With 199.27 acres of park land per
1,000 residents, North Bayshore far
exceeds the citywide park land goal.
However, much of this acreage serves
regional, ecological, or trail functions rather
than neighborhood-scale daily use. Unlike
other Planning Areas, North Bayshore
does not currently include school sites and
therefore does not rely on school facilities
to meet recreational needs.
Under the refined methodology used
in this Plan, North Bayshore includes
approximately 18.12 acres of Trail Corridor
associated with segments of the Stevens
Creek Trail and Permanente Creek Trail that
are physically located within the Planning
03 04
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
364
Area, with the majority of this acreage
attributable to the Stevens Creek Trail.
Despite its substantial acreage, access
within the Planning Area is influenced by
its large size, land use patterns, and limited
internal connectivity. Portions of the area
fall outside the 10-minute walk assessment
even when considering available park land.
The population of this Planning Area is
currently low and will increase significantly
with future housing identified in the North
Bayshore Precise Plan. As the area evolves,
continued investment in trail connections,
internal circulation, and neighborhood-
serving amenities will be important to
ensure that park access keeps pace with
future growth.
Rengstorff (6,871 acres)- The
Rengstorff Planning Area lies
just south of Highway 101. The
area is a mix of light industrial
and residential uses with dense residential
neighborhoods along Rengstorff Avenue.
It is bounded by Central Expressway to the
south and Highway 101 to the north.
With 0.54 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, Rengstorff has the lowest level of
park access in the city and falls well below
the citywide 3-acre goal. The Planning Area
does not include a school site and therefore
lacks access to school-based recreational
amenities that supplement park access in
other parts of the city.
Rengstorff includes approximately
0.78 acres of the Permanente Creek Trail,
which provides a modest but important
linear open space connection through the
Planning Area. However, access to parks
is further constrained when considering
transportation barriers, which limits safe and
convenient pedestrian connections. As a
result, larger portions of the Planning Area
fall outside a 10-minute walk to a park.
Given its very low park acreage,
limited access to recreational spaces, and
constrained walkable access, Rengstorff
is identified as an underserved Planning
Area and a priority for targeted investment,
improved connections, and future park
development.
San Antonio (14,752 acres) -
Situated in the southwestern
part of Mountain View, San
Antonio is a rapidly evolving area
with significant residential and commercial
development near San Antonio Road.
This Planning Area is bounded by Central
Expressway to the north, El Camino Real to
the south, the City of Palo Alto to the west,
and Rengstorff Avenue to the east.
With 1.80 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, San Antonio falls below 2 acres
per 1,000 . While the Planning Area
benefits from major recreational facilities
clustered at Rengstorff Park—including
aquatics, tennis courts, pickleball courts, a
skate park, and a fenced dog park—these
amenities are not evenly distributed and do
not fully address neighborhood-level park
access needs.
San Antonio does not currently include
joint-use school sites. A future school
05 06
City of Mountain View
365
site is planned in this Planning Area and is
expected to provide additional opportunities
for shared use and expanded access to fields
and open space.
Access to parks is further constrained
when considering transportation barriers
such as El Camino Real, San Antonio
Road, Rengstorff Avenue, and Central
Expressway, which limit safe and convenient
pedestrian connections. As a result,
portions of the Planning Area fall outside a
10-minute walk to a park, particularly when
accounting for these barriers.
Planned neighborhood park development
and future joint-use opportunities will
be critical to improving access, alongside
continued emphasis on connectivity and
equitable distribution of park amenities.
Stierlin (9,979 acres)- Stierlin
is centrally located between the
Whisman, Central and Rengstorff
Planning Areas, bordered by
Middlefield Road to the north, Rengstorff
Avenue to the west, Central Expressway
to the south and Highway 85 to the east.
Land use within the area comprises a mix of
residential, light industrial, and commercial
uses, with an increasing number of new
housing developments.
With 1.65 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, Stierlin falls below 2 acres per
1,000and is considered underserved. The
Planning Area has no community parks and
relies significantly on school fields (10.88
acres) for several athletic amenities.
Stierlin includes approximately 2.27
acres of the Stevens Creek Trail, which
provides an important linear open space
connection and north–south mobility
through the Planning Area. When school
fields are excluded and transportation
barriers are considered, portions of Stierlin
fall outside the 10-minute walk to a park.
Currently planned neighborhood park
projects will add acreage and help address
service gaps, but continued focus on access,
distribution, and amenity diversity will be
essential as residential density increases.
Sylvan-Dale (7,778 acres)- The
Sylvan-Dale Planning Area is
located along the eastern edge
of Mountain View and includes
neighborhoods along Sylvan Avenue, Dale
Avenue, and areas near Highway 85. The
Planning Area is predominantly residential,
with a mix of housing types.
With 1.28 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, Sylvan-Dale falls below the 2
acres per 1,000. The Planning Area has a
limited supply of park land, consisting of
only two parks that provide a small number
of playground and neighborhood-serving
amenities.
Access to parks is further constrained
when considering major transportation
corridors such as Highway 85, which
limit safe and convenient pedestrian
connections. Under this conditions,
portions of the Planning Area fall outside a
10-minute walk to a park. As a result, park
access, connectivity, and opportunities
07 08
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
366
to enhance or expand neighborhood-
scale park space remain key planning
considerations for this area.
