 4.1.5)
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 4.1.3)
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 4.1.9)
City of Mountain View
81 389
Special Event Management:

A central events team
could improve coordination,
standardize processes, and
elevate the quality of community-wide
events. (see Action 4.1.6)
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 4.1.8)
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 4.1.7)
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 4.1.2)
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 Y ears 2025-27 City Council Work
Plan (see Action 3.2.1).

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
82 390
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 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.

A detailed description of each Planning
Area, including boundaries and associated
neighborhoods, are provided in Appendix G.

5.3 Parks and Facility Assessment
City of Mountain View
83 391
Figure 10: Planning Area Map

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
84 392
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 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.
much of the city’s
residential neighborhoods,
are underserved, lacking
frequent or direct routes
Transit access to
Mountain View’s larger
parks is uneven and
generally limited
These service gaps highlight the need
to strengthen multimodal access to
parks
City of Mountain View
85 393
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.

The City’s bicycle network includes
a variety of facility types, ranging from
striped on-street lanes to buffered, barrier-
protected and separated bike lanes, as well
as off-street multi-use trails. The type of
facility provided in each location is based
on existing land use, roadway type, available
right-of-way, engineering standards, and
safety considerations, with the goal of
supporting convenient access to parks and
other destinations.

This network facilitates safe and
convenient access to 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
86 394
Figure 11: Transit Map
Source: City of Mountain View
City of Mountain View
87 395
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
■ A new area on west side of Sylvan-Dale
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
88 396
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 2 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).

City of Mountain View
89 397
Figure 12: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and MVWSD School Fields) Source: WRT, City of Mountain View
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
90 398
Figure 13: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks only)
Source: WRT, City of Mountain View
City of Mountain View
91 399
Figure 14: 10-minute Walk Access (City Parks and Major Transportation Barriers) Source: WRT, City of Mountain View
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
92 400
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 summarizes 18 recently
completed, under-construction, and in-
design CIP projects that will expand bike
lanes and improve access to parks.

City of Mountain View
93 401
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
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
Table 10: Planned Active Transportation Projects
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
94 402
Project # Project Description Status as of
Dec. 2025 Provides Access to
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
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
City of Mountain View
95 403
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
96 404

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
97 405

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
98 406
Figure 15: Parks by Park Type
Source: WRT, City of Mountain View
City of Mountain View
99 407

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:

Access and Connectivity
Condition
Functionality
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.
100
408

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
Table 11:

Parks and Trails Assessment Criteria, October 2023
City of Mountain View
101
409

PARKS TRAILS

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
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” X
Ease of navigation X X
Mitigation of views /noise from surrounding land uses X X Source: WRT
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
102
410
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.

City of Mountain View
103
411
Figure 16: Overall Score Summary for City Parks and Trails Source: WRT
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
104
412
Figure 17: Overall Score Summary of Parks and Trails
Source: WRT
City of Mountain View
105
413

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.

City’s parks are in good
to great condition
Four parks were rated as
GREAT :

Charleston
Pyramid
Pioneer
Evandale
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
106
414

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.

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
Standard City Signage at the entrance of Sierra Vista Park (left).

Custom entry signage at Heritage Park contributes to park character (right).

City of Mountain View
107
415
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).

Accessible 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).

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
108
416
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 accessible 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.

City of Mountain View
109
417

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.

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.

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

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
110
418
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 how parks contribute to habitat
quality, wildlife movement and opportunities
for California native, regional native, and
near-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.

Tree Canopy
It is important to recognize that trees
function as part of Mountain View’s
living infrastructure—providing shade,
habitat, cooling, 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,
Limited groundcover and shrub planting at Gemello Park (left).

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

City of Mountain View
111
419
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 California
native, regional native and near-
native, climate-resilient and
structurally diverse tree species
that provide shade for parks, trails
and walkways while supporting
local biodiversity.

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, 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.

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

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

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
112
420
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. 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.

City of Mountain View
113
421

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.

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

Comfortable distribution of shade and sun at
Pioneer Park.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
114
422
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.

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
considered where existing or newly planted
trees do not provide sufficient shade for a
given location.

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.

City of Mountain View
115
423

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.

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.

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

Subtle berms and large redwood trees buffer the
park from adjacent street sounds at Eagle Park.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
116
424
Graffiti and Vandalism
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.

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.

City of Mountain View
117
425

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 51 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 cooling 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
118
426

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 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.

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.

Table 12: Highly-Assessed Parks
Source: WRT
City of Mountain View
119
427

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.

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 citywide goal of three
(3) acres of park land per 1,000 residents.

While still a useful reference point for the
availability of parks, trails, and open space
across the city, this goal is not viewed in
isolation—and is not the sole determinant
of service levels within individual Planning
Areas. Acreage alone cannot capture the
full range of recreation opportunities, access
considerations, and community needs that
define a well-functioning park system. And
due to the challenges in finding land for parks
and the high cost of land acquisition and
park development, it will not be feasible in
the foreseeable future to achieve 3 acres per
1,000 in each Planning Area.

For this Strategic Plan, the City created

5.4 Level of Service Analysis
120
428
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.

It is also important to look at
both City-owned parks and
school fields, since the long-term availability
of school fields for public access is not
guaranteed.

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.

Together, these factors provide a
more accurate understanding of service
levels across Planning Areas, recognizing
that access, functionality, and the mix of
amenities are as important as total acreage.

As a result, Planning Area analysis considers
all of these dimensions rather than relying
solely on whether a specific acreage ratio is
met.

To determine the actual LOS and
compare it to the goal of 3 ac/1,000, the
City has traditionally 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.

The acreage of the City’s trail corridors has
traditionally been allocated entirely within the
North Bayshore Planning Area. In response
to input from the community, trail acreage is
now allocated to the Planning Area in which
the acreage is located.

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.

ACCESS,

FUNCTIONALITY, AND

THE MIX OF AMENITIES

ARE AS IMPORTANT AS

TOTAL ACREAGE
City of Mountain View
121
429

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 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
shows the resulting data regarding total park
acreage, by type, and facilities, without the
adjustments to acreage to calculate level of
service described later in this section.

THE CITY’S INVENTORY

NOW INCLUDES
parks and school
fields
are City-owned
are MVWSD
are composed of
both City and
MVWSD parcels
46 35
11 2
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
122
430
Park Type City MVWSD Total Inventory
Parks (measured in acres)
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 not including Regional
Park Acres 73% 27% 100%
Trails Within Parks
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
Table 13: Parks, Open Space and Amenity Inventory (Total Acreage and Amenities) City of Mountain View
123
431
Park Type City MVWSD Total Inventory
Outdoor Amenities
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
Adjusted Parks and Open Space and Amenity 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
124
432
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
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.

City of Mountain View
125
433
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.

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.

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%
Table 14: Proposed School Acreage Percentage
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
126
434
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

3.2.2)
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 regional
park. 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. These trails also
provide connections and access to nature
within other Planning Areas. In response to
community input, Council directed a refined
methodology in this Plan to allocate Stevens
Creek and Permanente Creek Trail acreage to
the Planning Areas they traverse, as reflected
in the Trail Corridor acreage analysis below.

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.

City of Mountain View
127
435
Figure 18: Map of Shoreline Recreational Areas
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.

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
Table 15: Shoreline Acreage Distribution
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
128
436
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.

Table 16: Adjusted Inventory of Parks, Open Spaces and Amenities Park Type City MVWSD* Total
Inventory Current Service Level
Parks (measured in acres)
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 Within Parks
Trails (paved
and unpaved
within parks)

17.86 miles - 17.86 miles 0.20 Miles per 1,000
City of Mountain View
129
437
Park Type City MVWSD* Total
Inventory Current Service Level
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 (Di-
amonds) 4 9.55 13.55 1.0 Field per 6,550
Multi-Purpose
Fields (Rectan-
gular)
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 Swim-
ming 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
130
438

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.

Figure 19: Planning Area Map
City of Mountain View
131
439
Allocating Trail Corridor Acreage
Based On Planning Areas
Mountain View’s trail system plays a critical
role in expanding access to parks, open
spaces, and regional destinations while
supporting active transportation, recreation,
and environmental connectivity. The City’s
two primary creekside trails, Stevens Creek
Trail and Permanente Creek Trail, form
the backbone of this system and provide
continuous north–south connections and
access to nature across multiple Planning
Areas.

The Stevens Creek Trail is a major multi-
use corridor that extends from the southern
portions of the city northward to Shoreline
at Mountain View and San Francisco Bay.

The trail serves a wide range of users,
including commuters, recreational cyclists,
runners, and pedestrians, and connects
residential neighborhoods to employment
centers, schools, parks, and regional open
space. Along its length, the trail includes
amenities such as under crossings and
bridges at major roadways, benches and
water fountains to provide a safe and
comfortable experience for the users. In
addition to its transportation and recreation
functions, the trail follows the Stevens
Creek riparian corridor and contributes to
habitat connectivity, urban cooling, and
environmental resilience, while providing the
community with access to nature.

The Stevens Creek Trail also benefits
from long-standing community stewardship.

The non-profit Friends of Stevens
Creek Trail supports the Trail Corridor
through volunteer efforts, advocacy, and
partnerships focused on trail improvements,
extensions, habitat restoration, and
community education. This involvement
helps enhance the trail’s condition, safety,
and long-term sustainability while reflecting
the strong public value placed on Stevens
Creek Trail as both a recreational resource
and an environmental asset.

The Permanente Creek Trail runs along
Permanente Creek, linking neighborhoods
in the western and central portions of
Mountain View to Shoreline at Mountain
View. The trail provides important access to
nearby parks, open spaces, and community
facilities, while also serving as a key
active transportation route connecting
the Rengstorff Planning Area to North
Bayshore. Like Stevens Creek Trail,
Permanente Creek Trail supports ecological
functions by preserving and enhancing the
creek corridor while offering meaningful
recreational opportunities such as walking,
jogging, cycling, and nature observation.

