The URL can be used to link to this page

06.07.18_Full_AgendaCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 7:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Thursday, June 7, 2018 This meeting will be televised. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Minutes of Regular Meeting on May 3, 2018 Draft Minutes 2.Subject: Minutes of Special Meeting/Public Input Workshop on May 17, 2018 Draft Minutes CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS Page 1 June 7, 2018Parks and Recreation Commission AGENDA 3.Subject: Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Staff Report A - Memorial Park Conceptual Design Draft Options May 2018 B - Community-wide Survey Summary, Final Draft, pgs 1-12, May 2017 C - 2017 Vision & Goals Survey Summary, Draft, Aug 2017 D - 2017 Survey, Activity Participation by User Groups E - Advisory Group 'Voting' Input, May 2017 F - PRC Workshop 'Voting' Input, May 2017 G - PRC Workshop, Public Written Input, May 2018 H - Draft Minutes, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting, May 17, 2018 4.Subject: 2017-2018 Work Plan P & R FY17-18 Commission Workplan_draft_6.01.18 NEW BUSINESS 5.Subject: Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Staff Report A - Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study, Draft, May 2018 STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 6.Subject: Director's Report ADJOURNMENT Page 2 June 7, 2018Parks and Recreation Commission AGENDA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment. Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Community Hall 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA Thursday, May 3, 2018 7:00 PM MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Tambe called the meeting to order at 7:00pm in the Community Hall, at 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners present: Meenakshi Biyani, Neesha Tambe, Carol Stanek, Helene Davis, Judy Wilson Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Jeff Milkes, Kevin Khuu, Kim Calame, Timm Borden, David Chen, Kristina Hastings APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Regular Meeting on April 5, 2018 – Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the minutes of April 5, 2018. Commissioner Wilson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 2. CIP Presentation Timm Borden, Director of Public Works, presented to the Commission the current and future Capital Improvement Projects, focusing on the parks and recreation related projects. Reviewed the completed, in progress, and newly proposed projects. Chair Tambe suggested adding the medicinal garden feasibility study to the category 4 projects and adding more detail about what has been done for the Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan projects. 3. Neighorhood Events Kim Calame, Recreation Supervisor, introduced David Chen and Kristina Hastings to present the new neighborhood events that will be planned for this summer, all throughout the City. Staff reviewed the background and current plans for the events and requested help from the Commission to spread the word. Events will run from June 30th to Sept 29th. Vice Chair Biyani suggested creating a flyer to pass out during the upcoming Volunteer Fair on Saturday, May 5th. Also suggested creating an online feedback forum for participants. Commissioner Davis suggested creating an app to get the feedback. Commissioner Stanek suggested marketing the neighborhood events at the Memorial Park events as well. Commissioner Wilson suggested marketing to the block leaders and local neighborhoods. 4. New Enterprise Software Jeff Milkes, Director of Recreation and Community Services, presented to the Commission the new recreation management software that the department has decided on, Active Net. Reviewed the benefits of the new program and timeline of the implementation process. Chair Tambe suggested checking on the compliance standards and data management standards of the new software. Vice Chair Biyani suggested adding a feature for customers to check facility availability online and where customers can touch base with the instructors if they have any questions. POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS 5. Code of Conduct Kim Calame presented to the Commission the updated version of the Code and reviewed the overall changes. Requested feedback from the Commission. The escalation process will come back to the Commission in August for their review before its presented to City Council for approval. Commissioner Stanek motioned to approve the code of conduct. Commissioner Davis seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. 