Thompson (2,671 acres)-
Thompson is one of Mountain
View’s smallest and least
populated Planning Areas, located
just south of Rengstorff Planning Area and
bound by Central Expressway to the south,
North Rengstorff Avenue to the east and
the City of Palo Alto border to east. The
area contains small residential clusters along
with limited commercial development.
With 1.10 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, Thompson falls well below 2 acres
per 1,000and is considered underserved.
The vast majority of this acreage is derived
from a school site (2.22 acres), reflecting a
high reliance on school facilities to provide
access to playgrounds and athletic fields.
Due to the small size of this Planning
Area and surrounding transportation
barriers, access to parks is limited. When
the school site is excluded and these
barriers are considered, approximately
half of the Planning Area falls outside a
10-minute walk to a park.
The City has recently acquired
properties within this Planning Area to
establish a new park for the neighborhood
and improved access to adjacent areas may
further help meet local recreational needs.
Thompson remains a priority area for park
expansion and investment.
Whisman - Whisman is located
west of Downtown and includes
a mix of housing, office parks,
and light industrial uses. Bounded
by Highway 85, Central Expressway, and
Highway 101, the area has seen recent
residential growth.
With 3.14 acres of park land per 1,000
residents, Whisman achieves the citywide
park land goal. The Planning Area includes a
mix of mini and neighborhood parks, along
with access to school sites (6.74 acres),
which contribute to the overall availability of
recreational amenities.
Whisman includes approximately
14.03 acres of the Stevens Creek Trail,
which provides a significant linear open
space asset and north–south connection
through the Planning Area. Portions of
Whisman fall outside the 10-minute walk
assessment when school fields are excluded
or transportation barriers are considered.
Anticipated growth associated with
East Whisman Precise Plan zoning updates
and planned development will increase
demand for park amenities, making strategic
investment and improved access a key
consideration moving forward.
09 10
City of Mountain View
367
Figure 95: Park Land Planning Areas Map
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
368
9.7.2 PARK ACRES BY PLANNING AREA
Planning
Area Priority Park/School Site Name Park Type
Total
Open
Space
Acres
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
City
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
MVWSD
Adjusted
Open Space
Acres
Acres per
1,000
Residents
Using
Adjusted
Acres
Central 12,391
Castro School Field
Dana Park
Eagle Park and Pool
Fairmont Park
Landels School Field
Mariposa Park
Mercy-Bush Park
Pioneer Park
Stevens Creek Trail
School Field
Mini
Community
Mini
School Field
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
Trail Corridor
2.04 0.41
6.92 0.37
4.17 0.62
0.66 3.39
5.42 0
0.41 6.92
0.37 0
0.62 0.66
3.39 5.42
2.04 0
0 0
4.17 0
0 0
0 1.25
0.41 6.92
0.37 2.55
0.62 0.66
3.39 5.42
1.74 Sub-total 24.00 17.79 6.21 21.59
Grant 5,931
Cooper Park
Imai School Field
Stevens Creek Trail
Neighborhood/School Field
School Field
Trail Corridor
11.69 3.92
11.55 4.94
0 11.55
6.75 3.92
0 11.69
2.40 11.55 4.32
Sub-total 27.16 16.49 10.67 25.64
Miramonte 11,087
Gemello Park
Bubb Park
Bubb School Field
Cuesta Park and Annex
Graham School/Athletic Field
McKelvey Ball Park
Schaefer Park
Varsity Park
Mini
Neighborhood
School Field
Community
School Field
Neighborhood
Mini
Mini
0.49 3.56
3.86 37.81
9.55 4.72
0.57 0.46
0.49 3.56
0 37.81
0 4.72
0.57 0.46
0 0
3.86 0
9.55 0
0 0
0.49 3.56
2.36 37.81
5.48 4.72
0.57 0.46
5.00 Sub-total 61.02 47.61 13.41 55.45
North
Bayshore 988
Charleston Park and Plaza
Shoreline at Mountain View
Stevens Creek Trail
Permanente Creek Trail
Mini
Neighborhood
Mini
Trail Corridor
0.81 1.21
0.90 0.78
0.81 1.21
0.90 0.48
0 0
0 0
6.76 172.00
16.93 1.19 199.27
Sub-total 814.38 814.38 0 196.88
Rengstorff 6,817
Sierra Vista Park
Heritage Park
Wyandotte Park
Permanente Creek Trail
Mini
Neighborhood
Mini
Trail Corridor
0.81 1.21
0.90 0.78
0.81 1.21
0.90 0.48
0 0
0 0.30
0.81 1.21
0.90 0.78 0.54
Sub-total 3.70 3.40 0.30 3.70
Table 50: Park Acres by Planning Area
City of Mountain View
369
Planning
Area Priority Park/School Site Name Park Type
Total
Open
Space
Acres
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
City
Open Space
Acres
Owned by
MVWSD
Adjusted
Open Space
Acres
