Frequently Asked Questions

We have asked County Parks for a list of other locations, parks, schools, and semi-private locations that are within a 3 mile radius of the park to find out what sports, playgrounds, and similar outdoor accommodations are available. In the meantime, we are starting a spreadsheet of nearby locations to understand what sports they can accommodate.

You can download our DRAFT Sports Field Inventory report. This report contains a list of local area parks and lists sport fields and playgrounds. Additionally another list of nearby schools, both public and private that have sport fields. Commercial sports facilities are included in this 2nd list. Again, this is a draft report and a work in progress.

Please use this website’s Contact form or Comment form (if shown below) to help us with this effort to identify fields and make corrections or add your feedback.

The old Flood Elementary school was between the ball field and highway 101. In 2021, Ravenswood City School District (RCSD) approached County and offered to lease the property to County for use as a extension to Flood Park. It appears that the Parks Department was not interested, whether that was due to the Reimagine Plan had been approved or cost issues or other reasons, County turned down that opportunity.

The alternative to using the school property as an extension to the park to host soccer/lacrosse is to instead convert this parcel to high density affordable housing. However, this land was originally for the public good. A full discussion is on the Extend Flood Park webpage where the community has submitted a proposal to develop a plan and funding to create park space on this land.

It does not seem that park access for the public is a priority in the Phasing of the Reimagine project. The outstanding question is how might County Parks configure the various project phases to insure the maximum park availability to the public.

On the quick review, it seems that the park could easily be open to picnic, volleyball, horseshoes, and walking, and enjoying the woodland nature during renovation work on the sports area of the park.

Similar, it makes sense to have as many picnic areas as possible available during construction in other areas of the park.

If you agree, please see the Action page for ways to let County know. You can also use the Contact webpage to leave a comment and these will be routed to others as appropriate.

In a radius of 2 or 3 miles around Flood Park, there are many multipurpose, soccer, and similar fields that could support lacrosse or soccer. When considering public and private fields, including schools, parks, and sport complexes, how many fields support lacrosse?

We have asked County this question and are looking for their help in identifying these for local coaches.

In the meantime, community members are also in the process of creating a Local Sports Field spreadsheet to identify what local area fields support playgrounds, hiking, and various sports. The goal is to identify both public and private fields and then have County seek permissions for public use of sport fields (especially use by NFO, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods). A DRAFT, work in progress, of this Sports Field Inventory is available for download.

Please use the website’s Comment form to identify other fields or corrections to this inventory of sports fields; or, use the website’s Contact form to provide your feedback.

We are waiting for a reply from county parks.

Several years ago, the baseball field was disrupted by the public water supply lines project. It was not maintained prior to that project and not restored and maintained after.

Why many of the other sports areas have not been maintained is another question. The popular small softball field and the tennis courts are in disrepair, making it difficult to near impossible to use.

The 4 volleyball courts are used quite a bit and are in better shape than any of the other sports areas in the park.

Volleyball historically has been a very popular sport at the park. Removing volleyball courts doesn’t seem in the interest of community that uses all 4 courts in the parks.

Over the last 10 years, the lack of maintenance of the tennis courts has virtually eliminated the ability to play. Yet, when the courts were maintained County records show a high level of popularity and use. It seems keeping the existing 4 courts should be considered rather than demolishing them to build 2 courts else where.

We have asked County this question and are looking for their help in identifying sources for their sports usage projections that they used for identifying the need to reduce the volleyball and tennis courts by half.

This question applies to the baseball field and the shared multipurpose that is part of and around the baseball field. This question also applies to the 2nd soccer/lacrosse field if it is to be built in the woodland. Building the field in the woodland has additional impact on the remaining woodland trees and ecosystem around the clear cut area.

The latest EIR discusses artificial turf surfaces; however, there is no discussion nor associated research on the impact of an artificial surface on the remaining trees in the area around the sport field, where high temperatures, moisture content of soil, and impact on the microorganisms and insects that make up a health woodland will be a factor and should be evaluated.

Waiting for County Response.

Summit and Everest high schools don’t have their own fields, yet other local high schools and middle schools do.   Soccer coaches and players from NFO say there aren’t enough fields to meet desires.  Yet, an inventory of public and private fields within a 2-3 mile radius of Flood Park shows that at least 4 other fields in local parks and at least 9 other fields on semi-private and private locations.

