SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY FINDINGS

SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY FINDINGS Introduction Following the presentation and discussion of community survey findings at the March th Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, MIG conducted additional analysis to respond to Commission questions about possible variations in responses according to: Presence of children in household; Dog ownership; Race or ethnicity; and Geography within the city. The following summarizes the key findings of this supplemental analysis. The summary calls out key findings where there were significant variations between groups or where the demographic/user groups have a particular interest in the topic (i.e. households with children and recreation needs; dog owners and dog parks). This analysis uses the same graph numbers as the initial Community Survey Analysis. Key Findings The most significant differences between the preferences of households with children and households without children are related to the future programming of Baylands and field use policy (see Graphs 17 and 1). User groups preferences for programming at Baylands align with their other interests: o Households with children indicated support for fields, gymnasiums, pools and skate parks. o Dog owners support a dog park at Baylands. o Pacific Islanders indicated slightly more support for gymnasiums and pools, which is aligned with this groups strong support for additional aquatic programming. o There was no significant variation between and Palo Altans preferences for Baylands. 1

When asked how well the Parks and Recreation system is meeting their needs there were no significant differences between the user groups (see Graphs a and b). There is agreement between dog owners and non-dog owners on the need to improve dog parks. However, there is a significant difference between these two groups preferences (see Graphs 7a, 8a and 17b). and Palo Altans give priority to the improvement of facilities in their part of the city (see Graph 16). Respondents who identified as /Pacific Islander were more likely to place higher importance or priority on additional or enhanced recreation programming across locations and programs (see Graphs 7c, 9 and 1a). Presence of in Household Because household composition, and particularly the presence of children, is a primary influence on peoples park and recreation use, experience and preferences, the data was analyzed to identify the specific differences between households with and without children under. Prioritizing Facility Use Respondents with and without children responded similarly regarding approaches to prioritizing facilities. Not surprisingly, the most significant difference was between respondents with and without children. Of those respondents with children % supported prioritizing youth activities over adult activities while only % of respondents without children supported prioritizing youth activities. Supplemental Community Survey Findings

Graph 1a: Household With/Without - Given the limited meeting rooms, camp sites and other facilities available for rental or reservation in Palo Alto, indicate whether you support the following strategies for prioritizing use of these facilities. 0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Available on a firstcome firstserve basis No 1 1 15 75 71 5 Priority availability for residents No 6 7 6 91 51 Equal availability for residents; corporate events; and local employees Available to residents and nonprofit organizatio ns but not businesses No No 9 99 79 157 79 1 158 8 19 95 81 76 8 Don't Support Support Not Sure No Answer Prioritized for youth activities over adult activities No 08 175 1 88 85 6 More picnic areas and facilities No 115 80 86 17 196 96 7 Prioritizing Field Use The most notable difference between the responses of those with and without children related to field priorities is regarding allowing access by competitive teams throughout the region. Respondents with children more often indicted they do not support this policy, although neither group indicated strong support for this policy. Supplemental Community Survey Findings

Graph 1a: Household With/Without - Palo Alto s sports fields are a limited resource, used by a range of users, with priority given to youth organizations. Indicate whether you support, don t support or are not sure about the statements below. 0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Maximize all fields for local Palo Alto based organized sports leagues No 589 1 8 5 55 Include SOME unreserved field time for other uses No 10 6 161 6 71 Don't Support Create ways for new sports and informal groups to reserve field time No 71 0 9 17 8 8 5 Support Not Sure No Answer Allow more access for competitive teams from the entire region No 176 7 10 0 117 80 56 Open for longer hours through additional lighting No 116 101 167 77 10 58 Prioritizing improvements and additions to recreation programs Families with children demonstrated greater support for all categories of recreation programs and features compared to households without children, with the minor exception of fitness classes, which received a slightly greater share of Extremely Important and Very Important responses among those without children. Responses for fitness classes and fitness equipment/weight rooms showed little difference between respondents with and without children. The greatest difference in support was for gym-based sports and activities. Supplemental Community Survey Findings