Acres per
1,000
Residents
Using
Adjusted
Acres
San
Antonio 14,752
Del Medio Park
Klein Park
Rengstorff Park
Fayette Greenway
Mora Park
Fayette Park
Mini
Neighborhood
Community
Neighborhood
Mini
Mini
0.37 1.31
22.63 1.30
0.43 0.52
0.37 1.31
22.63 1.30
0.43 0.52
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.37 1.31
22.63 1.30
0.43 0.52
1.80 Sub-total 26.56 26.56 0 26.36
Stierlin 9,979
Crittenden School/Athletic Field
Jackson Park
Rex-Manor Park
San Veron Park
Stevenson School Field
Stevens Creek Trail
School Field
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
School Field
Trail Corridor
10.30 0.82
0.41 2.10
6.78 2.27
0 0.82
0.41 2.10
1.10 2.27
10.30 0
0 0
5.62 0
6.73 0.82
0.41 2.10
4.15 2.27
1.65 Sub-total 22.68 6.70 15.92 16.48
Sylvan-
Dale 7,778
Sylvan Park
Evelyn Park
Community
Mini
9.28 0.68
9.28 0.68
0 0
9.28 0.68 1.28
Sub-total 9.96 9.96 0 9.96
Thompson 2,671
Monta Loma School Field
Thaddeus Park
School Field
Mini
3.62 0.71
0 0.71
3.62 0
2.22 0.71 1.10
Sub-total 4.33 0.71 3.62 2.93
Whisman 9,982
Whisman Park
Vargas School Field
Magnolia Park
Chetwood Park
Creekside Park
Devonshire Park
Evandale Park
Pyramid Park
Stevens Creek Trail
Neighborhood/School Field
School Field
Mini
Mini
Mini
Mini
Mini
Neighborhood
Trail Corridor
9.90 1.58
0.93 0.98
0.81 0.68
0.25 2.77
14.03 4.74
0 0.93
0.98 0.81
0.68 0.25
2.77 14.03
5.16 1.58
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 9.90
0.97 0.93
0.98 0.81
0.68 0.25
2.77 14.03
3.10 Sub-total 31.93 25.19 6.74 31.32
Citywide 82,376 1,025.72 968.79 56.97 390.51 4.74
Citywide
w/o North
Bayshore
81,388 211.34 154.41 56.87 193.63 2.38
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
370
Planning Area
(population)
Park/ School Site Name
(acres) Playground
Picnic
Tables
Multi-Pur-
pose Fields,
Rectangular
Ball
Fields,
Diamond
Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts
Pickleball
Courts
Outdoor
Swimming
Pools
Skate
Park
Fenced
Dog
Parks
Central
(12,391)
Dana Park (0.41)
Eagle Park (6.92) 2 9 1 1
Fairmont Park (0.37) 1 3
Mariposa Park (0.62) 2 3
Mercy-Bush Park (0.66) 1 3
Pioneer Park (3.39) 2
Castro School Field (1.25) 3 1 1
Landels School Field (2.55) 4 1 1 2
Stevens Creek Trail (5.42)
Subtotal 21.59 acres 13 20 3 1 3 0 0 1 0 0
Grant (5,931)
Cooper Park (11.69) 1 1.5 2 1 4
Imai School Field (2.40) 3 2 1 3
Stevens Creek Trail (11.55)
Subtotal 27.16 acres 4 0 3.5 3 4 4 0 0 0 0
Miramonte
(11,087)
Gemello Park (0.49) 2 4
Bubb Park (3.56) 2 9
Cuesta Park and Annex (37.81) 3 11 12
McKelvey Ball Park (4.72) 2
Schaefer Park (0.57) 1 3
Varsity Park (0.46) 2 1 0.5
Bubb School Field (2.36) 2 1 1 2
Graham School/ Athletic
Field (5.48) 2 1 5
Subtotal 55.45 acres 12 28 3 4 7.5 12 0 0 0 0
North
Bayshore
(988)
Charleston Park and Pla-
za (6.76)
Shoreline at Mountain
View (172) 2 2 2 1
Stevens Creek Trail (16.93)
Permanente Creek Trail (1.19)
Subtotal 196.88 acres 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
Rengstorff
(6,817)
Sierra Vista Park (0.81) 2 3
Heritage Park (1.21) 2
Wyandotte Park (0.90) 1 2
Permanente Creek Trail (0.78)
Subtotal 3.70 acres 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.7.3 PARK AMENITIES BY PLANNING AREA
Table 51: Park Amenities by Planning Area 2
City of Mountain View
371
San Antonio
(14,752)
Del Medio Park (0.37) 1 2
Klein Park (1.31) 1 3 0.5
Rengstorff Park (22.63) 7 23 2 2 8 3 2 1 1
Fayette Greenway (1.30)
Mora Park (0.43) 1 2
Fayette Park (0.52) 1 2
Subtotal 26.56 acres 11 32 2 0 2.5 8 3 2 1 1
Stierlin
(9,979)
Jackson Park (0.82) 2 3
Rex-Manor Park (0.41) 1 1
San Veron Park (2.10) 2 1
Crittenden School/Athletic
Field (6.73) 1 1 6
Stevenson School Field (4.15) 3 3 1 3 2.5 3
Stevens Creek Trail (2.27)
Subtotal 16.48 acres 8 7 2 4 9.5 3 0 0 0 0
Sylvan-Dale
(7,778)
Sylvan Park (9.28) 2 9 1 4
Evelyn Park (0.68) 1 2
Subtotal 9.96 acres 3 11 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Thompson
(2,671)
Thaddeus Park (0.71) 1
Monta Loma School
Field (2.22) 4 4 1 1 2.5
Subtotal 2.93 acres 5 4 1 1 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Whisman
(9,982)
Magnolia Park (0.93) 1 3
Chetwood Park (0.98) 4
Creekside Park (0.81) 1 8
Devonshire Park (0.68) 1 4
Evandale Park (0.25) 1 1
Pyramid Park (2.77) 2 5 1 1 1
Whisman Park (9.90) 1 14 1 1 2 4
Vargas School Field (0.97) 2 1 1 1
Stevens Creek Trail (14.03)
Subtotal 31.32 acres 9 39 3 2 4 4 0 0 0 1
Citywide Total 390.51 acres 70 148 20.5 17 33 35 3 3 1 3 2Note: School field acreage values in Table 51 have been updated to reflect adjusted acreage calculations. A previous draft reflected full site acreage.