Historically, trail corridor acreage
associated with Stevens Creek and
Permanente Creek Trails has been allocated
to the North Bayshore Planning Area due
to the trails’ connection to Shoreline at
Mountain View. Under Council direction,
this Plan refines that approach by allocating
trail corridor acreage to the Planning Area in
which each segment of the trail is physically
located – retaining a reduced amount
of acreage within the North Bayshore
Planning Area while increasing the parks and
trail acreage within five of the other nine
Planning Areas: Whisman, Stierlin, Central,
Grant, and Rengstorff. This methodology
reflects how trails function as linear assets
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
132
440
that provide localized access, mobility,
recreational, and environmental value to
multiple Planning Areas across the city. The

52.17 acres of trail corridor are allocated as
noted in Table 17. Figure 20 provides a map
of the trail segments by Planning Area.

Figure 20: Trail Corridor Acres Allocated by Planning Area City of Mountain View
133
441
Trail Corridor Planning Area Trail Acres
Permanente Creek
Trail
North Bayshore 1.19 acres
Rengstorff 0.78 acres
Total Permanente Creek Trail Acres 1.97 acres
Stevens Creek Trail
North Bayshore 16.93 acres
Whisman 14.03 acres
Stierlin 2.27 acres
Central 5.42 acres
Grant 11.55 acres
Total Stevens Creek Trail Acres 50.20 acres
Total Trail Corridor Acres 52.17 acres
Table 17: Trail Corridor Acreage by Planning Area
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
134
442
Table 18: LOS by Planning Area
Table 18 below shows the park and trail
acreage, population and acres per 1,000
residents for each of the 10 Planning
Areas. These numbers use the adjusted
park inventory described above, along with
a refined methodology for allocating trail
corridor acreage by Planning Area.

Planning
Area Park Acres* Trail
Acres**
Total Park
and Trail
Acres
2020
Population
Park Acres
per 1,000
Residents
Trail Acres
per 1,000
Residents
Total Acres
per 1,000
Residents
North
Bayshore 178.76 acres 18.12 acres 196.88
acres 988 180.93
acres 18.34 acres 199.27
acres
Miramonte 55.45 acres 0 acres 55.45
acres 11,087 5.00 acres 0 acres 5.00 acres
Grant 14.09 acres 11.55 acres 25.64
acres 5,931 2.38 acres1 1.95 acres 4.32 acres
Whisman 17.29 acres 14.03 acres 31.32 acres 9,982 1.73 acres 1.41 acres 3.14 acres San Antonio 26.56 acres 0 acres 26.56
acres 14,752 1.80 acres 0 acres 1.80 acres
Central 16.17 acres 5.42 acres 21.59 acres 12,391 1.30 acres 0.44 acres 1.74 acres Stierlin 14.21 acres 2.27 acres 16.48 acres 9,979 1.42 acres 0.23 acres 1.65 acres Sylvan-Dale 9.96 acres 0 acres 9.96 acres 7,778 1.28 acres 0 acres 1.28 acres Thompson 2.93 acres 0 acres 2.93 acres 2,671 1.10 acres 0 acres 1.10 acres Rengstorff 2.92 acres 0.78 acres 3.70 acres 6,817 0.43 acres 0.11 acres 0.54 acres Citywide 338.34 acres 52.17 acres 390.51
acres 82,376 4.12 acres 0.63 acres 4.74 acres
Citywide
w/o North
Bayshore
159.58 acres 34.05
acres
193.63
acres 81,388 1.96 acres 0.42 acres 2.38 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. ** Trail corridor acreage is allocated to the Planning Area in which each segment is physically located, as noted above. 1: The Park Acres per 1,000 residents value for the Grant Planning Area has been corrected in this version of the Plan. A previous draft contained an error in this calculation.

City of Mountain View
135
443
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:

Four of the 10 Planning Areas meet
or exceed the 3-acre goal (North
Bayshore, Miramonte, Grant, and
Whisman). The remaining six Planning
Areas(Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-
Dale, Stierlin, Central, and San Antonio),
fall significantly short of the goal, with
less than 2 acres per 1,000 residents.
■ Outliers:

The total acreage in the North
Bayshore Planning Area is driven by
the exceptionally high acreage of the
Shoreline at Mountain View Regional
Park, in addition to Charleston Park
and Plaza, and a reduced share of the
City’s trail corridor acreage following the
revised allocation methodology.

Figures 21, 22 and 23 show the location
and acreage 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
136
444
Figure 21: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area
City of Mountain View
137
445
Figure 22: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
138
446
Figure 23: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
139
447
Table 19: 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
Park access can be further understood by
looking at the population density within each
Planning Area, which is shown in Table 19.

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

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
140
448

5.4.5 DEFINING UNDERSERVED PLANNING AREAS
To better understand disparities in park
access across Mountain View, this Plan
defines “underserved” Planning Areas
using a combination of three factors: (1)
acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (2)
access to parks within a 10-minute walk,
and (3) reliance on school fields to meet
recreational needs. Evaluating these factors
together provides a more complete picture
of access than any single metric alone.

As described in the Level of Service
analysis, six Planning Areas currently fall
below 2 acres per 1,000 residents – San
Antonio, Central, Stierlin, Sylvan-Dale,
Thompson, and Rengstorff. Two of these
Planning Areas (Thompson and Stierlin),
also rely heavily on school sites to meet
recreational demand, underscoring the
importance—and limitations—of joint use
agreements in providing consistent public
access. Table 20 illustrates the adjusted
Level of Service by Planning Area if
school fields associated with the Joint Use
Agreement are not included. As shown,
while overall acreage levels would decrease,
the same Planning Areas currently below 2
acres per 1,000 residents would continue
to fall below this threshold and remain a
priority for future park investment and
expansion. While the Planning Areas with
the lowest park acreage per population
remain consistent, the relative ranking
among the lowest four Planning Areas would
shift if all school field access is lost. These
four Planning Areas—Sylvan-Dale, Stierlin,
Rengstorff, and Thompson—are the most
vulnerable to being underserved under this
scenario.

Walk access analysis further highlights
disparities among Planning Areas. While
92% of residents citywide are within a
10-minute walk of a park when both City
parks and school fields are included, access
decreases when school fields are removed
and decreases further when accounting
for major transportation barriers such
as highways, rail corridors, and arterial
roadways. (These impacts on park access are
further described in Section 5.3.2 – Park
Access Overview.) Under these conditions,
all six of the Planning Areas with under
2 acres per 1,000 residents have gaps in
walkable access.

THIS PLAN DEFINES
“UNDERSERVED ”

PLANNING AREAS USING A

COMBINATION OF THREE

FACTORS
acres of park land
per 1,000 residents
access to parks within
a 10-minute walk
reliance on school
fields to meet
recreational needs
City of Mountain View
141
449
Table 20: Level of Service without School Field Access by Planning Area Planning
Area
School Field
Acres
City Park and
Trail Acres Total Acres 2020
Population
Total Acres
per 1,000
Residents
(w/ School
Fields)
Total Acres
per 1,000
Residents
(w/o School
Fields)
North
Bayshore 0 acres 196.88 acres 196.88 acres 988 199.27 acres 199.27 acres Miramonte 7.84 acres 47.61 acres 55.45 acres 11,087 5.00 acres 4.29 acres Grant 9.15 acres 16.49 acres 25.64 acres 5,931 4.32 acres 2.78 acres Whisman 6.13 acres 25.19 acres 31.32 acres 9,982 3.14 acres 2.52 acres San Antonio 0 acres 26.56 acres 26.56 acres 14,752 1.80 acres 1.80 acres Central 3.80 acres 17.79 acres 21.59 acres 12,391 1.74 acres 1.44 acres Sylvan-Dale 0 acres 9.96 acres 9.96 acres 7,778 1.28 acres 1.28 acres Stierlin 10.88 acres 5.60 acres 16.48 acres 9,979 1.65 acres 0.56 acres Rengstorff 0 acres 3.70 acres 3.70 acres 6,817 0.54 acres 0.54 acres Thompson 2.22 acres 0.71 acres 2.93 acres 2,671 1.10 acres 0.27 acres Citywide 40.32 acres 350.49 acres 390.51 acres 82,376 4.74 acres 4.25 acres Citywide
w/o North
Bayshore

40.32 acres 153.61 acres 193.63 acres 81,388 2.38 acres 1.89 acres Taken together, these three indicators—
low park acreage, reliance on school fields,
and limitations to walkable access—identify
the Planning Areas that are currently most
underserved. Table 21 summarizes these
indicators, which will be used to focus
future investment in land acquisition and
park development. In situations where
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
142
450
Table 21: Underserved Planning Area Criteria Summary
Planning Area LOS Below 2 ac/1,000
(Acres w/ Schools) Gaps in 10-minute Walk
Reliance on School
Fields
(Acres w/o Schools)
North Bayshore - X -
Miramonte - X X
(4.29 acres)
Grant - X X
(2.78 acres)
Whisman - X X
(2.52 acres)
San Antonio X
(1.80 acres) X -
Central X
(1.74 acres) X X
(1.44 acres)
Stierlin X
(1.65 acres) X X
(0.56 acres)
Sylvan-Dale X
(1.28 acres) X -
Thompson X
(1.10 acres) X X
(0.27 acres)
Rengstorff X
(0.54 acres) X -
land acquisition opportunities arise without
sufficient identified funding, this assessment
will also be used to help prioritize the
allocation of available resources.

5.4.6 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, Builder remedy projects,
the City’s Affordable Housing pipeline,
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. While these initiatives support
City of Mountain View
143
451
critical housing goals, affordable housing
developments are not subject to park land
dedication or in-lieu fee requirements,
which limits the availability of new funding
to address the associated increase in park
demand. 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.