Graph 16a: With/Without - Which major improvements, facilities and additions to parks should the City prioritize? Gym based sports and activities (basketball; volleyball etc.) No 5 60 58 9 00 11 1 9 08 7 5 Fitness classes (yoga; crossfit; etc.) No 91 5 97 109 177 97 1 6 6 Social events/spaces No 68 6 99 58 6 10 19 85 15 55 0 1 Not Important Martial arts No 1 96 1 9 6 1 97 59 0 5 1 5 Extremely Important Clubs and classes (robotics; book clubs; etc.) No 81 89 8 1 19 9 1 9 Fitness equipment/we ight room No 171 86 1 67 1 15 55 7 9 9 Other No 65 5 56 1 16 5 65 Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center Greater distinctions can be seen between households with and without children when asked about appropriate future recreational uses near the Baylands Athletic Center. Respondents with children in their households showed greater support for additional sports fields, gymnasiums, pools and skate parks. Those without children under were more likely to see dog parks, community gardens, or orchards and natural areas as being appropriate. Supplemental Community Survey Findings 5

Graph 17a: Households With/Without : What facilities or spaces would be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near Baylands Athletic Center? Additional sports fields No 59 1 59 87 65 8 10 6 71 Dog park No 160 57 108 11 11 08 68 Gymnasium No 170 1 10 168 69 10 71 5 6 96 61 1 Not Appropriate Pool Skatepark No No 1 1 16 91 110 16 108 171 59 7 6 15 69 159 95 119 111 0 79 55 9 65 5 Extremely Appropriate Community gardens or orchards No 105 0 86 80 1 91 156 176 108 81 5 Natural Area for hiking and bird watching Other No No 69 1517 9 17 5 8 0 5 1 69 56 15 6 5 Meeting user needs There were a few slight differences in responses between those with and without children in the household. Those with children expressed slightly greater needs related to age, culture, language and physical needs. Supplemental Community Survey Findings 6

Graph a: Household With/Without - How well do you feel that the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation System meets your needs in the following areas? Physical No 80 17 75 7 10 98 168 9 6 Language No 19 19 87 6 98 5 105 70 Education No 169 8 111 9 80 15 9 108 77 1 Needs not met Cultural Age No No 5 8 76 10 9 116 89 6 6 85 170 101 0 10 111 8 111 67 Needs Partially Met Needs Almost Met Needs Met 5 ALL needs met Proximity to parks and recreation facilities close to where you spend your time No 198 6 1 6 08 96 97 1 95 Community Service/Vol unteer Other No No 6 106 10 117 10 57 5 16 7 699 55 16 Dog Ownership Dogs are a key issue for parks users in Palo Alto. To learn more about how dog ownership may have influenced survey responses, analysis was done to identify distinctions in responses between dog owners and non-owners. Significant differences between dog owners and non-dog owners were found in several results. When asked if dog parks are appropriate to achieve the goal of enhancing health and well-being of community members, there was a significant difference in response by ownership. Non-owners were much more likely to say it is not important and also more likely to be neutral on the topic see Graph 7a). The same outcomes were observed when respondents were asked if dog parks would be an appropriate use for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic Center (see graph 17b). Supplemental Community Survey Findings 7

When asked specifically about how the City should accommodate the dog owning community in Palo Alto parks, strong differences were seen on each option provided, particularly with regard to the option of designating times for dogs. Dog owners were very supportive of all ideas to expand recreation with dogs. Additional dedicated off-leash dog areas are supported by dog owners (% indicated they are appropriate or very appropriate) while only 0% of nondog owners indicated additional off-leash dog areas are appropriate or very appropriate (see Graph 8a). As noted in the initial summary memo, both dog owners and non-dog owners agree there is a need to improve existing dog parks however they do not agree on what those improvements should look like (see Graph 8a). Graph 7a: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - We heard from Palo Alto community members that enhancing health and well-being is one of the most important functions of parks. Of the facilities listed below, which are appropriate for Palo Alto to improve or add to its system to achieve this function? This graph represents responses to the Dog Park facility. Dog Owner 67 86 05 6 1 not appropriate 5 extremely appropriate Not a Dog Owner 156 196 8 6 15 Supplemental Community Survey Findings 8