2017-2018 Commission Work Plan The Commission reviewed the work plan. Commissioner Stanek suggested adding the off lease dog park item to the items to schedule. Chair Tambe suggested adding the Age Friendly Transportation Service into the items to schedule and removing the Senior Center Repairs item from the list. NEW BUSINESS None STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 7. Director’s Report Jeff Milkes presented on the following: - The Emergency Management Program - presented on AlertSCC, to join just text your zip code to 888777. Chair Tambe suggested implementing a mesh network API system to spread the word without using data. - CLASS Software – server crashed recently, but system is being rebuilt. - Apricots at Varian Park – reached a deal with a non-profit to harvest the apricots. - Master Plan Meeting – May 17th at 6:30pm at the Quinlan Community Center. Will present the 3 concept ideas for Memorial Park. - Summer Concert Series: o Cupertino Sympohnic Band on June 7 o Lyin’ I’s Eagle Cover Band on June 28 o Cocktail Monkeys on July 4 o Steel N Chicago on July 5 Commissioner Wilson attended the Block Leader Presentation. Commissioner Stanek attended the Holi Festival. Commissioner Davis attended the Earth Day Festival. Vice Chair Biyani attended the Earth Day Festival, Cherry Blossom Festival, and heard the Teen Commission present about stress at the Cupertino High School Event. Also attended the mayor’s meeting: Library Commission is bringing in speakers, next speaker on May 27, has their book sale on May 19th, and will attend the Volunteer Fair, Sustainability Commission presented on their speaker series and Earth Day Events, Library Commission also mentioned about the proposal to combine the library and parks commissions, Fine Arts Commission mentioned they would like to partner with the Parks and Recreation and Teen Commission to promote art. Chair Tambe attended the Cherry Blossom Festival and will attend the Volunteer Fair on Saturday. Has been researching environmentally friendly innovations for building and construction. ADJOURNMENT – Chair Tambe adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Khuu, Administrative Assistant Recreation and Community Services Department Minutes approved at the___ regular meeting CITY OF CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room 10185 North Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA Thursday, May 17, 2018 6:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Tambe called the meeting to order at 6:36pm in the Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room, at 10185 North Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners present: Meenakshi Biyani, Neesha Tambe, Carol Stanek, Helene Davis (arrived at 6:43pm) Commissioners absent: Judy Wilson Staff present: Christine Hanel, Kevin Khuu, Gail Seeds ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Public Input Gail Seeds introduced Cindy Mendoza, from MIG, and reviewed the overall process on the workshop. Cindy reviewed the purpose of the meeting, summarizing the overall big moves from the Master Plan and explained the interactive portion of the presentation. Asked questions to the attendees and received real time feedback (see Attachment F in the Master Plan item for the June 7 meeting.) Moved on to the group activities and broke out into the 8 information stations for attendees to write comments/quesitons on the various options presented, which included: the aquatic facility/year round pool, performing and fine arts center, gymnasium/recreation center and sports fields courts and facilities, incubator hub/maker space/teen space/senior space, memorial park arts and events concept, memorial park active and multi-use concept, memorial park naturalize civic gathering concept, and the natural areas and trails and all other input. Chair Tambe continued the meeting at 7:58pm. Staff reported a summary of the comments written at the various stations (full comments can be found in Attachment G of the Master Plan item for the June 7 meeting). Jacob R, representing Watsonville, presented a list of questions for attendees to think about in regards to the Master Plan project. The Commission provided some input, but requested bringing this subject back to the June meeting, to provide more thorough feedback and direction. Commissioner Stanek suggested more investigation on the conflict of opinions on the aquatic facility, since it has no multipurpose use. Commented that the performing arts center idea has more support, possibly at Vallco or Memorial Park, and about being more open to moving popular use spaces or facilities. To think about increasing accessibility for all facilities, including more parking and increasing the various methods of transportation. Chair Tambe commented on keeping the connectivity between the recreation services and all of the parks, to ensure that any facilities built have the capability to function, and be accessible, at max capacity, and to create multiuse spaces. Also, to ensure that we maintain the current, frequent use spaces or ensure that they’re being moved to an equally accessible location. Suggested for the community to come back to the June meeting and asked that if anyone has connections to private partnerships, to speak to the Commission or Recreation staff. Commissioner Davis supported ensuring that we are following what the whole community wants and suggested that revenue generation is important to think about, along with being flexible and creative with the ideas. ADJOURNMENT – Chair Tambe adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Khuu, Administrative Assistant Recreation and Community