Additional details on each Planning Area can
be found in Appendix G.

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 park land needs,
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.)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan144
452
Looking at potential population growth
citywide, the LOS for parks and open space
would change over time as shown in Table
22 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 196.89 acres of North Bayshore park land
accessible to the public. If no North Bayshore
acres are included, the park LOS would go
from 2.35 acres/1,000 residents in 2020 to

1.38 acres/1,000 residents in 2040.

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 Planning Areas
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.
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 193.61 204.85
Acres/1,000 residents 2.35 1.38
Table 22: Citywide Acres/1,000 Resident (2020, 2040) Including and Not Including Shoreline *Including 11.24 acres owned as of 2025 but not yet developed.

MANY PLANNING

AREAS REMAIN
UNDERSERVED.

FUTURE GROWTH

WILL INTENSIFY

DEMAND ON EXISTING

RESOURCES
City of Mountain View
145
453
CHAPTER 6

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).

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
146
454

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. These guidelines
recognize natural elements—such as trees,
landscape, and open space—as integral
components of park design, supporting
both active recreation and restorative,
nature-based experiences. 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 guidelines 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 for users of all abilities, ages,
and mobility levels. This includes improving
edge access, wayfinding, accessible 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 as follows.
■ 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, including notable natural
features and habitat areas.
■ 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, natural materials or
landscape features, 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,
natural features, and plant selections.
■ Include bike parking at all parks.

City of Mountain View
147
455

6.1.2 CONDITION
Condition guidelines emphasize
maintaining high-quality, well-functioning
park and trail features that support safe,
comfortable use by people of all abilities.

Key elements include durable paving,
healthy, biodiverse, and well-managed
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, in
accordance with the forthcoming Dark
Skies Ordinance, 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.
■ 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,
while still contributing to landscape
character and user comfort. Signage,
openness, fence materials, if applicable,
and planting should be carefully designed
to enhance park appeal.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
148
456
■ Select paving, site furnishing, and
landscape materials based on durability,
usability, and 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 and cooling
from tree canopy, views of natural
features, and sound.

6.1.3 FUNCTIONALITY
Functionality guidelines address how well
parks and trails support a range of activities
and user needs across ages and abilities,
including opportunities for nature-based
recreation, learning, and respite. 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,
including both built and natural features,
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 that allow users to
experience and engage with natural
elements and support rest, observation,
and social connection. 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 and
abilities, 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
California native, regional native, and
near-native trees with large canopies
to provide long-term shade, improve
comfort, support habitat and biodiversity,
and contribute to cooling, stormwater
management, and climate resilience.

City of Mountain View
149
457
■ Shade from existing Heritage trees,
which provides large tree canopy, should
be prioritized in play areas, seating and
high-use spaces, where possible. Such
trees can be supplemented with new
tree plantings where necessary. Shade
structure may also be considered where
existing and newly planted trees do
not provide sufficient shade for a given
location.

6.1.4 SAFETY AND COMFORT
Safety and comfort guidelines focus
on creating secure, welcoming spaces that
support a wide range of users and abilities.

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 through design, layout, and
landscape treatments. 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 and the
forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance, in
select parks that need lighting, including
those with sports courts or those that
facilitate pedestrian traffic.
■ Where appropriate, provide lighting to
extend the use of outdoor facilities at
night, such as sports fields, skate parks,
and sports courts, in accordance with the
forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance.
■ 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, including landscape buffers
where appropriate, minimize the impacts
of noise and lighting on neighboring
properties.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
150
458

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.

The park typologies are intended to balance
traditional active recreation amenities with
opportunities for more quiet enjoyment
of nature, recognizing that, depending on
park size, context, and community input,
some parks or park areas may place greater
emphasis on landscape and open space as
primary features, such as Cuesta Annex,
while others may prioritize active recreation
amenities. 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.

All of the Cities park typologies also
incorporates a “biodiversity anchor”, a
defining landscape feature or set of features
intentionally designed to support habitat,
ecological function, and connection to
nature. These anchors may take different
forms depending on park size and context,
such as native planting areas, pollinator
gardens, shaded groves, or naturalized
landscapes. By integrating a biodiversity
anchor into each park type, the City can
ensure that all parks—regardless of size—
contribute to broader ecological goals while
enhancing the user experience through
access to nature.
151
459

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, natural
elements, 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.
■ 5.0 to 40 acres
■ From 1 hour up to a half day
■ 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.

TIME

USE TIME

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
152
460
■ 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.
■ 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.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS

PARKING
Two-way Class IV cycle track near Charleston Park.

City of Mountain View
153
461
■ 75% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

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 and swings, with consideration for providing shade over play areas where feasible, preferably through tree canopy.
■ Open green areas for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. ■ Naturalized landscape areas or habitat zones designed for passive use, environmental learning, and visual enjoyment.
■ Sports fields/courts selected to meet recreation needs. Lighting should be considered at one or more of the fields/courts, including consideration of the City’s forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
154
462
■ Provide safety lighting along primary paths and circulation routes within the park to enhance visibility, comfort, and user safety after dark following the City’s forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance. ■ 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.
■ Scenic overlooks, nature viewing areas, or informal gathering spaces oriented towards natural features.
■ 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.

City of Mountain View
155
463
■ 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. ■ 1+ Biodiversity Anchor: A natural or landscaped feature, scaled to the size and context of the park, that contributes to biodiversity, habitat value, tree canopy, and/or ecological function, while providing opportunities for learning, stewardship, or quiet recreation.

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

COMMUNITY PARKS SHOULD HAVE
■ 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 planting strategies. Undeveloped areas should be maintained to prevent invasive species that would harm native plants. (see Action 2.2.1)
■ Because trees serve as living infrastructure, community park designs should prioritize their protection and strategic placement to enhance user comfort, provide shade and cooling, support biodiversity, and contribute to stormwater management and climate resilience. ■ Plant palettes should prioritize California native, regional native, and near-native species that are climate-resilient and support local habitat, pollinators, and ecological function, consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
156
464

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.

This typology should include a balance
of active and passive uses, designed to
support nearby residents and encourage
daily visiting for recreation and enjoyment
of nature. A representative mix of amenities
should be considered through community
input to 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.
■ 1.0 to 5.0 acres
■ 1 to 2 hours
■ 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.

TIME

USE TIME

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
City of Mountain View
157
465
■ 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.
■ Served by street parking.
■ Bike parking with racks placed near main pedestrian entry points.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS

PARKING
■ 80% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

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.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
158
466
■ Intuitive and accessible walking loop.
■ Picnic facilities, including shaded tables 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 consideration for providing shade over play areas where feasible, preferably through tree canopy.
■ Open lawn for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. ■ Naturalized landscape areas that support passive enjoyment, shade, and visual relief within the park.
■ 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. Lighting should follow the forthcoming Dark Skies Ordinance.

City of Mountain View
159
467
■ 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. ■ 1+ Biodiversity Anchor: A natural or landscaped feature, scaled to the size and context of the park, that contributes to biodiversity, habitat value, tree canopy, and/or ecological function, while providing opportunities for learning, stewardship, or quiet recreation.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS SHOULD HAVE
■ Existing natural features should be preserved and incorporated into park design and identity where feasible, with priority given to enhancing habitat value, supporting pollinators, and sustaining urban wildlife. ■ Because trees serve as living infrastructure, park designs should prioritize their protection and strategic placement to enhance user comfort, provide shade and cooling, support biodiversity, and contribute to stormwater management and climate resilience.
■ Plant palettes should prioritize California native, regional native, and near-native species that are climate-resilient and support local habitat, pollinators, and ecological function, consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
160
468

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.

A representative mix of amenities should
guide the planning and design of mini
parks to 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.
■ Up to 1.0 acre
■ 30 minutes to 1 hour
■ Embedded within neighborhoods.
■ At trailheads that serve as nodes along greenways, paths or trails, or access points to open space areas
TIME

USE TIME

LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS
■ Frontage on two streets is preferable; one-street frontage is acceptable.

FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
City of Mountain View
161
469
■ Served by street parking.
■ Bike parking.

PARKING
■ 80% of the site should be relatively developable and usable.

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 shaded picnic tables.
■ Open lawn for multi-use recreation and unstructured play. ■ Landscaped areas designed for passive enjoyment, shade, and visual interest within the park.
■ 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, with consideration for providing shade over play areas where feasible.

RECREATIONAL CAPACITY

POTENTIAL AMENITIES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
162
470
■ Permanent restrooms based on the need and type of amenities in the park.
■ Gazebo trellis or arbor.
■ Game tables for chess, checkers, weiqi/go/baduk, mahjong, etc. ■ Multi-use lawn/Green space: For unstructured play/recreation. ■ 1+ Biodiversity Anchor: A natural or landscaped feature, scaled to the size and context of the park, that contributes to biodiversity, habitat value, tree canopy, and/or ecological function, while providing opportunities for learning, stewardship, or quiet recreation. Examples for a Mini park may include a small pollinator garden, a small grove of trees, a bioswale with California native, regional native or near-native plantings, and similar natural elements.

MINI PARKS SHOULD HAVE
■ Existing natural features should be preserved and incorporated into park design and identity where feasible.
■ Plant palettes should prioritize California native, regional native, and near-native species that are climate-resilient and support local habitat, pollinators, and ecological function, consistent with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.
■ Because trees function as living infrastructure, mini park designs should incorporate shade trees and biodiverse plantings that improve comfort, support habitat and ecological value, and contribute to cooling and long- term climate resilience.
■ Planting design should also consider water efficiency and long-term maintenance needs, particularly in small park settings where space and resources are limited.

LANDSCAPE FEATURES
City of Mountain View
163
471

6.3 Integration of Biodiversity into Park Design

6.3.1 PARK SYSTEM IMPORTANCE TO BIODIVERSITY IN MOUNTAIN 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 2.2.2).

Connectivity across the City’s park
system is equally important, with many parks
and open spaces serving as key components
of a broader, connected habitat network that
includes creeks, trails, and the urban forest.