Graph 8a: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - How should the City accommodate the dog owning community in Palo Alto parks? Improve existing dog parks Dog Owner Not a Dog Owner 69 59 91 167 1 6 8 Designated times when dogs can be off leash in certain parks in a partially/ non fenced area Dog Owner Not a Dog Owner 8 05 6 8 11 7 10 5 516 1 Not appropriate Sharing existing fenced in spaces Dog Owner Not a Dog Owner 88 0 76 9 190 111 71 8 75 5 5 Very appropriate Additional dedicated (fenced) offleash areas within parks Dog Owner Not a Dog Owner 1 7 67 7 8 15 0 107 9 10 No additional dog parks in Palo Alto Dog Owner Not a Dog Owner 151 65 15 115 9 17 78 106 Graph 17b: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - Would dog parks be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic Center (designated for future recreational use)? Dog Owner 1 7 06 1 not appropriate 5 extremely appropriate Not a Dog Owner 161 105 1 86 11 78 Supplemental Community Survey Findings 9

Race or Ethnicity Because the largest non-white ethnic group in Palo Alto is /Pacific Islander and because this group was under-represented in the survey results compared to their presence in the community, additional analysis was conducted to see if there was any distinction in responses between /Pacific Islander respondents and other groups (including whites and all other ethnic groups). The graphs below represent questions for which there was a notable difference in responses between /Pacific Islander and non-/pacific Islander responses. For most survey questions there was no significant difference in responses. Table : Race/Ethnicity Answer Survey Count Survey Percentage ACS 009-1 White/Caucasian 886 76% 65% /Pacific Islander 0 15% 6% Hispanic/Latino % 8%* American Indian or Alaska Native 6 1% 0.1% African American 5 0.% % Other (please specify) 9 % % Respondents 116 Enhancement and additions to recreation programs Respondents who identified as /Pacific Islander were more likely to rank all the options for enhancing or adding recreation programs and features as Important or Very Important than the non- respondents. /Pacific Islander showed significantly stronger support for enhanced/additional gymbased supports and activities. Graph 9: pacific Islanders/Non- Pacific Islanders - How important is the enhancement/ addition of the following recreation programs and features in Palo Alto? Supplemental Community Survey Findings 10

0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gym based sports and activities (basketball ; volleyball; badminton etc.) 10 11 110 99 5 1 58 06 6 7 6 Fitness classes (yoga; crossfit; etc.) 1 1 19 1 7 1 7 7 196 6 76 Social events/spa ces 11 19 157 6 56 77 1 190 6 70 Martial arts 8 6 67 85 9 19 1 79 11 8 Clubs and classes (robotics; book clubs; etc.) 17 11 10 17 5 75 5 86 16 7 7 Fitness equipment /weight room 57 0 199 6 5 0 6 11 8 79 Other 5 1 917 91 156 976 Additions and Improvements to Enhance Health and Well-Being Respondents who identified as /Pacific Islanders were more likely to rank all of the options for improvements and additions to the existing system as Important or Very Important than the non- respondents, with exception of dog parks quiet areas in parks. Relative to the number of respondents in each category, about 10% more /Pacific Islanders than non-/pacific Islanders indicated that multi-generational play is important for enhancing health and well being. Graph 7c: pacific Islanders/Non- Pacific Islanders - How appropriate are these additions/improvements to existing park and recreation system in Palo Alto to achieve the goal of enhancing health and well-being of community members? Supplemental Community Survey Findings 11