Services Department Minutes approved at the___ regular meeting RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10 10185 NORTH STELLING RD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 www.cupertino.org PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: June 7, 2018 Subject Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Recommended Action Invite public input on elements of the Citywide Parks Recreation System Master Plan, including potential park and recreation improvements and concepts for renovation of Memorial Park, and provide direction. Background A master planning process is underway for Cupertino’s citywide parks, open space and recreation system. In December 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (“Commission”) reviewed a scoping matrix for potential major facilities that could be added to our system. On February 28, 2018, the City Council and Commission conducted a joint meeting and reviewed potential “big moves.” “Big moves” are community needs or desires that are major facilities or buildings, or have significant budget, staffing or parkland/spatial impacts. They include major improvements to existing parks; new or expanded buildings and facilities; land acquisition for parks, trails, and natural areas; and nature investment. The city’s larger parks were evaluated for their compatibility as sites for potential “big moves.” On May 17, 2018 the Commission hosted a special workshop-style meeting to invite further community input on potential “big moves” and other improvements to our recreation system, as well as on Memorial Park. Memorial Park is the city’s largest and busiest park. Its central location is anchored by the Quinlan Community Center, the Senior Center, and the Sports Center. It enjoys a unique role and setting, and is the only venue that can host our largest festivals and special events. It has been suggested as a location for various potential Big Moves. Three preliminary concepts provided ideas for a range of improvements, to help invite public feedback and discussion about how Memorial Park can best serve our community (see Attachment A). Discussion – Public Input Potential major projects noted as “big moves” and discussed in the scoping matrix are a result of a wide community input process which was launched in spring 2016. Feedback has been received via public workshops, ‘intercept’ booths at festivals, stakeholder interviews, citywide surveys, the master plan Advisory Group, the project website and email address, and ongoing public presentations to the Commission. Results of input are evaluated and summarized in a range of documents available on the project website, www.cupertino.org/parksmp. Below is some of the key feedback received. Intercept Events Intercept events were held at festivals during spring and summer 2016, where input by hundreds of residents was received. Results are described in more detail in Appendix B of Attachment B to the June 1, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting materials, labelled Community-wide Survey Summary, Final Draft.  The top major facility that participants desired to add was a Year-round Aquatic Center, followed closely by a Performing Arts Center for Theater/ Dance/Music, and a Multi-use Gymnasium. Next in popularity a Maker Space scored well, as did a Fine Arts Studio and Gallery. There was some interest in a Gymnastics Center. There was low interest in another community center, a relocated teen center, and additional meeting rooms.  The consistent highest scoring amenities to add or enhance were Access to Natural Open Space, and Park Trails & Pathways. Next highest were Playgrounds, Sport Courts, and Community Gardens. The next level of interest included Athletic Fields, Fitness/Exercise Spaces, and Picnicking. There was lower but clear interest in Dog Areas.  Among recreation programs to add or enhance, the top items were Special Events, followed by Aquatic Programs and Nature & Environmental Programs. The next most popular were Performing, Visual & Cultural Arts and Youth Sports & Fitness; and Adult Sports & Fitness. Categories scoring just below these included Adult Sports & Fitness; Before & After School Programs; and Classes for Lifelong Learning; however all received a reasonable amount of interest. Summer 2016 Survey A community-wide survey was conducted in summer 2016. The complete results are provided in Attachment B to the June 1, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting materials, Community-wide Survey Summary, Final Draft (see Attachment B to this report for the summary portion only). Its results echoed those received via the intercept events and other types of stakeholder input.  Access to Natural Open Space, and Park Trails and Pathways, continued to be the top desires for amenities. A second tier of interest included Playgrounds, Sport Courts, Athletic Fields, Picnic Areas, Community Gardens, and Fitness spaces. Dog areas received lower interest.  