In many parts of Mountain View, roadways
and development patterns have fragmented
the landscape, making it difficult for wildlife
Future park design and improvements
should consider
SITE
LAYOUT

VEGETATION

BUFFERS

INTERNAL

HABITAT ZONES
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
164
472
to move safely between habitat patches. The
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan further
identifies gaps in this network through
mapping and analysis, which can guide
future park expansion and enhancement
efforts in areas where connectivity is limited.

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 California native, regional native or
near-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 2.1.2). These
improvements support biodiversity and also
enrich the visual and sensory quality of the
park experience for residents.

Within this connected system, habitat
areas within parks can be thoughtfully
managed to balance wildlife protection with
public use. This includes strategies such
as establishing buffer zones, incorporating
educational signage, and applying seasonal
protections where appropriate. These
approaches help protect ecological
resources while maintaining opportunities
for recreation and fostering community
awareness and stewardship.

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, biodiversity-supportive understory
plantings that offer shelter, foraging, and
nesting opportunities. These decisions
require balancing ecological 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.

City of Mountain View
165
473

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 California native,
regional native, and near-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 2.1.2).
■ 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
biodiversity-supportive landscaping in
low-intensity spaces, adding 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

2.1.3).
■ 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 2.1.1).
■ Wildlife-Friendly Maintenance:

Integrate wildlife-friendly and
ecologically aligned maintenance
practices and standards. References:

BUFP Action 21 (see Action 4.2.3).
■ 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
166
474
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 and
follow the City’s forthcoming Dark Skies
Ordinance.
■ 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.
■ 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 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.2.2).
■ 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 2.1.1).
■ Periphery landscape areas should feature
climate-appropriate and California
native, regional native and near-native
plants, including climate-appropriate,
drought-tolerant, and biodiversity-
supportive species. These plants require
minimal maintenance, watering, and
pruning, while enhancing biodiversity.
(see Actions 2.1.2 and 2.2.1).
■ Select a diverse and sustainable planting
palette to create a rich and resilient
habitat (see Action 2.1.2).
■ 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.

City of Mountain View
167
475
CHAPTER 7

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
168
476

FRAMEWORK FOR

PRIORITIZING NEW PARK

PLANNING AND PARK

IMPROVEMENTS

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.

Types of
Park Investments
Enhance Existing Parks
$ $
Develop New Parks
$ $ $
Update Existing Parks
$
City of Mountain View
169
477

7.1.1 DEVELOP NEW PARKS
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 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, 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
170
478
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.

7.2.1 DEVELOP NEW PARKS
The City has been proactively seeking
opportunities to expand park land in
Mountain View. This includes reviewing
properties that are on the market, especially
in Planning Areas with less access to parks,
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.

City of Mountain View
171
479
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).

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
24 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.

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
Table 23: Purchased or Dedicated Sites for Future Parks and Trail Extensions Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
172
480
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 and that it is not
feasible to achieve 3 ac/1,000 in all Planning
Areas. Park expansion will be prioritized
in those Planning Areas identified as
underserved (i.e. under 2 ac/1,000, reliant
on school fields, and with limited walkable
access). 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.

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
Easy 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
Table 24: Existing City Land Categorized as Open Space Over 0.50 Acres City of Mountain View
173
481

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.

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
Table 25: Park Enhancement Priority
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
174
482
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 26: Community and Regional Parks Update Priority

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). Consistent with
direction from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, improvements to expand tree
canopy and incorporate California native,
regional native and near-native planting will
be prioritized for implementation as quickly
as possible across all parks, regardless of
their overall lifecycle priority. In some
cases, minor modifications, such as the
addition of game tables, shade, 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 26 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.

City of Mountain View
175
483
Table 27 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.

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 27: Neighborhood Park Update Priority
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
176
484
Table 28 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).

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
Table 28: Mini Park Update Priority
City of Mountain View
177
485

7.3 Cost of New 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 8.6.8.

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.
$13 to $16 million
per acre

ESTIMATED
COST
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
178
486

7.4 Areas of Focus for Park Improvement and Expansion
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.

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.

City of Mountain View
179
487

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, Stierlin, Central, and San
Antonio Planning Areas, which currently
fall below 2 acres per 1,000 residents
and are considered underserved Planning
Areas. Particular neighborhoods that have
advocated for additional park land include
Monta Loma, Terra Bella and Rex-Manor.

The cost to develop six new parks ranging
between one-acre to five-acres each in
these areas is estimated at $13.5 million to
$67.5 million per park depending on park
size, or approximately $81 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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
180
488
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
■ Increased tree canopy and other natural
elements
■ Shade
■ 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.

City of Mountain View
181
489
CHAPTER 8

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
182
490

8.1 Vision Statement

8.2 Goals
Mountain View is an inclusive and resilient community where a rich network of parks, natural open spaces, and recreation opportunities builds community, enhances physical and emotional well-being, and inspires care for our natural environment.

The Plan identifies five 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 Planning
Areas and preserve natural spaces for
future generations and alignment with the
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

Advance biodiversity, habitat
protection, and natural elements
as essential components of
a resilient and inclusive park
and open space system. Incorporate
biodiversity, habitat protection, and urban
forest strategies into parks to support
climate resilience, enhance environmental
education, and provide everyday access
to nature. Ensure natural elements are
thoughtfully designed and managed to
balance ecological health with inclusive
public use.

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.
01 02
03 04
City of Mountain View
183
491
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.

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.
05 Collaboration
Future FocusQuality
Stewardship
Inclusion
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
184
492
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, the strategies are
supported by concrete actions.

City of Mountain View
185
493
■ 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.
■ Provide park improvements and amenities that reflect
community needs and address needed updates.
■ Strengthen ecological function and habitat value within parks, open spaces, and trail corridors in alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.
■ Integrate long-term biodiversity stewardship into park planning, design, and asset management, guided by the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.
■ Deliver inclusive program offerings that serve diverse community needs.
■ Expand partnerships for program delivery, awareness and use.

GOAL 1: Parks, Trails and Open Space
Expand and enhance safe, equitable and convenient
access to parks, open spaces, and trails.

GOAL 2: Biodiversity
Advance biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements as essential components of a resilient and inclusive park and open space system.

GOAL 3: RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
Increase community participation.

I
II
III
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
186
494
■ Build organizational capacity and a future-ready workforce to sustain high-quality parks and recreation services.
■ Enhance preventative and responsive maintenance practices. ■ Diversify and expand revenue streams.
■ Share meaningful stories to maximize community engagement and connections.

GOAL 4: Operations and Maintenance
Foster a positive staff culture and ensure well-maintained operations.

GOAL 5: Funding and Marketing
Develop new funding sources and strengthen existing financial strategies to support a sustainable parks and recreation system.

IV
V

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
City of Mountain View
187
495
meeting the needs of the community. Areas
of improvement have been identified and
22 associated action items are listed in
Sections 8.6.3 and 8.6.4.

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

The inclusion of a goal focused on
biodiversity demonstrates the importance
of habitat protection, and natural elements
as essential components of the City’s
parks and trail system. The Action Plan
advances ecological outcomes alongside
recreational and community goals. Actions
identified in Section 8.6.2 are aligned
with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest
Plan and reflect the biodiversity guidance
outlined in Section 6.3 – Integration of
Biodiversity into Park Design of this Plan.

Together, these sections translate high-level
ecological objectives into implementable
actions related to habitat enhancement,
tree canopy expansion, California native,
regional native and near-native and
climate-resilient planting, and long-term
stewardship. This communicates the City’s
intent to promote environmental resilience
and ecosystem health within the parks and
recreation 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 15 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
188
496
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 8.6.7, 8.6.8
and 8.6.9 provide information about criteria
for prioritizing expenditures, a funding
strategy for the Action Plan, and a land
acquisition strategy, respectively.

The timelines associated with action
items reflect the anticipated duration to
fully implement each effort, rather than
when work will begin. In general, milestones
are expected to be achieved earlier within
each timeframe, with the identified timeline
representing when staff anticipates the
action to be fully completed. For example,
in many cases - particularly for park
expansion and land acquisition - actions
are identified as long-term due to the
complexity of securing funding, acquiring
land, completing design, and constructing
new facilities. However, work on these
actions will begin as opportunities arise,
and meaningful early milestones, such as
site identification, partnerships, or initial
funding, may be achieved well in advance of
the overall timeframe.

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.

City of Mountain View
189
497
GOALS

TIMEFRAMES

ACTIONS

ACTIONS
Parks, Trails and Open Space
Biodiversity
Recreation Programs and Facilities
Operations and Maintenance
Funding and Marketing
Immediate: less than 2 years
Short-term: 3–5 years
Mid-term: 6–10 years
Long-term: 10+ years
15 actions
5 actions
9 actions
13 actions
10 actions
13 actions
19 actions
14 actions
6 actions

8.5.2 HOW THE ACTION PLAN IS ORGANIZED
There are a total of 52 actions grouped into five categories that reflect the major elements of the park and recreation system.

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:

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
190
498

RELATIVE COST ACTIONS
Ø = Existing staff time only
$ = Up to $250,000
$$ = $250,000–$1,000,000
$$$ = $1,000,000–$5,000,000
$$$$ = $5,000,000+
17 actions
10 actions
9 actions
7 actions
9 actions
Relative Cost (planning-level order of magnitude)
These ranges support scoping and priority setting. Actual budgets will be refined during project development.

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

5.2.2).

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
City of Mountain View
191
499
to reflect the community’s evolving needs
and priorities, and set priorities and actions
for the next 10 years.

To support effective implementation
and maintain alignment with changing
conditions, an update is recommended
approximately five years after adoption.