0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Multigeneration al play areas 8 11 86 11 0 85 1 87 11 Bicycle and pedestrian connection 5 1 17 110 16 105 6 6 Loop paths and trails 8 87 1 1 58 70 8 9 6 9 Quiet areas in parks for relaxation More recreation and exercise classes Outdoor exercise equipment 5 8 9 7 17 8 01 9 1 9 01 55 77 5 9 78 7 197 1 6 1 8 7 1 Not appropirate 5 Very appropriate Nature orientated activities 8 5 11 11 8 8 61 7 Dog Park 05 7 78 1 85 7 7 1 Other 51 0 11 17 77 88 8 161 1017 Supplemental Community Survey Findings 1

Graph 1a: pacific Islanders/Non- Pacific Islanders - How important are the following enhancements to Palo Alto's aquatic options? 0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Additional lessons 7 1 11 107 5 07 8 195 1 15 Enhanced competitive swimming 8 58 191 60 61 97 91 0 1 More opportuniti es for recreationa l swimming Improveme nts to existing Rinconada pools and supporting facilities Improved social space around the existing pool An additional public pool 7 95 61 15 1 97 8 15 0 19 1 78 81 19 159 1 85 5 0 60 8 85 70 09 0 17 5 9 79 1 1 5 89 16 15 1 155 17 1 158 Not important Somewhat important Moderately Important Very important Extremely important Water play at more parks 5 160 1 11 6 6 1 1 16 17 Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center /Pacific Islander respondents demonstrated slightly more support for a gymnasium, pool or community gardens at the Baylands site and showed less interest in additional sports fields, dog parks and skate parks. Supplemental Community Survey Findings 1

Graph 17c: pacific Islanders/Non- Pacific Islanders - What facilities or spaces would be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic Center (designated for future recreational use)? Additional sports fields 1 1 5 71 15 0 9 70 86 1 Dog park 17 15 178 5 16 6 7 117 Gymnasium 8 0 5 17 9 0 19 9 15 157 1 Not appropriate Pool Skatepark 1 89 5 1 169 8 19 6 08 1 5 6 157 6 16 07 5 11 1 1 158 5 Very appropriate Community gardens or orchards 15 1 5 6 7 8 8 1 Natural Area for hiking and bird watching 1 8 10 8 168 198 1 5 75 1 99 Other 0 1 0 1 0 77 159 10 Geography Because Palo Altans often distinguish between and Palo Alto and because the geographic distribution of facilities, programs and amenities is relevant for the Master Plan, we conducted additional analysis to identify discernible differences in responses between residents of neighborhoods north and south of the Oregon Expressway. Prioritizing Facilities/Park Spaces for Major Improvements Both and Palo Altans indicated that investing in and enhancing neighborhood Parks is a high priority. However, there was a notable difference Supplemental Community Survey Findings 1

between the two groups concerning Rinconada Pool (in the ) and Cubberley Community Center (in the ). Not surprisingly, respondents gave priority to their neighborhood facility. Palo Altans gave higher priority to improving Cubberley, while Palo Altans gave higher priority to improving Rinconada. When asked to rate the importance of a variety of activities held at the Cubberley Community Center (in Palo Alto), residents from neighborhoods in Palo Alto placed slightly more importance on most of the programs at Cubberley. Similarly, % of respondents from neighborhoods in Palo Alto identified outdoor sports as Extremely Important, compared to only % of respondents from neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Graph 16: / Palo Altans - Which major improvements, facilities and additions to parks (all of which will require significant funding and staff time) should the City prioritize? Rank the types of projects below in order 1-6, with 1 being highest priority and 6 being lowest priority. 0% 10% 0% 0% % % 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Invest in enhanci ng and improvi ng neighbo rhood parks across the city Improve ments to the Lucie Evans Bayland Expansi on/reno vation of the Rincona da Pool s Interpre tative Center and boardw alk Improve ments and renovati on to the 7.7 acres added to Foothills Park Renovat ions to the Cubberl ey Commu nity Center Other 19 98 5 5 51 19 119 7 19 61 75 70 67 68 1 6 6 85 76 115 6 69 8 89 90 111 70 70 16 7 6 60 65 78 105 0 6 86 9 107 11 6 9 89 6 56 11 10 109 7 59 5 1 5 9 6 7 9 15 8 9 8 8 Rank 1 Rank Rank Rank Rank 5 Rank 6 Meeting user needs Respondents were asked how well the parks and recreation system is serves various needs. The responses between and Palo Altans are similar across the needs. There is a very slight discrepancy between and Palo Altans concerning their proximity to parks and recreation services: 70% of Palo Altans indicated their needs are mostly or all met and 68% of Palo Altans indicated their needs are mostly or all met. Graph b: / Palo Altans - How well do you feel that the Palo Alto Parks ad Recreation System (all of the parks, facilities, trials, preserves, etc.) meets your needs in the following areas? Supplemental Community Survey Findings 15