A quicker and probably much less expensive alternative is to have Flood Park support 1 multipurpose field (not 2) and for County to assist local schools and youth sport groups in getting permission to use these 13+ local fields. With permission obtained, the fields would be immediately available. No construction time, no construction costs, no delays for use. A potential win-win-win for county residents and entities with fields and all this with County saving millions of dollars.

Another alternative is to approach existing fields. For instance, in NFO, Taft School appears to have 2 baseball fields aligned such that a large soccer field could be housed when baseball was not in use. However, Taft appears to placing dirt over part of one of the baseball fields (for parking?). With the high demand in the NFO, it seems Taft school administration could be approached to restore the field and provide the multiple use option and thus have a large soccer field in the heart NFO.

Some coaches and ballplayers say there aren’t enough local fields in NFO, Belle Haven, and EPA, for all the ball groups and players.

There seem to be over a dozen soccer fields within 3 miles radius of Flood Park that could support soccer or lacrosse (see the DRAFT Sport Field Inventory report). County could pursue use agreements with these city, school, private, and commercial entities to provide access. Such agreements would yield use immediately, without having to wait for planning, construction, and other related delays. Please contact Supervisor Warren Slocum and Park’s Dept Director Nicholas Calderon (Click here to contact them).

This would also mean Flood Park could build the one multipurpose field in conjunction with the baseball field restoration and not build the destructive second field that destroys the heart of the heritage woodland. This could mean a savings of several millions of dollars AND the park would not need to be closed, it could essentially stay open while the play fields are restored (that area is closed now anyway).

There are other ways more soccer/lacrosse fields could be made available for local youth sports. See the Balanced Alternatives to view in park alternatives. Consider the Sport Field Inventory report; Although a draft report, it identifies a large number of fields that could host youth sports and practice sessions. County, city, and youth sports groups could work together to gain use permissions and contracts making these fields immediately available within the community areas where needed.

Waiting for County Response

County Parks has indicated they will be in charge of scheduling. We are waiting for more details from County as to how this process will work and who will have priority over others.

Some have reported that fields in nearby Santa Clara County and neighboring cities often have sport fields booked well into the year. At Flood Park, it seems picnic areas are scheduled only several weeks in advance. Will sport fields being booked into the coming season preempt the ability for families and groups to book picnic areas?

Parking fees are no longer charged for Flood park. This may have the positive effect of quicker entry into the park and reduce the queue length of cars entering.

The County does not address the traffic noise issues, stating in the Reimagine EIR that “traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.” The EIR also states that more cars are expected on weekends than in recent past.

Neighbors in the area have asked how cycling safety can be improved. County did not address cycling safety in regards to heavy park traffic.

County does not seem to have plans for public transit and it is doubtful that buses would be able to safely use the current Flood Park parking areas for access and turn around.

Currently, SAMTrans does not have a bus route for the park. Waiting to hear from County if a route, especially that services the NFO, Belle Haven, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods will include the park, especially with more frequent trips for weekends and the 4-6pm weekday times used by school sport teams.

Waiting on response from County.

Parking capacity and traffic are acknowledged as a potential problem in the Reimagine EIR, yet it does not appear that the parking area can safely accommodate busses and similar transport vehicles in the parking area.

Currently there is not an affective public transportation service for NFO, Belle Haven, or East Palo Alto residents to/from the park. With the new all access playgrounds, it seems there is a need to support transit systems like Redi-Wheels and other similar transport for those with disabilities. These over large vehicles and buses should have a stop in the drop off area AND there will need to be a place for these vehicles to park.

Looking through the Reimagine EIR planning documents, it is not clear that picnic capacity of the park will remain the same as current. Park’s director Nicholas Caledron clarified this question stating that “The Department is not reducing capacity of the sites.”; However, when asked for him to confirm that not only would the same number of areas be retained that also the same number of people capacity would also be kept the same, he replied that the answer was complicated. He has promised to get back to us on that (as of Jan 2022).

The most used feature of the park are the Picnic areas. So this is an important element in understanding the impact of moving current picnic sites. Currently, most tables are shaded by the woodland trees. With many of the woodland picnic areas being removed from the heart of the woodland, it is unclear currently how shade will be provided to the new picnic locations and if the treasured family experience of picnicking under trees will be able to be replicated in the new locations.