This interim update will focus on
tracking progress, updating key data and
assumptions, and refining strategies or
action items as needed, while maintaining
the overall vision, goals, and framework of
the Plan.

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.

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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
192
500
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 8.6.8, 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 $130 million to $160 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
City of Mountain View
193
501
improvements, and development of parks
and recreation 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 8.6.8, 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
194
502
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.) As further
described in Section 5.4.5, reliance on
school fields is also a key consideration in
identifying underserved Planning Areas,
as these areas may have limitations in
access, availability, and long-term certainty
compared to City-owned park land. 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.

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.

City of Mountain View
195
503

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+
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.

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 Planning
Areas and preserve natural spaces for
future generations and alignment with the
Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

Immediate: less than 2 years;
Short-term: 3–5 years;
Mid-term: 6–10 years;
Long-term: 10+ years
196
504
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 $$$$
• Identify opportunities for
new parks and facilities in
underserved Planning Areas
with limited access to parks.
• Monitor and pursue land
acquisition opportunities
through on-market and off-
market strategies, and advance
viable sites through appraisal
and Council approval.
• Plan, design, and construct
new parks or facilities on
acquired sites through
community engagement,
feasibility analysis, and funding
coordination.
1 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 City of Mountain View
197
505
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

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 $$$$
• Identify opportunities for
new parks and facilities both
citywide and in underserved
Planning Areas with limited
access to parks.
• Monitor and pursue land
acquisition opportunities
through on-market and off-
market strategies, and advance
viable sites through appraisal
and Council approval.
• Plan, design, and construct
new parks or facilities on
acquired sites through
community engagement,
feasibility analysis, and funding
coordination.
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 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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
198
506
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 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 City of Mountain View
199
507
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

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 1.2.7
Integrate priority amenities –
such as sports fields and courts,
public restrooms, tree canopy
and other natural elements,
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 1.2.9
Incorporate inclusive design
improvements in existing
parks to enhance accessibility,
usability, and comfort for people
of all abilities, guided by the
City’s Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and
Transition Plan.

Mid-term $$$
• Review the City’s ADA Self-
Evaluation and Transition Plan to
identify priority accessibility and
inclusive design improvements for
existing parks.
• Assess existing park amenities
and circulation to identify
opportunities to enhance inclusive
design beyond minimum ADA
compliance (e.g., paths, seating,
play, shade, and wayfinding).
• Prioritize and integrate
inclusive design improvements
into maintenance projects,
renovations, and capital
improvement planning
3 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
200
508

8.6.2 BIODIVERSITY
Goal 2:

Advance biodiversity, habitat protection, and natural elements as essential components of a resilient and inclusive park and open space system.

Incorporate biodiversity, habitat protection, and urban forest strategies into parks to support climate resilience, enhance environmental education, and provide everyday access to nature.

Ensure natural elements are thoughtfully designed and managed to balance ecological health with inclusive public use.

STRATEGY 2.1
Strengthen ecological function and habitat value within parks, open spaces, and trail corridors in alignment with the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

Immediate $$$
• Identify and prioritize planting
areas across all City parks,
gathering areas, and along
trails and park pathways for
California native, regional
native, and near-native tree
canopy expansion, including
opportunities for arboretums
or bosques that enhance
shade and urban cooling.
• Coordinate with local
nonprofit partners (e.g.,
Canopy) to support
collaborative tree planting and
canopy expansion efforts.
• Develop and implement
phased tree planting plan.
3, 4

Immediate $
• Identify priority sites and
habitat opportunities in all City
parks.
• Implement landscaping
enhancements based on
guidance from the BUFP.
3, 4
City of Mountain View
201
509
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

2.1.3 Maximize biodiversity support
within City parks and trail
corridors while continuing to meet
community needs (BUFP Action
10).

Short-term $$$
• In high-activity recreational
spaces, implement biodi-
versity-friendly lighting and
incorporate native landscaping
around the perimeter or in
underutilized spaces.
• Incorporate native landscaping
in low-intensity recreational
spaces.
• Add design elements to
promote respite, enjoyment,
and awareness of nature, such
as benches and signage.
• Incorporate habitat
enhancement and restoration
goals into trail and recreational
facility improvement projects.
4 STRATEGY 2.2
Integrate long-term biodiversity stewardship into park planning, design, and asset management, guided by the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Priority Performance
Metric

2.2.1 Develop lifecycle-based
replacement schedule guidelines
for park and trail trees and
landscape plantings to ensure
proactive management,
habitat protection, 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 2.2.2
When reviewing or updating
existing City landscaping and
planting guidelines, implement
design standards for City parks,
trails, 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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
202
510

8.6.3 RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
Goal 3:

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 3.1
Deliver inclusive program offerings that serve diverse community needs.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.1 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 3.1.2
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 3.1.3
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 Y outh 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 City of Mountain View
203
511
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.4 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 3.1.5
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 3.1.6
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 3.1.7
Continue to expand
access to learn-to-swim
and recreation swim
opportunities, with an
emphasis on youth water
safety.

Immediate Ø
• Assess current learn-to-swim
and recreation swim capacity,
participation trends, and access
barriers to identify gaps by age group,
season, skill level, and time of day.
• Adjust schedules, class mix, and open
swim availability to prioritize beginner
and youth water-safety classes and
recreation swim.
• Explore strategies to increase access
to recreation swim, such as extended
hours, additional swim sessions, or
targeted programming for families
and underserved populations.
• Monitor enrollment, waitlists,
attendance, and participation
trends annually to inform ongoing
refinements and seasonal
adjustments.
5 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
204
512
STRATEGY 3.2
Expand partnerships for program delivery, awareness, and use.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.2.1 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.
• Evaluate how opportunities to
work with Friends of Parks–style
groups could be included within the
volunteer partnership framework.
• Develop a draft policy to present to
the Council Policy and Procedures
Committee.
• Present draft policy for City Council
for adoption.
9 3.2.2
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 City of Mountain View
205
513

8.6.4 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Goal 4:

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 4.1
Build organizational capacity and a future-ready workforce to sustain high-quality parks and recreation services.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.1 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 4.1.2
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 4.1.3
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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
206
514
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.4 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

4.1.6 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 4.1.7
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

4.1.8 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 City of Mountain View
207
515
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.9 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

4.1.10 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 4.2
Enhance preventative and responsive maintenance practices.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.2.1 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 4.2.2
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 4.2.3
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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
208
516

8.6.5 FUNDING AND MARKETING
Goal 5:

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.ongoing, transparent, and responsive communication.

STRATEGY 5.1
Diversify and expand revenue streams.

Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

Immediate $$
• Conduct community polling and
analysis for a potential 2026
ballot measure.
• City Council reviews and deter-
mines 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

5.1.2 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, POPA standards,
and fee structures.

Immediate Ø
• Present the Nexus Study and
recommended fee updates to
City Council for potential direc-
tion to amend Chapter 41 (Q2
2026).
• Return to City Council with an
ordinance amending Chapter
41 to adopt updated parkland
fees and review recommended
changes to park land dedication
requirements (Q2–Q3 2026).
• Explore updates to POPA
standards and implementation re-
quirements and return to Council
for direction (Q3–Q4 2026).
1, 2, 3
City of Mountain View
209
517
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

5.1.3 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 5.1.4
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 Proce-
dures Committee.
• Present the draft policy amend-
ments to City Council for adop-
tion.
6 5.1.5
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 pro-
grams.
9 5.1.6
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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
210
518
Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

5.1.7 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.
• Explore the feasibility of a
“Friends of Parks” or similar
nonprofit support model,
including potential roles and
alignment with City priorities.
• Determine next steps toward
potential nonprofit foundation
formation.
9 5.1.8
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 partner-
ships with local employers.
9 Action
# Action Timeline Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

5.2.1 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 5.2.2
Develop an annual report and
public-facing dashboard that
tracks progress toward the Parks
and Recreation Strategic Plan
goals, including implementation
milestones, performance
metrics, and how funding
supports improvements in parks,
programs, and facilities.

Immediate Ø
• Designate staff capacity to focus
on strategic partnerships.
• Develop a CSR sponsorship
framework and package.
• Launch and pilot CSR partner-
ships with local employers.
10 STRATEGY 5.2
Share meaningful stories to maximize community engagement and connections.

City of Mountain View
211
519

8.6.6 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 Milestones Performance
Metric

2.1.1 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 and prioritize planting areas
across all City parks, gathering areas,
and along trails and park pathways for
California native, regional native, and
near-native tree canopy expansion,
including opportunities for arbore-
tums or bosques that enhance shade
and urban cooling.
• Coordinate with local nonprofit
partners (e.g., Canopy) to support
collaborative tree planting and canopy
expansion efforts.
• Develop and implement phased tree
planting plan.
3, 4

2.1.2 Establish and enhance native habitat,
pollinator gardens, and climate-
resilient landscaping in parks and trails,
where appropriate, in accordance
with California native, regional native,
and near-native and climate-resilient
planting guidance from the BUFP
(BUFP Action 5).
$
• Identify priority sites and habitat
opportunities.
• Implement landscaping enhance-
ments based on guidance from the
BUFP.
3, 4

3.1.1 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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
212
520
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.2 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 3.1.3
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 Y outh 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 3.1.7
Continue to expand access to learn-to-
swim and recreation swim opportunities,
with an emphasis on youth water safety.