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
372
9.7.4 MAPS OF PARKS AND AMENITIES BY PLANNING AREA
Figure 96: Mini Park Distribution by Planning Area
City of Mountain View
373
Figure 97: Neighborhood Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
374
Figure 98: Community Park and School Field Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
375
Figure 99: Trail Acreage Distribution by Planning Area
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
376
Figure 100: Recreation Facility Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
377
Figure 101: Playground Distribution by Planning Area
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
378
Figure 102: Picnic Table Distribution by Planning Area
City of Mountain View
379
Figure 103: Multi-Purpose Fields (Rectangle) Distribution by Planning Area Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
380
Figure 104: Ball Fields (Diamond) Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
381
Figure 105: Basketball Court Distribution by Planning Area Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
382
Figure 106: Tennis Court Distribution by Planning Area
City of Mountain View
383
Figure 107: Pickleball Court Distribution by Planning Area* * In addition to the three dedicated pickleball courts shown on this map, six pickleball courts are striped on two tennis courts at Rengstorff Park, with designated times for tennis and pickleball play. Pickleball hours are also available on select days during Adult Drop-In Sports at the Mountain View Sports Pavilion. For the most current information on pickleball court access and schedules, visit MountainView.gov/Pickleball.
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
384
Figure 108: Outdoor Swimming Pool Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
385
Figure 109: Skate Park Distribution by Planning Area
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
386
Figure 110: Fenced Dog Park Distribution by Planning Area City of Mountain View
387
9.8.1 FUNDING AND REVENUE
SOURCES
The City has several funding sources and
revenue-generation strategies to support
the acquisition, development, enhancement,
and maintenance of its parks, facilities, and
recreation programs.
This section outlines the City’s current
funding mechanisms and provides insights
into potential opportunities to optimize
financial resources, enhance services, and
strengthen sustainable revenue streams.
Each funding category is evaluated on
implementation feasibility (how likely it
is to be implemented in Mountain View),
risk (what might be the risks or downsides
of implementing these mechanisms), and
potential uses, with an eye toward both
operational and capital funding needs.
Examples of how other agencies have
implemented each mechanism is also noted.
9.8.2 EXTERNAL FUNDING SOURCES
External funding sources encompass
a variety of options, including corporate
sponsorships, partnerships, foundations,
private donations, and volunteerism.
These sources are pivotal for both ongoing
operational support and one-time capital
projects.
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ Corporate Sponsorships: Sponsorships
are currently available for special events
and scoreboards at McKelvey Ball Park
and Shoreline Athletic Fields. High
feasibility and low implementation
risk suggest expanding corporate
sponsorships to additional programs and
facilities and increasing the number of
sponsors per special event. Uses could
include smaller scholarship programs,
specific urban forest environmental
programs or naming of facilities. In
addition, sponsorship levels for special
events could be reviewed to increase
sponsorship level amounts based on
event attendance and sponsor exposure.
(see Action 5.1.3)
Based on the presence of global
corporations in Mountain View,
stewardship opportunities could provide
additional financial support for the City
and its park and recreation offerings.
A strong sponsorship package will help
funders understand the exact benefits
they will receive (see Action 5.1.8). The
City of Fremont has a clearly defined
benefit packet in an easy-to-read
format as shown here.
■ Partnerships: Existing partnerships
with entities like the Friends of Deer
Hollow Farm, Friends of Stevens Creek
Trail, and Friends of Rengstorff House,
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
9.8 APPENDIX H - Funding and Revenue
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
388
District and local school districts have
proven to be effective partnerships for
program delivery.
Additional partnerships with local
businesses or other government
agencies could enhance service
delivery. This could include technology
collaboration for either in-kind support
or technology integration to enhance
offerings or collaboration with health
and wellness providers/hospitals that see
parks and recreation as a complementary
function.
• For example, San Jose Friends
of San Jose Rose Garden put
together a case study showing
the improvements from targeted
volunteerism and the funding that
has followed. See here.
