|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is nearing the finish line to adopt a new parks and recreation strategic plan that aims to expand and improve access to the city’s parks, open spaces and trail system over the next decade, with a particular focus on underserved neighborhoods.
Presented to the City Council last week, the plan lays out a roadmap for how Mountain View will meet the current and future parkland and recreation needs of its residents, an issue that has been identified as a high priority for the city.
However, the changes come with a hefty price tag. City staff estimate that it would cost approximately $1.2 billion to meet its goal of adding 87 more acres of parkland. That figure is based on Mountain View’s current population, and does not account for future growth.
“Significant funding would be needed to develop new parks or to update our parks,” Assistant Community Services Director Kristine Crosby said at the Jan. 27 council meeting.
To mitigate the shortfall, the city is looking at the possibility of putting a revenue measure on the November ballot, but no decision has been made, according to the council report.
In 2024, voters approved a city-initiated tax measure that was partially meant to support parks, open space and biodiversity initiatives.
The Jan. 27 meeting was an opportunity for City Council members to weigh in on the strategic plan, a nearly 300-page document with 50 action items that is expected to come before the council for final adoption in May.
Mountain View has 46 parks and school fields, 35 of which are city owned while 11 are subject to a joint-use agreement with the Mountain View Whisman School District. Historically, the city has aimed for 3-acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Mountain View currently exceeds this goal with 4.74-acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, according to Crosby. However, it drops to 1.94-acres per 1,000 residents when North Bayshore – which includes Shoreline Park, a 750-acre regional recreation area – is excluded from the calculation.
There also are disparities with how parkland is distributed across the city. Areas like Rengstorff, Thompson, Sylvan Dale and Central Stierlin, which includes the Rex Manor and Terra Bella neighborhoods, have less than 1.5-acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, Crosby said.
Funding limitations raise concerns about parks plan
The City Council expressed strong support for the parks and recreation plan, including expanding and maintaining access to parks, trails and open space areas. But they had some concerns about funding limitations.
“The question is: Do we save it up to do big things? Or do we try to accommodate more people by doing small things?” Council member John McAlister asked.
To raise funds, the city plans to review and update its park and recreation fees while maintaining subsidies for certain programs and services, Crosby said. The city also plans to evaluate and update the amount of land it requires developers to dedicate to the city for park space, as well as the fees that developers are charged if they opt not to provide that land. The City Council is scheduled to discuss these issues on Feb. 24.
Council member Lucas Ramirez expressed a desire to see the city leverage more dedicated land from developers instead of in-lieu fees, which lose purchasing power very quickly, he said. But he also noted that getting developers to give land to the city was difficult. Instead, Ramirez suggested that the city provide more clarity and guidance around POPOs, or privately-owned public open spaces. These are areas that are available for the community to use, like plazas and terraces, but are owned by a private entity.
Other Council members supported that idea and backed a recommendation to update the city’s development standards for POPOs.
“Right now, a lot of POPOs feel like POPOs,” Council member Ellen Kamei said, adding that she would like to see them feel more like a city park.
Council members also pressed city staff to elevate the role of nature in the strategic plan.
“We go to parks to walk around, to play on the equipment, but mostly we go to parks to have an outdoor experience with nature,” Council member Pat Showalter said.
Similarly, Council member Alison Hicks noted that the plan could do more to highlight “green amenities” like trees, vegetation buffers and walking paths.
Council members also encouraged staff to incorporate biodiversity as an explicit goal in the parks and recreation strategic plan. Currently, the city is developing a separate biodiversity and urban forest plan, which the council is expected to vote on adopting in June.
“Actually elevating it would make a better connector point,” Mayor Emily Ann Ramos said.
Mountain View council approves cheaper plan to close downtown train crossing to carsFebruary 12, 2026 10:00 am
Mountain View Whisman school board greenlights layoffs for at least 27 district employeesFebruary 13, 2026 11:30 am
City should seek to reinvision a closer partnership (and city investments) in school green space now that there’s new school leadership. It’s the cheapest way to increase public open space.
Model example of city-school co-planning and investments in green space in San Diego: https://www.sandiego.gov/parks-and-recreation/design-development/joint-use-facilities
I am amused at the council’s support for parks considering how they spent $1million dollars studying how best to pave over open space in Cuesta Park.
If the city wants to pass a pure parks bond, that’s a good idea. It’s what most cities do. But they are going to roll it into a big slush fund and not commit to how much of $650million they want us to borrow Will go to parks. They’ll use the 650 to say they want “flexibility”, but mostly so they can spend it on their pork projects.
Just ask them how they spent $15 millions of the federal covid money. $1 million to hand out for people’s utility bills. Another million for rent “relief”
Thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the city can no longer require developers to contribute park land at the rate of 3 acres per 1000 residents as stipulated by the Quimby Act. The amount is reduced by essentially the new residents’ proportional share of the existing park area in that planning area. As a result, the city can never achieve its goal of 3 acres per 1000 residents.
“Historically, the city has aimed for 3-acres of parkland per 1,000 residents”
No one in the city has ever justified this target! It’s just cribbed from the state Quimby Act. But now everyone’s running around telling each other that we need 3 acres per 1000 residents as if a heavenly voice said so. It wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t so expensive.