Ø
• Assess current learn-to-swim
and recreation swim capacity,
participation trends, and access
barriers to identify gaps by age group,
season, skill level, and time of day.
• Adjust schedules, class mix, and open
swim availability to prioritize beginner
and youth water-safety classes and
recreation swim.
• Explore strategies to increase access
to recreation swim, such as extended
hours, additional swim sessions, or
targeted programming for families
and underserved populations.
• Monitor enrollment, waitlists,
attendance, and participation
trends annually to inform ongoing
refinements and seasonal
adjustments.
5 City of Mountain View
213
521
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.2.1 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/volun-
teer organizations for streamlining
ideas.
• Conduct a legal review on risk man-
agement.
• Evaluate how opportunities to work
with Friends of Parks–style groups
could be included within the volun-
teer partnership framework.
• Develop a draft policy to present to
the Council Policy and Procedures
Committee.
• Present draft policy for City Council
for adoption.
9 4.1.1
Conduct a staffing audit to assess the
department’s structure comparing
to other agencies’ staffing levels and
provide recommendations that align
with service goals.
$$
• Complete staffing and workload
analysis.
• Develop phased staffing
recommendations aligned with
service goals.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
7 4.1.3
Establish dedicated biodiversity
expertise to support implementation of
the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan
across park planning, capital projects,
and maintenance.
$$
• Identify an approach to provide dedi-
cated 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

4.2.2 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 expecta-
tions.
• Use updated standards to inform
staffing and workload analysis.
8 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
214
522
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

5.1.1 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

5.1.2 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, POPA standards, and fee
structures.

Ø
• Present the Nexus Study and
recommended fee updates to City
Council for potential direction to
amend Chapter 41 (Q2 2026).
• Return to City Council with an
ordinance amending Chapter 41 to
adopt updated parkland fees and
review recommended changes to
park land dedication requirements
(Q2–Q3 2026).
• Explore updates to POPA standards
and implementation requirements
and return to Council for direction
(Q3–Q4 2026).
1, 2, 3

5.1.3 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 practic-
es.
• Identify enhancements to sponsor-
ship levels, benefits, and revenue
potential.
• Implement sponsorship program
updates.
9 5.2.2
Develop an annual report and
public-facing dashboard that tracks
progress toward the Parks and
Recreation Strategic Plan goals,
including implementation milestones,
performance metrics, and how funding
supports improvements in parks,
programs, and facilities.

Ø
• Produce a public-facing dashboard or
annual report.
• Conduct public outreach to increase
community awareness of progress on
the Parks and Recreation Strategic
Plan
10 City of Mountain View
215
523
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 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.
$$
• Complete update improvements to
Sylvan Park (CIP 26-32).
• Complete Eagle Park Pool Improve-
ments (CIP 25-38).
• Complete Callahan Field Lighting
Upgrade (CIP 27-xx).
3 2.1.3
Maximize biodiversity support within
City parks and trail corridors while
continuing to meet community needs
(BUFP Action 10).
$$$
• In high-activity recreational spac-
es, implement biodiversity-friendly
lighting and incorporate native land-
scaping around the perimeter or in
underutilized spaces.
• Incorporate native landscaping in
low-intensity recreational spaces.
• Add design elements to promote
respite, enjoyment, and awareness of
nature, such as benches and signage.
• Incorporate habitat enhancement and
restoration goals into trail and recre-
ational facility improvement projects.
4 2.2.1
Develop lifecycle-based replacement
schedule guidelines for park and trail
trees and landscape plantings to
ensure proactive management, habitat
protection, long-term ecological health,
and predictable maintenance planning.

Ø
• Assess existing tree and landscape
lifecycles and condition.
• Develop and implement replacement
schedules.
4 2.2.2
When reviewing or updating existing
City landscaping and planting guidelines,
implement design standards for City
parks, trails, 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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
216
524
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

3.1.4 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 3.1.5
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 3.1.6
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 4.1.2
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 4.1.4
Evaluate and add project management
capacity within the Public Works
Department to support new park
development and major park
enhancement projects.
$$
• Evaluate project management capac-
ity and workload demands.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Assign project management resourc-
es to support park projects.
1, 2, 3, 7
City of Mountain View
217
525
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.5 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 evalu-
ate, advance, and deliver on transpor-
tation projects that provide access to
parks.
1, 7

4.1.6 Identify staff capacity—or add staffing—
to create a dedicated Special Events
Team to provide consistent planning,
coordination, and staffing for City
events.
$$
• Review special event staffing needs as
part of the staffing audit.
• Propose resource allocations, as
feasible, through the City’s annual
budget process.
• Establish a dedicated Special Events
Team through staffing or reallocation.
7 4.1.7
Identify staff capacity—or add
staffing—to centralize and coordinate
exploration and development of grants,
sponsorships, and strategic partnerships
that support parks, recreation, and
performing arts programming.
$$
• 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

4.1.10 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 Com-
puterized Maintenance Management
System for Parks.
• Implement new or upgraded Recre-
ation Registration and Reservation
Software
• Implement new or upgraded Per-
forming Arts Ticketing Software
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
218
526
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.2.1 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 4.2.3
Develop and implement staff training
for biodiversity-friendly landscape
installation and maintenance (BUFP
Action 21).
$
• Identify training needs and biodiversi-
ty topics to focus on.
• Develop and deliver biodiversity-fo-
cused training.
8 5.1.4
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 Commis-
sion.
• Present draft policy amendments to
the Council Policy and Procedures
Committee.
• Present the draft policy amendments
to City Council for adoption.
6 5.1.5
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 5.2.1
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 mes-
sages and supporting data points.
• Apply messaging across funding
proposals, outreach, and advocacy
efforts.
10 City of Mountain View
219
527
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 Milestones 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.
$$$
• Complete extension from Dale/
Heatherstone to Remington (CIP
20-50).
2 1.1.6
Coordinate with the City’s Active
Transportation Plan to review and
assess safe and convenient multimodal
connections to parks, open spaces,
and recreation facilities, prioritizing
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access.
$$$$
• In concert with the Active
Transportation Plan, identify park
access gaps.
• When parks are physically proximate,
include park access and connectivity
needs as part of identified priority
projects in the Active Transportation
Plan.
• Include language in the Active
Transportation Plan to recognize
Parks and Open Space as important
destinations.
1 1.2.1
Design and implement Update
Improvements to Neighborhood Parks
based on park assessment, with a
potential focus on Cooper, Whisman,
and San Veron Parks.
$$$$
• Complete update improvements to
Cooper Park.
• Complete update improvements at
Whisman Park.
• Complete update improvements at
San Veron Park.
3 1.2.2
Design and implement Update
Improvements to Mini Parks based on
park assessment, with a potential focus
on Rex Manor Park which includes
negotiating with SFPUC regarding
permitted improvements, and Thaddeus
and Varsity Parks.
$$$
• 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
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
220
528
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

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 1.2.9
Incorporate inclusive design
improvements in existing parks to
enhance accessibility, usability, and
comfort for people of all abilities, guided
by the City’s Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and
Transition Plan.
$$$
• Review the City’s ADA Self-
Evaluation and Transition Plan to
identify priority accessibility and
inclusive design improvements for
existing parks.
• Assess existing park amenities and
circulation to identify opportunities
to enhance inclusive design beyond
minimum ADA compliance (e.g.,
paths, seating, play, shade, and
wayfinding).
• Prioritize and integrate inclusive
design improvements into
maintenance projects, renovations,
and capital improvement planning.
3 3.2.2
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 City of Mountain View
221
529
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

4.1.8 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 4.1.9
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

5.1.6 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 5.1.7
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.
• Explore the feasibility of a “Friends
of Parks” or similar nonprofit support
model, including potential roles and
alignment with City priorities.
• Determine next steps toward poten-
tial nonprofit foundation formation.
9 5.1.8
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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
222
530
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 Milestones Performance
Metric

1.1.1 Acquire land and develop two new
Neighborhood Parks, prioritizing
underserved Planning Areas
where access is lowest (including
Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan-Dale,
Stierlin, Central, and San Antonio
Planning Areas, including the Monta
Loma, Terra Bella, and Rex-Manor
neighborhoods).
$$$$
• Identify opportunities for new parks
and facilities in underserved Planning
Areas with limited access to parks.
• Monitor and pursue land acquisition
opportunities through on-market and
off-market strategies, and advance
viable sites through appraisal and
Council approval.
• Plan, design, and construct new parks
or facilities on acquired sites through
community engagement, feasibility
analysis, and funding coordination.
1 1.1.2
Design and develop 11.24 acres of park
land already acquired by the City or
planned through joint use agreements.
$$$$
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 City of Mountain View
223
531
Action
# Action Cost Milestones Performance
Metric

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.
$$$$
• Identify opportunities for new parks
and facilities both citywide and in
underserved Planning Areas with
limited access to parks.
• Monitor and pursue land acquisition
opportunities through on-market and
off-market strategies, and advance
viable sites through appraisal and
Council approval.
• Plan, design, and construct new parks
or facilities on acquired sites through
community engagement, feasibility
analysis, and funding coordination.
1 1.2.6
Identify and advance Enhancement
Improvements for Community Parks
with potential focus on Cuesta Park,
guided by community input.
$$$$
• Complete enhancements to Cuesta
Park (CIP 26-34), which includes
new design elements, pathway
renovations, playground replacement
and landscape improvements (see
Section 7.2 for more information).
3 1.2.7
Integrate priority amenities – such
as sports fields and courts, public
restrooms, tree canopy and other
natural elements, shade, adult
fitness equipment, skate/bike parks,
and dog parks – into existing park
improvements, new park development,
and public-private partnership
opportunities to expand recreational
access and variety.
$$$$
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 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
224
532

8.6.7 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
Over the next ten years, the City will
pursue implementation of this Plan’s action
items through strategic, proactive efforts,
within the context of emerging opportunities
and constraints. Because funding, staff
capacity, and land availability 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. These criteria reflect
a range of considerations. However, the
highest priority will be given to projects that
expand parks and open space in Planning
Areas identified as underserved and projects
that can be implemented relatively quickly
to increase tree canopy and native plantings
in all City parks. Beyond that, 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
underserved Planning Areas with low
access (defined as those with under
2 acres/1,000 residents, reliance on
school fields, and limitations to walkable
access)?
■ 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, and
can it be implemented in most, if not all,
City parks?
■ Does the action improve access to
existing parks in Planning Areas with low
access (under 2 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 deliver near-term/
immediate improvements to habitat,
biodiversity, or ecological function?
■ 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?
Highest priority will
be given to projects
that expand parks
and open space and
projects that increase
tree canopy and
native plantings
City of Mountain View
225
533
■ 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:

Evaluate the new project using
the same criteria listed above –
ensuring consistency with the
Plan’s goals and strategies.