■ Financial Donations – Through the
Friends Groups, there are options for
individual donations either through
Fundraising events or a variety of
donation opportunities. The City has a
formal Donation Policy and process to
accept donations, though overall, the
donations are currently minimal
• Friends of Deer Hollow Farm accepts
donations that support field trip
scholarships, livestock feed and care,
operations, and farm enhancements.
• Senior Center Trust -The Mountain
View Senior Center currently has a
trust that provides minimal support
to the center. While it is available
to receive donations, contributions
have been minimal. Donations to the
Senior Center are accepted through
the Giving Tree Program and allow
donors to make contributions in
exchange for a personalized message
displayed on the Senior Center’s
Giving Tree.
• The Parks and Open Space Division
has a Memorial Bench Donation
Program that covers the cost of the
bench and installation done by the
staff.
• Often, the Recreation Division
receives donations of smaller
items like equipment or games for
programs.
• Other local examples include:
• Parks Donation Program through
the County of Santa Clara
• Memorial Benches, Tables, etc.
through Larkspur Parks, CA (via
Public Works)
• Commemorative Benches
and Picnic Tables through San
Mateo County Parks Foundation
– currently paused due to
overwhelming demand.
■ Volunteerism: While a volunteer
program may not be a revenue
generator, it can be a good opportunity
to reduce or offset operational spending
and build community connections and
advocacy. Mountain View benefits
from a robust volunteer program.
City of Mountain View
389
Opportunities exist to expand volunteer
engagement further, especially through
programs like “Adopt a Spot”, which
could help reduce operating costs for
the City by saving staff maintenance
time that is spent on specific locations.
This can be augmented via the Council
Workplan that outlines a City Volunteer
Framework to support opportunities for
volunteer organizations to work with the
City. (see Action 3.2.1)
The Independent Sector annually
gathers data and conducts research on
volunteerism in the nonprofit sector
and helps entities calculate the value of
volunteer time. As of April 2024, their
estimated national value of each volunteer
hour is currently $33.49 nationally.
Volgistics estimates that the value
of each volunteer hour in California is
$35.56 per hour.
Opportunities to Explore
■ Crowdfunding: This remains
underutilized, likely due to the absence
of a City-affiliated foundation to receive
donations. Exploring crowdfunding could
provide a community-driven funding
stream for specific projects. Websites
such as www.GoFundMe.com and www.
Patronicity.com are the most commonly
used and could be explored via a
Foundation or a Friends Group (e.g.,
Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Friends of
Deer Hollow Farm or Friends of Rengstorff
House).
• For example, The Michigan
Economic Development Corporation
is partnered with the Village of
Byron for the Byron Pocket Park
crowdfunding campaign and has
pledged $50,000 in matching funds
if the campaign raises $50,000 on
its own. See the press release here
and the campaign page here. Other
examples include Baseball Field lights
in Nephi, UT and Splash Pad crowd
fundraiser in Culver, OR as shown
here.
■ Foundations/Gifts and Private
Donations: The City has limited
experience securing foundation grants
for parks and recreation, which indicates
a potential growth area. Establishing
relationships with local foundations
could open new avenues for capital
projects or fundraisers with the ability
to attract funds that a 501c(3) could
receive. (see Action 5.1.5)
• Join the National Association for
Park Foundations to gain access to
resources and examples from other
agencies that have foundations.
• Learn from local agencies such
as the Livermore Area Recreation
and Park District Foundation and
the Napa Parks and Recreation
Foundation could prove beneficial.
Also, the Redwood City Parks and Arts
Foundation serves a similar population
to Mountain View.
• Nationally, Park Pride, in Atlanta,
is an outstanding model of a park
foundation that leads the way in
being a champion for the city parks
and a convenor for funders.
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
390
■ Philanthropy: Having a Foundation
would also help the City pursue
philanthropic gifts from individuals or
other foundations that have increasingly
supported local parks and entities to
improve the quality of life and well-being
of communities. (see Action 5.1.7) A few
examples are cited below.
• The Silicon Valley Community
Foundation (SVCF) provided
$100,000 as a pilot program/
grant to Elevate MV, Mountain
View’s guaranteed basic income
pilot program in Fiscal Y ear 2022-
23. Another option is building
Donor-Advised Funds (DAF) by a
public charity like the SVCF or Los
Altos-Mountain View Community
Foundation. The DAFs support of the
San Mateo County Parks Foundation
is a local example.
• The Lilly Endowment recently
awarded the largest gift in
Indianapolis’ history - $80 million for
park improvements.
9.8.3 CAPITAL FUNDING
Capital Funding focuses on acquiring,
replacing, enhancing and adding physical
assets, including facilities, parks, and
infrastructure.
Capital Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) is a planning tool used to coordinate
location, timing, and funding of capital
improvements to maintain and manage
City infrastructure that enhances the
overall quality of life in Mountain View.
City infrastructure consists of physical
structures, systems, and facilities needed to
provide critical services to the community
such as streets, sidewalks, and storm drain
systems, as well as parks, trails, open space,
and recreational facilities.