Physical 1 16 95 11 167 168 7 Language 11 8 8 1 57 58 6 5 6 Education Cultural 9 5 1 9 10 6 16 1 15 17 1 119 1 96 116 58 60 68 1 Needs not met Age 1 9 1 9 7 11 1 1 58 61 Proximity to parks and recreation facilities 9 1 1 0 61 8 16 15 8 5 Community Service/Vol unteer 15 9 1 15 90 7 99 115 Other 5100 7 8 Aquatic Programming Enhancements Survey respondents were asked about enhancements to aquatic options. For a question specifically about the importance of improvements to Rinconada Pools and supporting facilities (in Palo Alto), residents of Palo Alto neighborhoods were more likely to identify this as Moderately Important while residents of Palo Alto neighborhoods were more likely to identify this as Extremely Important. Supplemental Community Survey Findings 16

Graph 1b: / Palo Altans - How important are the following enhancements to Palo Alto's aquatic options? Additonal Lessons 6 1 7 10 79 89 57 60 Enhanced competitive swimming 107 10 86 7 1 158 1 9 56 6 More opportuniti es for recreational swimming Improveme nts to existing Rinconada pools and supporting facilities Improved social space around the existing pool 9 1 8 5 61 61 108 119 9 17 56 7 108 16 10 15 15 19 15 1 105 6 6 8 6 59 51 57 6 68 1 Not important 5 Extremely important An additional public pool facilities close to where you spend your time 79 7 7 80 100 90 88 107 1 57 5 Water play at more parks 6 65 51 97 11 9 106 90 10 60 6 Aquatic Programming Enhancements Respondents who identified as /Pacific Islander were more likely to describe enhancements to aquatic options as Extremely Important when compared to respondents of other races. This was especially true in relation to the need for additional lessons. Supplemental Community Survey Findings 17

Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center There were no significant differences between and Palo Altans preferences for programming at Baylands. There was slightly more support for hiking and bird watching among Palo Altans. Graph 17d: / Palo Altans- What facilities or spaces would be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic Center (designated for future recreational use)? Addition al sports fields 6 19 6 56 7 76 9 11 1 8 6 Dog park 79 8 6 6 60 88 6 70 1 1 5 6 Gymnasi um Pool Skatepar k Commun ity gardens or orchards 11 16 1 11 98 10 8 55 6 76 75 7 87 87 1 90 10 7 9 9 11 88 11 57 65 6 7 70 7 68 7 86 97 56 70 10 117 55 59 1 5 55 56 5 8 1 Not Appropriate 5 Very Appropriate Natural Area for hiking and bird watching 0 0 75 71 7 101 01 9 9 Other 7 1 80 7 5 Serving a Variety of Populations The survey asked respondents to share their ideas for activities or programs that would better serve a variety of populations in the community, including a range of age groups, lower income residents, people with disabilities, or specific ethnic or linguistic groups. Palo Altans were more likely to share ideas for better serving low income people and people with disabilities while Palo Altans were more likely to provide ideas to better serve Middle School and High School age youth. Supplemental Community Survey Findings

Graph 5: Indicate populations that could be better served by programs and activities. 0% Under served Populations 5% 0% 15% 15% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 15% 0% % % 0% 1% 1% % % 17% % 10% 5% 0% 9% 7% 8% Palo Alto Palo Alto Supplemental Community Survey Findings 19