Place the project into the
appropriate implementation
timeline (immediate, short-,
mid-, or long-term) and reflect it
in future Action Plan updates.

Review significant changes
with the Parks and Recreation
Commission and City Council,
providing opportunities for
community engagement and
transparency.

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.
01 02
03 04
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
226
534

8.6.8 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
City of Mountain View
227
535
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.

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
Mountain View 2040 projected population:

Acres of park needed to achieve the 3 ac/1,000 goal:

Citywide, there are:

However , if the acres associated with North Bayshore
are excluded, there are only
148,200 people
247.13 acres
390.51 acres
193.63 acres
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
228
536
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 and trail acres 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
193.63 acres of neighborhood-serving parks
and trails, creating an estimated shortfall of
approximately 53.5 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 204.87 acres. If no additional park
acres were developed, the City would have
an estimated shortfall of approximately
247.62 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 53.5 acres needed to address
today’s shortfall would cost approximately
$722 million, 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 247.62 acres
needed would cost approximately $3.3
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.

City of Mountain View
229
537
The Cost of Implementing the Action Plan
The Action Plan provides 52 actions that support the five 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 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
two 5-acre neighborhood parks, as included in
the Action Plan, 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
230
538

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 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6, 4.1.7,

4.1.8, 4.1.9) 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.

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 park
land, 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 park land
deficits and improving access to parks in
underserved Planning Areas.

City of Mountain View
231
539
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.

8.6.9 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.
232
540

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 building 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 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.

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.

City of Mountain View
233
541

8.7.2 PERFORMANCE METRICS
Below in Table 29 are Performance Metrics that will measure the success of the Plan.

Each metric includes related action items, suggested data sources, targets and tracking frequency.
# Performance
Metric
Purpose / What It
Measures
Related
Action
Items
Data Source(s) Target Metric Tracking
Frequency
1 Park Access and
Land Expansion

1.a. - Park acres by
Planning Area

1.b. - Total acres added
through new park
development.

1.1.1 -

1.1.4, 1.1.6,

4.1.4,

4.1.5,

5.1.1, 5.1.2
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 2 acres per 1,000
and 10-15 total acres
added citywide by 2036.

Every 5
years
2 Stevens Creek
Trail and
Connectivity
Improvements

2.a. - Track progress
toward completing the
Stevens Creek Trail
extension

2.b. - Improving trail
amenities to enhance
user comfort, safety,
and park connectivity.

1.1.5,

1.2.8,

4.1.4,

5.1.1, 5.1.2
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
3 Park
Renewal and
Improvements

3.a. - # of parks
completing update
improvements.

3.b. - # of parks
completing
enhancement
improvements.

1.2.1 -

1.2.7,

1.2.9,

2.1.1,

2.1.2,

4.1.4,

5.1.1, 5.1.2
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

4.a. - # of parks
incorporating California
native, regional
native, or near-native,
pollinator-friendly,
or drought-resilient
landscape features.

4.b. - # of trees planted
in parks and open
spaces.

2.1.1-

2.1.3,

2.2.1,

2.2.2,

4.1.3 Project close-
out reports;
planting records
Acres of landscaping
converted from
unprogrammed and
underutilized turf or
impervious surface to
ecologically functioning
landscaping.

Annual
Table 29: Strategic Plan Performance Metrics
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
234
542
# Performance
Metric
Purpose / What It
Measures
Related
Action
Items
Data Source(s) Target Metric Tracking
Frequency
5 Program
Participation
and Inclusion

5.a - % change in total
recreation participation.

5.b - Number of
Financial Assistance
recipients served.

3.1.2,

3.1.4 –

3.1.7 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

6.a - % of program
areas meeting updated
cost-recovery targets.

6.b - Policy updates
completed.

3.1.1,

3.1.3,

5.1.4,

5.1.6 Financial
Reports; Policy
Update
Complete a review and
update of Council Pol-
icy J-2 by 2031. Once
implemented, achieve
at least 85% compliance
with updated cost-re-
covery targets by 2033,
with biennial policy
reviews thereafter.

Annual
7 Workforce
Structure and
Succession
Planning

7.a - Completion
of a staffing audit
and actions taken
to strengthen
departmental structure
and capacity.

7.b - Completion
or update of the
Department’s written
succession plan.

4.1.1 -

4.1.9 HR and Bud-
get 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

8.a - % of parks and
facilities with current
lifecycle replacement
schedules.

8.b - Adopted
maintenance standards.

4.2.1 –

4.2.3 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

9.a - # of active
partnerships,
sponsorships, and grants
secured annually.

9.b - Total external
funding or in-kind value.

3.2.1,

3.2.2,

4.1.7,

5.1.3,

5.1.5,

5.1.7,

5.1.8 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

10.a - Publication of
an annual dashboard
or report showing
park investments,
participation, and
funding outcomes.

4.1.9,

5.2.1,

5.2.2 Annual Report;
City Website
Analytics
Publish an annual “State
of Parks and Recreation”
dashboard by September
30 each year.

Annual
City of Mountain View
235
543
CHAPTER 9

APPENDICES
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 APPENDIX A - 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan Outcomes Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
236
544

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 addi-
tional 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.

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 of Mountain View
237
545
Priority
Order Recommendation Current Status
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
238
546

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.

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 of Mountain View
239
547
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
Y outh 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 Y outh 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 Y outh 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.

Planning Area Priority – Grant: Work with
Mountain View Whisman School District and
Y outh 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. 240
548

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.

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 of Mountain View
241
549
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
242
550

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 of Mountain View
243
551
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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
244
552

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
245
553
Priority
Order Recommendation Current Status
City-wide
Priority 1
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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
246
554
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.

City of Mountain View
247
555
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

9.2 APPENDIX B – Related Plans
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
248
556
plans. It also addresses other issues related
to the city’s physical environment, such as
noise, open space, and safety.

With respect to parks and open
space, the General Plan emphasizes
the importance of a well-distributed
system of parks, trails, and recreational
facilities that support community health,
environmental sustainability, and quality
of life. It includes policies to expand park
access in underserved areas, integrate
open space into new development, and
enhance connectivity through trails and
green corridors. While the General Plan
provides broad policy direction for parks
and open space, it does not establish a
specific level of service standard for park
land or amenities. The Plan also promotes
environmental stewardship through
the protection of natural resources,
enhancement of habitat and ecological
functions, expansion of the urban forest,
and use of sustainable landscaping practices
that support long-term environmental
health and climate resilience. Additionally, it
recognizes the role of parks and recreation
facilities in supporting active lifestyles,
community gathering, and inclusive
programming for residents of all ages and
abilities.

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 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.

City of Mountain View
249
557
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
250
558
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.”

9.3 APPENDIX C - Public Input
City of Mountain View
251
559
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.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
252
560
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.

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.

City of Mountain View
253
561
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
254
562

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.

City of Mountain View
255
563
Downtown
Committee
Library Board
of Trustees
Mountain View
Little League
Silicon
Shores
German
International
School
Midpeninsula
Regional Open
Space District
Public Safety
Advisory
Board
Mountain
View Tennis
Academy
Waldorf
School of the
Peninsula
Community
Services
Agency
Y outh Advisory Committee
League of
Women Voters
of Los Altos-
Mountain View
Mountain View
Historical
Association
Senior Advisory
Committee
Friends of
Stevens Creek
Trail
Los Altos-
Mountain View
PONY Baseball
Performing
Arts
Committee
Mountain View
Pickleball Club
Visual Arts
Committee
Chair
Canopy
Kiwanis Club
of Mountain
View
Mountain
View Coalition
for Sustainable
Planning
Santa Clara
Valley Audubon
Society
Friends of
Mountain
View Parks
Los Altos
School
District
Palo Alto
Preparatory
School
Mountain
View Masters
Touchstone
Golf
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Advisory
Committee
Khan Lab School
Mountain View
Chamber of
Commerce
Rotary Club of
Mountain View
Friends of Deer
Hollow Farm
Los Altos
Mountain View
Aquatic Club
Mountain View
YIMBY
Mountain View
Los Altos Union
High School
District
Tennis Advisory
Board
AYSO Soccer
Human
Relations
Commission
Mountain
View Babe
Ruth
Rental
Housing
Committee
Friends of “R”
House
Live Nation
- Shoreline
Amphitheatre
Mountain
View Whisman
School
District
Mountain
View Los Altos
Soccer Club
St. Joseph
Mountain
View
Environmental
Planning
Commission
Livable
Mountain View
Mountain View
Los Altos Girls
Softball League
St. Francis
High School
Greenspaces
Mountain View
Mountain View
Academy
Red Star
Soccer
Academy
Mountain View
Tennis Club
Y ew Chung
International
School
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
256
564

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 (86%) 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:
• Lack of amenities in parks and centers
(32%).
• Lack of restrooms (30%).
• Being too busy (25%).

Facility Interests:
■ Trails/Walking Paths (48%), Aquatic
Features (33%), and Open Space
(31%) 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.

City of Mountain View
257
565
■ Top three desired improvements for the
next 10 years
• Expand and connect the trail system
(49%).
• Build new or upgrade existing sports
courts (41%).
• More shade structures (39%).

Satisfaction with Community Services
Department:
■ A majority of respondents are either
“Very Satisfied” (24%) 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 Y ou 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, 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
258
566
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ Y outh and Equity-Focused Features:

Y outh programming, accessible design,
and safe, inclusive spaces were common
themes.

What Is Y our 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 Y ou 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.