The City adopts a five-year CIP
biennially, with a full plan developed in
odd-numbered years and a focus only on
the upcoming fiscal year in even-numbered
years. There are a number of potential
funding sources for CIP projects. For parks
and recreation projects, the main funding
source is the City’s Park Land Dedication
Fund. However, some building projects
have been funded by the CIP Reserve and
Construction/Conveyance Tax. Most CIP
projects are managed by the Public Works
Department, with park and recreation
projects supported by Community Services
Department staff.
The list of active parks and recreation
CIP projects, as well as the planned CIPs
for Fiscal Y ear 2025-26 through Fiscal
Y ear 2029-30 can be found on the City’s
website at MountainView.gov/CIP.
City of Mountain View
391
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ Park Land Dedication Ordinance -
POPA: Chapter 41 of the Mountain
View City Code, Park Land Ordinance
or Fees in Lieu Thereof, was updated in
2021 to allow developers to meet their
obligations to provide open space by
either dedicating land to the City for
a park and/or to build privately owned,
publicly accessible open space (POPA)
and receive credit towards their park
land dedication obligations, preserving
public access to open space in high-
density areas. The ordinance should
be reviewed to determine if additional
updates will provide more benefits to
both the City and developers.
■ Development Fees (e.g., Park in-lieu
fees): Chapter 41 of the Mountain
View City Code is a good example
of residential development fees to
support the acquisition, development,
and renovation of parks and recreation
facilities. As the city grows, this funding
source will continue to support park
infrastructure. The City’s Park in Lieu
Fee ordinance requires developers to
pay their fair share toward the purchase,
development and/or improvement of
park and recreational facilities in addition
to or in replace of dedicating land to the
City or developing a POPA.
Fees collected through this ordinance
are to be used for the purpose of
providing park or recreational facilities to
serve the residential development from
which fees are collected in accordance
with the service area requirements
outlined in Chapter 41 of the Mountain
View City Code. Fees collected shall be
used to purchase land, buy equipment,
construct improvements or rehabilitate
a proposed or existing mini-park,
neighborhood park, community park,
recreational facility, Stevens Creek
Trail, community gardening facility or
combination thereof.
Opportunities to Explore
■ Impact Fees/Retail Impact Fees:
Concurrent with the development of
the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan,
the City of Mountain View is conducting
a nexus study on park and recreation
development impact fees, as outlined in
the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element,
program 1.8 Park Land Ordinance
Update. These fees could be essential
for maintaining and upgrading parks
and recreation facilities. The nexus
study evaluates the City’s current fee
structure and methodology, compares
the City’s existing in-lieu fees to other
cities, explore the adoption of a park and
recreation impact fee, and reevaluates
the cumulative impact of all residential
fees on development.
■ Capital Reserve Fees: Adding capital
reserve fees - nominal additions to
existing facility reservation rates - could
generate dedicated revenue for future
asset replacement or upgrades, though
such fees may face public resistance
(see Action 5.1.6). For example, the
City could charge a small additional
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
392
fee for a BBQ area reservation, with
those funds placed in a separate reserve
account to be used on maintenance and
improvements for that facility. Clear
communication about the purpose and
long-term benefits of the fund could
help mitigate public concerns.
9.8.4 USER FEES
User fees contribute directly to the
operational costs of programs and facilities
and can be adjusted based on market
demand through the City’s Annual Budget
Process and review of the Master Fee
Schedule.
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ Recreation Service Fees and General
Fees/Charges: Some recreation
programs currently generate revenue,
while certain programs (e.g., Senior
Center Program) do not charge fees.
The City conducted a Citywide Master
Fee Study in spring 2025 which resulted
in modifications to existing fees, the
creation of new fees, and/or the removal
of existing fees. The new Master Fee
Schedule was approved by the City
Council on June 10, 2025 and may
provide a modest increase in revenue.
The City should continue to review
fees annually to modify as needed. In
addition, as mentioned above, the City
has a Recreation Cost Recovery Policy
that establishes uniform guidelines,
cost-recovery levels, and goals for
Recreation programs, events, activities,
and services. The Recreation Cost
Recovery Policy could be reviewed to
validate that programs are designated
at the appropriate cost-recovery levels.
This process may result in additional fee
modifications based on assigned cost-
recovery levels.
■ Reservations and Equipment Rentals:
The City currently has fees to reserve
facilities and rent specific equipment.
Future revenue growth could be
achieved by adding new amenities or
premium rental options. The City has
two Council Policies that govern Facility
Reservations: Council Policy H-5, Use
of the City’s Facilities, and Council
Policy H-7, Athletic Field Use Policy
as detailed in a previous section. Both
policies should be reviewed to validate
definitions of user groups, peak and off-
peak hours for each facility, and field use
priorities and fees.
■ Permits: The City currently charges a
variety of permits (Plaza Use, Special
Events, Commercial Use, etc.) and these
fees could be reviewed to determine if
they should be increased. Expanding
permits for existing commercial park
usage could also increase revenue.
■ Demand pricing: Setting fees based
on peak times and locations is another
current strategy for facility reservations,
which could be expanded to other
offerings as determined by staff.
City of Mountain View
393
Opportunities to Explore
■ Ticket Sales/Admissions: The City
could analyze the feasibility of charging
admission for specific activities or
certain events that can be held indoors
with clear entry and access points. The
cost vs. benefit of implementing ticket
sales/admission charges should be
analyzed and considered on a case-by-
case basis.
