Sunnyvale seeks input on Las Palmas Park renovation as residents press for shade, sports courts and parking fixes

City of Sunnyvale staff and consultant RRM Design Group presented preliminary ideas and gathered community priorities for a planned renovation of Las Palmas Park at an online community meeting, where residents pressed for more shade at the dog park, alternatives to the large pond, better parking and added recreational amenities such as picnic upgrades, batting cages and drop‑in courts for pickleball.

The project team said the meeting’s purpose was to collect community input that will shape three initial concept plans and associated cost estimates, followed by two additional rounds of community outreach. Project manager Connie Fan, City of Sunnyvale, said a public survey opened at the meeting and will remain available for two weeks. Julian Simeone, landscape architect and project manager with RRM Design Group, said the team plans to present three concepts in fall 2025, narrow them to two after more feedback, and bring a final concept to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in early 2026; construction documents and permitting would follow with construction anticipated to begin in late 2026 and finish in spring 2028.

Residents focused first on the park’s large ornamental pond. Simeone said the existing pond has “a lot of structural damage, leaks” and dated water‑treatment systems and that its footprint could be reduced or reconfigured. Several speakers suggested alternatives that would use less water or produce more usable space. Resident Emily Danna urged the team to “completely look at different alternatives” and proposed replacing part of the pond with gardens and walking paths to increase biodiversity and year‑round function. Other residents said the pond attracts geese and creates maintenance problems that limit nearby lawn use.

Dog‑park users asked for shade and better drainage. Russ S., a resident, described the large‑dog area as “quite large, but the usable part in summer is only that big,” and asked the design team to consider a permanent shade structure because newly planted trees have not provided reliable shade. Linda (resident) asked the team to address standing water in the dog park that leads to winter closures and suggested temporary fencing to keep dogs safe if drainage cannot be fully resolved.

Sports fields, surfaces and courts drew sustained comment. Several speakers urged that the park accommodate cricket, including a practice pitch and shared batting cages. Tameed (cricket academy coach) said his academy serves roughly 50 youth and needs “an open field and open turf.” The design team presented a hard cricket pitch option and noted safety constraints if cricket and soccer uses overlap. Sunnyvale Girls Softball League board member Stacy asked whether a second softball field and softball‑specific batting cages could be included. David Cushing, identified as chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission (speaking in his personal capacity), supported water‑play features that use space more efficiently and urged caution on widespread replacement of natural turf with Bermuda or other surfaces; he referenced a recent Lakewood Park renovation and said, “the cost overrun ... is to the tune of $800,000 with close to $800,000 annual in maintenance fees,” a cautionary example about turf choices raised in the meeting.

Several residents and speakers asked the city to add free, drop‑in pickleball courts or at least public tennis/pickleball courts that do not require membership or paid reservations at the adjacent Sunnyvale Municipal Tennis Court. Bianca (resident) said Sunnyvale is “one of the only cities in the area that doesn't provide free pickleball courts in any one of the parks,” and others argued Las Palmas could host courts away from housing to reduce noise impacts. Some neighbors worried about pickleball noise; Robert (resident) said he hears activity from his home and favored more green space over courts.

Parking, traffic and access were recurring concerns. Multiple residents said the tennis center parking overflows into adjacent streets (Russet Drive, Espinosa Drive and Hyde Park Drive) and asked the city to allow additional street parking on the park side of Russet Drive or consider other parking expansions. Several speakers also urged improved bicycle and pedestrian access through a narrow Crawford connection and asked the team to consider shared‑use pathways.

Site amenities and operations raised other specific requests: replacement or upgrades to the recreation building and maintenance shed, two existing restrooms inside the recreation building with a possible additional restroom toward the east side of the park, new irrigation, dark‑sky‑compatible lighting, stormwater bio‑retention features and evaluated turf species (including several residents urging drought‑tolerant Bermuda varieties or regenerative grass practices). Simeone said the existing irrigation system is “very defunct” and city maintenance staff would prefer a completely new irrigation system where feasible. The consultant noted the 2‑to‑5 and 5‑to‑12 playgrounds were renovated in 2005 and are not part of the current scope.

Process and next steps: Connie Fan reiterated the outreach sequence—three concept options followed by cost estimates, a fall 2025 community meeting to review concepts, additional input rounds and a final plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council in early 2026. The team plans a site pop‑up event and said concept pricing and community preferences will inform the budget and scheduling. The city opened a two‑week survey at the meeting to capture additional comments.

Meeting attendees included city staff, RRM Design Group consultants and roughly three dozen community members. No formal votes or decisions were taken; the meeting was information‑gathering and comment collection. The project team will incorporate the comments into the next round of concepts and report back in fall 2025.