City of Mountain View
259
567

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 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%),
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
260
568
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%).

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,
City of Mountain View
261
569
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.

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:

Restrooms
15,813 households
Shaded picnic areas
14,268 households
Shade structures
15,584 households
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
262
570
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 estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 35 facilities/amenities assessed is shown in the chart below.

Figure 24: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Facility and Amenity Needs City of Mountain View
263
571
The percentage of residents who selected each amenity/facility as one of their top four choices is shown in the chart below.

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.

Figure 25: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
264
572
Figure 26: Top Facility and Amenity Priorities for Future Investment 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.

City of Mountain View
265
573

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 27: Estimated Households with Unmet or Partly Met Program Needs Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
266
574
Figure 28: Programs Rated Most Important by Households
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.

City of Mountain View
267
575
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)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
268
576
Figure 29: Top Program Priorities for Future Investment The chart below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 37 programs assessed on the survey.

City of Mountain View
269
577

STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY CHARTS AND GRAPHS
Figure 30: Household Composition by Age Group
Figure 31: Households Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
270
578
Figure 32: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months) Figure 33: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions City of Mountain View
271
579
Figure 34: Barriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
272
580
Figure 35: How Residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events 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, Y elp) 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.

City of Mountain View
273
581
Figure 36: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
274
582
Figure 37: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months City of Mountain View
275
583
Figure 38: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months Figure 39: Number of City Programs and Events Participated in by Households in Past 12 Months Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
276
584
Figure 40: Overall Quality of City Programs or Events
City of Mountain View
277
585
Figure 41: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often 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).

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
278
586
Figure 42: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often City of Mountain View
279
587
Figure 43: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities 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).

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
280
588
■ 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 44: How Well Household Needs Are Met for Recreation Facilities and Amenities City of Mountain View
281
589
Figure 45: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
282
590
Figure 46: Household Need for Recreation Programs
City of Mountain View
283
591
Figure 47: How Well Household Needs Are Met for Programs Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
284
592
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).
■ Y outh-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: Programs Rated Most Important by Household
City of Mountain View
285
593
Figure 49: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs
Figure 50: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Park and Recreation Priorities Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
286
594
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).

City of Mountain View
287
595
Figure 51: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programs Figure 52: Change in Perceived value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
288
596
Figure 53: Resident Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space 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.

City of Mountain View
289
597
■ 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.

Figure 54: Gender of Survey Respondents
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
290
598
Figure 54: Gender of Survey Respondents
Figure 55: Y ears Lived in Mountain View
Figure 56: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish or Latino/a/x City of Mountain View
291
599
Figure 57: Race of Survey Respondents
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
292
600

9.3.6 ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
Figure 58: Household Composition by Age Group (SurveyMonkey.com) Figure 59: Household Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com)
City of Mountain View
293
601
Figure 60: Frequency of Visits to City Parks and Recreation Facilities (Past 12 Months; SurveyMonkey.com)
Figure 61: Overall Ratings of City Park and Recreation Facility Conditions (SurveyMonkey.com) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
294
602
Figure 62: Barriers to Visiting City Parks and Recreation Facilities More Often (SurveyMonkey.com)
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.

City of Mountain View
295
603
Figure 63: How Residents Learn About City Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs, and Events (SurveyMonkey.com)
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
296
604
Figure 64: Preferred Methods of Communication About Parks, Recreation Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com)
City of Mountain View
297
605
Figure 65: Organizations Used for Recreation and Sports Activities in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com)
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
298
606
Figure 66: Participation in City Programs and Events in the Past 12 Months (SurveyMonkey.com) Figure 67: Number of City Programs and Events Participate in by Household in Past 12 Months City of Mountain View
299
607

32.47%

60.79%

6.39%

0.35%
Excellent 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 68: Overall Rating of City Program and Event Quality (SurveyMonkey.com) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
300
608
Figure 69: Barriers to Participating in City Programs More Often (SurveyMonkey.com) 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.

City of Mountain View
301
609
Figure 70: Resident Agreements with Benefits of City Parks, Facilities, Programs and Events (SurveyMonkey.com)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
302
610
Figure 71: Household Need for Recreation Facilities and Amenities (SurveyMonkey.com) City of Mountain View
303
611
Figure 72: Facilities and Amenities Rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
304
612
Figure 73: Household Need for Recreation Programs (SurveyMonkey.com) City of Mountain View
305
613
Figure 74: Programs Rated Most Important by Households (SurveyMonkey.com) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
306
614
Figure 75: Additional Tax Amount Residents Are Willing to Pay to Improve City Parks, Trails, Recreation Facilities, and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com)
Figure 76: How Residents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Priorities (SurveyMonkey.com)
City of Mountain View
307
615
Figure 77: Importance of Providing High-Quality Parks, Recreation Facilities and Programs (SurveyMonkey.com)
Figure 78: Change in Perceived Value of Parks, Trails, Open Spaces, and Recreation Since the COVID-19 Pandemic (SurveyMonkey.com)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
308
616
Figure 79: Residents Preferences for Future Funding of Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Open Space (SurveyMonkey.com)
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.

City of Mountain View
309
617
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
310
618
Figure 80: Gender of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com) Figure 81: Survey Respondents Residency (SurveyMonkey.com) City of Mountain View
311
619
Figure 82: Y ears Lived in Mountain View (SurveyMonkey.com) Figure 83: Respondents Identifying as Hispanic, Spanish, Latino/a/x (SurveyMonkey.com) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
312
620
Figure 84: Race of Survey Respondents (SurveyMonkey.com)

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, facilitated through SurveyMonkey,
allowed for broader participation, enabling a
wide range of stakeholders to express their
opinions and preferences.

City of Mountain View
313
621
Statistically Valid Survey Online Community 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
• 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
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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
314
622
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
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.

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%
Table 30: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Household Ages City of Mountain View
315
623
GENDER
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
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%.

Female 50% 65% 51%
Male 49% 34% 49%
Non-Binary 1% 1% 0%
0-5 19% 20%
6-10 14% 16%
11-15 12% 14%
16-20 10% 10%
21-30 22% 21%
31+ 21% 18%
Table 31: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Gender
Table 32: Comparison of Survey Respondents’ Y ears Lived in Mountain View Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
316
624

RACE/ETHNICITY
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.

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%
Table 33: Comparison of Frequency of Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility City of Mountain View
317
625

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:
■ 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
318
626

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?
How often have you visited City of Mountain View parks and/or recreation facilities during the past 12 months?
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%
Visited parks and/or recreation
facilities in the past 12 months 96% 98%
Participated in programs in the
past 12 months 41% 50%
Table 35: Comparison of Frequency of Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility Table 34: Comparison of Visitation to City Park/Recreation Facilities and Participation in Programs City of Mountain View
319
627
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? 1 program/event 31% 24%
2-3 programs/events 42% 53%
4-6 programs/events 20% 14%
7+ programs/events 7% 9%
Table 36: Comparison of Participation in City Recreation Programs 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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
320
628
Excellent 28% 26%
Good 61% 59%
Fair 10% 14%
Poor 1% 1%
Excellent 35% 32%
Good 59% 61%
Fair 6% 6%
Poor 0% 0%
Table 37: Comparison of Quality of Parks/Recreation Facilities Table 38: Comparison of Quality of Recreation Programs or Events

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?
City of Mountain View
321
629
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.

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%) Table 39: Top Five Barriers to Visiting a City Park/Recreation Facility

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) Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
322
630
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). 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
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%)
Table 40: Top Five Barriers to Participating in City Recreation Programs.

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) City of Mountain View
323
631
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%)
Table 41: Top Five Facility/Amenity Needs.

NEEDS
Need for recreation facilities/amenities by percentage of respondents who indicated a need (top five responses)
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%) Table 42: Top Five Needs for Recreation Programs
Need for recreation programs/activities by percentage of respondents who indicated a need (top five responses)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
324
632
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.

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%)
Table 43: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Facilities/Amenities

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) City of Mountain View
325
633
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%) Table 44: Top Five Respondents’ Most Important Programs Programs/activities most important to households by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top five choices (top five responses) 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).

Restrooms 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%).

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
326
634

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.

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) Table 45: Top Five Facilities/Amenities to Prioritize
City of Mountain View
327
635
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) Table 46: 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 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 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
328
636
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.

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?
Per Month
$9+ 31% 35%
$7-$8 9% 10%
$5-$6 20% 16%
$3-$4 19% 19%
Nothing 21% 20%
Table 47: Comparison of Additional Tax Revenue Respondents Would be Willing to Pay City of Mountain View
329
637
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.

If you had $100, how would you allocate the funds among the parks and recreation categories? (Top five responses)
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) Table 48: How Respondents Would Allocate $100 Among Parks and Recreation Categories Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
330
638

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.

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.

City of Mountain View
331
639

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 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:

More Pedestrian and Bike
Connectivity
Many responders want improved
pathways connecting neighborhoods, parks,
and amenities to encourage walking and
biking over driving.

Equitable Park Access
There is a strong desire for parks in
every neighborhood, particularly in
underserved areas with fewer green spaces.

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.

Water and Restroom Facilities
Calls for more hydration stations,
pet water bowls, and publicly
accessible restrooms are frequent across
multiple comments.

Sustainability and Native
Landscaping
Many comments advocate for
replacing grass with native plants, creating
pollinator gardens, and increasing biodiversity
to support wildlife.

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.

Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
332
640
Linear Parks and Multi-Use
Green Spaces
There is strong support for
distributed green spaces, including linear
parks along streets, medians, and existing
corridors.

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.

Enhanced Park Maintenance and
Safety
Residents request improvements
in park upkeep, including better
waste management, less intrusive landscaping
practices, and safer play areas.

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.

City of Mountain View
333
641
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.

9.4 APPENDIX D - Staff Input
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
334
642
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.

Mountain View City CouncilMay 26, 2026

Mountain View City Council
May 26, 2026