9.8.5 GRANTS AND DONATIONS
Grants are a vital funding source
for both capital projects and programs,
especially those aligned with environmental,
equity, health, or recreational goals.
However, recent shifts in federal and
state budgets have resulted in substantial
changes to grant availability and priorities.
As a result, it is important for the City to
remain adaptable and stay informed about
evolving funding opportunities and eligibility
requirements.
To maximize return on investment for
staff time and resources, it is recommended
that the City prioritize pursuing grants
of $100,000 or more, and those with a
higher likelihood of award based on project
alignment and competitiveness. Identifying
capacity or staff resources to proactively
pursue, apply for, and manage grant funding
will be critical to sustaining these efforts
and ensuring long-term success in securing
external resources (see Actions 4.1.7 and
5.1.5).
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ State of California – Office of
Grants and Local Services - The
State of California provides local
government grants to revitalize existing
park infrastructure and to address
outdoor access gaps in underserved
neighborhoods. City of Richmond,
City of Antioch, City of Oakland, and
the County of El Dorado all received
competitive grants from Prop 68 within
the past two years. Mountain View was
successful receiving state funds for the
Magical Bridge Playground in Rengstorff
Park. An application for the Rengstorff
Park Aquatics Center was not selected
for funding.
• Per Capita Program: Provides funding
to local governments on a per capita
basis for the rehabilitation, creation,
and improvement of local parks.
• Urban County Per Capita: Offers
grants to cities and districts in
urbanized counties (counties with
populations of 500,000 or more)
that provide park and recreation
services in jurisdictions with
populations of 200,000 or fewer.
Entities eligible under this program
are also eligible to receive funding
through the General Per Capita
Program.
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
394
Opportunities to Explore
■ Land and Water Conservation Fund
through the State of California: The
City has previously used funds from
this grant program but is not currently
using them. This grant program may
support the acquisition or development
of land to create new outdoor recreation
opportunities for the health and wellness
of Californians.
■ Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME): The
City receives annual federal allocations
through the State CDBG and HOME
programs, which support housing and
community development activities that
primarily benefit low- and moderate-
income residents. Under the State
CDBG Program, grant funds may be
used for public service programs, as well
as the construction or rehabilitation
of public and recreational facilities -
particularly those serving seniors and
vulnerable populations. The HOME
Program provides additional funding to
create and preserve affordable housing
opportunities, which can complement
CDBG-funded community infrastructure
and service initiatives. The City currently
directs its CDBG resources toward public
service grants that assist local nonprofits
and community programs.
■ Recreational Trail Program: This program
has not yet been explored and could be
explored for trail maintenance needs.
The Recreational Trails Program funds
recreational trails and trails-related
projects annually.
■ Urban Forestry Assistance Grants
(CUF-A): With recent biodiversity
initiatives, tree-related grants align
well with the City’s goals and should
be pursued. 2023 recipients include:
Cities of Berkeley, Concord, Fremont,
Hayward, Oakland, Petaluma, Pittsburg,
San Jose, and Vallejo.
■ Habitat Conservation Fund: Eligible
projects include nature interpretation
programs to bring urban residents into
park and wildlife areas, protection of
various plant and animal species, and
acquisition and development of wildlife
corridors and trails. The next anticipated
application period is due in 2026-27.
The National Recreation and Park
Association provides a list of Grant and
Fundraising Resources that are listed here.
Playcore provides a listing of national
and state-specific grants here. Grant
opportunities can be sorted by service or
facility type such as Adult Fitness, Dog Parks
and Trails.
Some additional national sports entities
support grassroots programs through their
foundations including the following websites:
■ NFL PLAY 60 initiative grant and NFL
Y outh Football Grant: Agencies need
to partner with the local NFL Club who
would apply to the NFL for the grant. See
here.
■ US Soccer Foundation – Safe Places To
Play Program: See here.
City of Mountain View
395
■ US Tennis Association Facility Funding:
See here.
■ USA Track & Field Foundation Grant
Program: See here.
9.8.6 TAX SUPPORT
Taxes provide a steady revenue base and
are often foundational to the long-term
sustainability of City services.
Information about City tax revenue is
found in the City’s adopted budget here.
Detailed information with interactive
dashboards and graphics is available through
the Open Gov platform here.
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ Property and Conveyance Taxes: In
November 2024, Mountain view voters
passed by 72% an increase in the City’s
Property Transfer Tax (Measure G). The
increased tax is imposed on residential
and commercial property sales above
$6 million. The City anticipates
that approximately $9.5 million on
average annually may be generated
from Measure G with 30-35% to be
earmarked for parks and open space.
■ Special Improvement District/Benefit
District: Currently, Mountain View
has a downtown Parking Maintenance
Assessment District which was enacted
over forty years ago and which collects
a property tax assessment district
for the long-term maintenance and
construction of public parking in the
Downtown.
There are also two Business
Improvement Areas within the city (BIA
#1 and BIA #2), which assess Downtown
businesses through the annual Business
License Renewal Process. The funds
collected by the City are then provided
to the Mountain View Chamber of
Commerce, acting on behalf of the
Downtown Business Association, to
market and promote the downtown.
■ Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and
Sales Tax: Both contribute to the general
operating fund, which indirectly supports
parks and recreation. In cities like North
Tahoe, projects funded by Transient
Occupancy Taxes are also publicly
marketed to the public. See here.
The City could explore seeking voter
approval to increase the City’s TOT,
which is lower than others in the region.
Salt Lake County passed a 0.1% Sales
Tax titled ZAP (Zoo, Arts and Parks) in
November 2024 with 79% of the voters
supporting it. More information here.
Opportunities to Explore
Bond Measure: The City currently has
a AAA bond rating, reflecting its good
financial stewardship and strong economic
base, resulting in access to capital at
favorable interest rates. The City could
explore seeking voter approval of a
General Obligation bond to help address
infrastructure needs for parks and facilities.
This would require community outreach to
identify feasibility and community support
for this initiative. (see Action 5.1.1)
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
396
9.8.7 FRANCHISES AND LICENSES
Franchises and licenses provide
opportunities for unique revenue streams
through partnerships with private
businesses.
Currently Doing and Could Expand
■ Concession Management and Private
Concessionaires: The City currently
partners with private operators for
several concession spaces, including
Bean Scene Café, Lakeshore Bistro,
and Michael’s at Shoreline. Staff
should continue to periodically review
and update concession and vendor
agreements as needed to ensure that
terms and anticipated revenues align
with current market conditions and the
local financial environment.
The City could also consider expanding
into food and beverage concessions
at other facilities, for example swim
product sales at the pool. Some cities
use vendors such as Sysco, CoreMark,
and US Foods to provide concessions for
park and recreation facilities.
■ Advertising Sales: Existing scoreboard
sponsorships demonstrate the feasibility
of using advertising to generate revenue.
This could include expanding ad sales
to other park areas or to publications,
like the Recreation Activity Guide.
Staff should assess the viability of staff
time against the potential revenue to
determine if this is a revenue stream to
pursue.
Opportunities to Explore
■ Naming Rights: There is potential for
high-profile projects to attract naming
sponsors through the City’s existing
Sponsorship Policy. Examples of other
agency’s Naming Rights programs are
noted below.
• South Tahoe Parks Foundation, CA
has set a fundraising goal of $1 million
for the City’s new Recreation and
Aquatic Center opening in 2026 and
is providing these offerings for naming
rights.
• City of Pleasanton, CA’s Bernal
Community Park secured Stanford
Medicine as the Naming Rights
Sponsor for their Sports Complex.
• San Diego Parks and Recreation, CA
have details on naming rights offerings
on their website.
• Parks and Recreation Foundation of
San Carlos, CA has these categories
for naming rights.
• Davie County Recreation and Parks,
FL has this naming guide for potential
partners.
• Fargo Park District, ND has this
naming rights policy to guide their
decision-making.
• Several agencies nationwide have
successfully utilized this source of
revenue for their signature spaces and
facilities, such as City of Columbus,
Indiana, Nexus Park in Columbus, IN.
City of Mountain View
397
9.8.8 MISCELLANEOUS FUNDING
This category captures a range of non-
traditional or one-time funding sources,
including fees, fines, and unique financial
mechanisms that do not fall under standard
revenue streams. While typically limited in
scale or frequency, these sources can provide
important support for targeted projects
- especially land acquisition or strategic
opportunities that arise outside of regular
planning cycles.
Currently Doing
■ Acquisition Reserve Funds: The City
currently has two Acquisition Reserve
Funds that may be used to acquire
property for park land and other City
uses:
• General Fund Open Space Acquisition
Reserve shall be used for the purpose
of acquiring open space to meet the
needs of the City and as authorized
by the City Council. Proceeds
from excess City-owned properties
shall fund this Reserve as directed
by the City Council. This Reserve
may be used for due diligence for
site acquisition of future parks sites
which may include appraisals, Phase
I Environmental Site Assessments,
Closing Costs, and Security/Fence
Post-Acquisition.
• General Fund Strategic Property
Acquisition Reserve shall be used for
the purpose of setting aside funds for
the City to use for the acquisition of
strategic property(ies). This Reserve
has been used on a limited basis to
acquire park land.
9.8.9 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) also shares the Park and
Recreation Professionals’ Guide to Fundraising
which provides a variety of tips and tools for
successfully seeking and obtaining external
funding for an agency.
9.8.10 SUMMARY
The City has effectively utilized a diverse
range of funding sources to support its
mission. Recreation’s participation and
revenues for programs and events have
increased significantly year over year and the
community survey indicates high participation
and quality ratings for the offerings.
There are existing opportunities to
generate additional revenue. However, it is
important to note that realizing new revenue
streams may require increased and dedicated
staff resources to address the added
workload.
There are recommendations that could be
a game-changer for capital projects, including
exploring a bond measure, establishing a
foundation or similar entity to streamline
grant applications and enable private
donations. Additionally, strategic expansion
of user fees and concession management
could also help, albeit to a smaller degree
compared to some other tools. By leveraging
these strategies and building on its existing
partnerships, the City could generate
additional funding to accomplish the vision
and goals in this Strategic Plan.
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
398
PARKS AND RECREATION
STRATEGIC PLAN