For adding major recreation facilities, a higher percentage of survey respondents weighed in as “Neutral” on this topic (vs. strongly favor, favor, or oppose). The top desired facilities in order were a Year-round Aquatic Center and a Performing Arts Center, followed by a Multi-use Gym, Maker Space, and Fine Arts Studio/Gallery. Scoring lower were a relocated Teen Center, Gymnastics Center, conference/meeting space, and another community center.  Regarding adding or enhancing recreation programs, there was interest in all options and little opposition to any. Nature and Environmental Programs scored highest, but all options received over 50% support. Overall Themes In the overall outreach efforts through spring 2017, the consistent strong themes and goals that emerged from our community revolved around 9 key areas:  Nature Experience  Trails & Connectivity  Park and Facility Access  Social Gathering & Celebration  Extraordinary Play  Recreation Variety  Youth & Teen Empowerment  Welcoming Places & Services (aka Parks & Rec Hospitality)  Uniquely Cupertino See the Community Outreach and Vision Summary presented to Commission on June 1, 2017 for additional information, and the presentation to City Council on September 19, 2017. Three additional themes were added based upon continuing input:  The Arts  Partnerships  Cultural Diversity The icons below represent these key themes. Summer 2017 Survey – vision & goals questionnaire A citywide survey was conducted during summer 2017. It focused on confirming the community’s vision, goals and the dozen overarching themes for the master plan noted above, and clarifying what the implementation of them could mean. Over 1,200 people participated. The complete results were provided in Attachment A to the September 7, 2017 materials for the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. A summary of the questionnaire responses was provided as Appendix A (provided here as Attachment C). The results re-confirmed the community’s sentiments that Nature, and Trails & Connections, are the top two priority themes, followed closely by Variety of Recreation Opportunities, and Recreation Access. Youth & Teen Empowerment and Welcoming Places & Services were next, ranking over 60% favorable ratings. The top 4 descriptors for the city’s parks and recreation system included safe; friendly/welcoming; bikeable/walkable; and natural. Several questions provided responses that relate to planning for major facilities. Questions allowed selection of 2 choices among 6-8 options, so any option receiving >40% was quite high. In response to the question, “How should parks and recreation facilities reflect Cupertino’s unique character and identity?”, the top choice was:  45% - ‘Integrate local history, art, culture and natural resources in parks and facilities.’ In response to the question, “How could Cupertino support The Arts in parks and recreation?”, the top 2 picks were:  45% - ‘Develop a cultural, fine and performing arts center with elements such as an indoor theater, kiln room, classrooms and program space for music, dance and programs’  46% - ‘Increase visual, performing and fine art programs, events and festivals.’ In response to the question, “How should Cupertino’s cultural diversity influence parks and recreation services?”, the top 2 picks were:  55% - ‘Identify and provide recreation facilities that support diverse cultural interests, such as tai chi space and cricket pitches’  43% - ‘Provide more multicultural festivals, events and programs.’ In response to the question, “What could Youth or Teen Empowerment look like in Cupertino parks and recreation?”, the top 2 picks were:  40% - ‘Connect youth and teens to volunteer opportunities and internships’  27% - ‘Consider a new café-style activity center for teens which could include maker/incubator spaces and other programming themes.’ In response to the question, “How should extraordinary play opportunities be provided?”, the top choice was:  50% - ‘Encourage play for all age groups, including children, teens, adults and seniors.’ It is worth noting that the participants were “self-selected,” and do not accurately represent the city’s demographic makeup. Mature adults 65+ are over-represented at 25%, as are women at 57%. Among self-identified ethnic groups (for which the ~biannual Community Tracking aka “Godbe” Survey categories were used), Caucasians are over-represented at 45% and Asian- Chinese and Asian-Indian groups under-represented at 15% and 12% respectively. However, the ‘mixed-race’, ‘other’, and ‘no answer’ responses for this question totaled 19% which is relatively high, versus 4-6% totals in Godbe surveys. Summer 2017 Survey – recreation activity data Results of the 2017 questionnaire were presented in the above-referenced report as a compilation of all responses. One question invited responses regarding which of 50 recreation activities are pursued by the respondent’s household members. The overall results were previously provided as Table 14 in Attachment C. Those results have been further evaluated, and broken down across several types of categories such as age, residency, households with children age 18 or younger, and ethnic self-identification (see Attachment D). The “All” category of respondents, as noted above, over-represents and under-represents certain demographic groups. Within the individual breakdown columns, many do not include enough respondents to ensure reliable representation of the particular demographic. However, the results do show a snapshot of the self-selected respondents, and of the activities pursued within their households. Teen Commission Input May 9, 2018 The Teen Commission reviewed aspects of these topics on May 9. The discussed the Big Moves previously presented to Parks and Recreation Commission and Council. Their input on Big Moves included to consider youth interests in selecting major new facilities; sports are important and adding a swimming facility is desirable; look at opportunities to partner with developers to provide new facilities; a teen center/teen space and maker space are compatible and would work well together; the teen center would be more successful at a location such as a school, library or popular teen destination; the Sports Center would benefit from full-size gym; basketball courts are lacking in Cupertino and should be added—this is a popular activity including among youth (schools do offer basketball); tennis courts appear fairly available as there are many at the Sports Center and at the high schools; perhaps some tennis courts could be turned into basketball; indoor badminton is lacking and is needed. Their input regarding the future of Memorial Park was general since concepts presented on May 17 had not yet been published. Their general input included enhancing Memorial Park’s active uses; considering where a pool would go if this is a good location; avoid driving through the park to access new facilities or new parking; the ponds should be repurposed and would make nice additional green space; consider asking the Fine Arts Commission to weigh in on renovating the pond space; consider removing and repurposing some of the unwatered berm areas. Advisory Group Input May 17, 2017 The Master Plan Advisory Group met the afternoon of May 17 and weighed in on the topics that were presented at the Workshop that evening. The Advisory Group participated in the “instant voting” exercise that was also aired with the Workshop. The results of their voting are attached (see Attachment E). Their feedback on desired new major facilities was mixed across a range of alternatives. However, the top 2 priorities were Multipurpose Recreation Center with Gym and a Performing and Fine Arts Center, while the top single priority was the former, followed by a tie between a Performing and Fine Arts Center and an Aquatic Facility. Among smaller facilities, they preferred a small-to-mid-size theater. They preferred a large aquatic facility over a small one; a multipurpose rec center with a gym over a gym only; and were split regarding desirable size for a theater. They were interested in a variety of sport courts, both indoor and outdoor, and had highest interest in Native Plantings/Landscaping in Parks and More Natural Areas as top desires for green space and garden space. For Memorial Park, their top choice was a tie between a ‘Mix of the Concepts’ and ‘Active & Multi-use’, followed by ‘Naturalized Civic Gathering.’ Their reason for selecting their top concept was that it has the most important facilities, and that it creates a social and activity hub. Additional feedback received at this meeting included exploring partnerships and expanding relationships to achieve our goals; to not put “everything” at Memorial Park—to invest in other sites; to maintain existing parks and facilities; to strive for appropriate amounts of improvements and not displace existing popular facilities such as sport fields; to build flexibility into the plan since it is long-range and sports fads vary over time, we should emphasize multi-purpose flexible options; support for a Multiuse Rec Center/sport facility; and to be involved in helping address teen stress. Commission Special Meeting – Public Workshop May 17, 2018 The May 17 Commission-hosted workshop was publicized in a variety of ways. It was posted on Next Door, Twitter, and social media platforms including YouTube and Facebook sites; posted on ‘television’ screens at city facilities; promoted on Cupertino’s City Channel; posted as News on the City website; and included in the City Calendar. Flyers and brochure stands were provided at various City facilities (such as City Hall, the Golf Course, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Sports Center). Lawn signs were installed at these facilities also, as well as within Memorial Park. Flyers were posted at the along Stevens Creek Trail and at McClellan Ranch, and provided at the Library, the Teen Commission and Library Commission. Email notifications were sent to the Master Plan notification list and a variety of other potentially interested stakeholders, such as Block Leaders, Senior Center members, and people that have registered for Recreation programs and facilities. Over two dozen community members attended the workshop and actively participated. Attendees were primarily long-time residents and primarily 50+ years old. The workshop feedback via ‘instant voting’ (see Attachment F) on desired big moves was mixed, but the top 2 were Enhance & Protect Natural Areas, and Trails. Input on potential new large facilities was also mixed, but a Performing & Fine Arts Center ranked highest, particularly when asked about the single top priority, and if a smaller facility is pursued. This group preferred a community-size pool rather than a large aquatic facility; were split regarding desirable size for a theater, and also split regarding a multipurpose rec center with a gym over a gym only. Their priority for sport courts was outdoor courts for varied sports (badminton, bocce, futsal e.g.) and for basketball courts. This group, identically to the Advisory group, selected Native Plantings/Landscaping in Parks and More Natural Areas as top desires for green space and garden space. For Memorial Park, their top choice during the ‘instant voting’ was a ‘Mix of the Concepts’; the second choice was ‘Active and Multi-use.’.’ Their reason for selecting their top concept was that it has the most important facilities, creates a social and activity hub, has the best open space, and keeps the park similar to how it is now. Attendees had the opportunity to provide individual comments on all of the Memorial Park options as well as potential major facilities and big moves via easels and displays at 8 separate stations with staff liaisons for assistance as well as via comment cards. Comments have been transcribed and are provided as Attachment G. Upon the conclusion, staff liaisons summarized input received. Thereafter, Commissioners provided additional feedback. Commissioners’ input is noted in the Draft Minutes [unapproved] for the May 17 meeting (see Attachment H). The Commission requested that this item be placed on the June 7, 2018 agenda for additional public and Commission input. Fiscal Impact None. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager Reviewed by: Christine Hanel, Assistant Director of Recreation & Community Services Approved for Submission by: Christine Hanel, Assistant Director of Recreation & Community Services Attachments: A – Memorial Park, Conceptual Design Draft Options, May 3, 2018 B – Community-wide Survey Summary, Final Draft, pgs. 1-12, May 2017 C – 2017 Vision and Goals Survey Summary, Draft, Aug. 2017 D – 2017 Survey, Activity Participation by User Groups E – Advisory Group ‘Voting’ Input, May 2018 F – Parks & Rec Commission Workshop, Public ‘Voting’ Input, May 2018 G – Parks & Rec Commission Workshop, Public Written Input, May 2018 H – Draft Minutes, Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting, May 17, 2018 200’100500 Quinlan Community Center Tennis Courts Event Lawn Softball Field Sports Center- Fitness & Teen Center Tennis Courts Veterans Memorial Constructed Pond Gazebo Playground Senior Center Senior Center Parking Lot Playground Group Picnic Area Amphitheater Event Lawn Tennis Courts Memorial Park Conceptual Design Draft Options 05.03.2018 EXISTING SITE Memorial Park is a centrally located community park providing a variety of facilities. This popular 22-acre park includes the Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center, Cupertino Sports Center, Teen Center, Cupertino Veterans Memorial, tennis courts, lawn areas that support events, amphitheater, group picnic and individual picnic facilities, 2 playgrounds, and lighted ball field. A series of paths provides alternative pedestrian circulation through the site. A large, inactive pond feature surrounds a gazebo and playground area. There are lighted parking lots near Quinlan Community Center, the Senior Center and western edge of the park, and around the Sports Center. Stevens Creek Blvd N. S t e l l i n g R d Christensen Dr Mary A v e Alves Dr An t o n W a y Small Parking Expansion Event Loading Area (N) Dry Creekbed and Walking Path Improved Landscaped Areas w/ Tree Cover Gazebo w/ Landscape Improvements Renovate Playground Group Picnic Area, Add Shade Renovate Amphitheater + Provide Walkway along Anton Way Expand Event Lawn Improved Landscaped Areas w/ Tree Cover Quinlan Community Center Tennis Courts Event Lawn Softball Field Sports Center- Fitness & Teen Center Tennis Courts Veterans Memorial Playground Memorial Park Conceptual Design Draft Options 5.03.2018 NATURALIZED CIVIC GATHERING 200’100500 EXPANDED FEATURE MAP LEGEND (N)PROPOSED SITE FEATURE IMPROVED FEATURE NEW FEATURE ACTIVE RECREATION EVENT SPACE FLEXIBLE EVENT LAWN PASSIVE RECREATION BUILT FEATURES LANDSCAPE+WATER FEATURES This option provides minimal improvements focused on group gathering spaces, increased shade and landscape improvements, and repurposes the inactive pond. PROS: Landscape improvements and increased tree cover over time, repurposing and expansion of part of pond as a dry creek bed and walking path through the park, maintains focus on green space, small parking expansion near Quinlan to accommodate provision of small event loading area, no large new building construction costs. CONS: No increase in new recreation opportunities. Stevens Creek Blvd N. S t e l l i n g R d Christensen Dr Mary A v e Alves Dr An t o n W a y (N) Multistory Arts/ Performance/ Community/Incubator Space w/ Parking (N) Courtyard Space /Reservable Venue Renovate Building + Re-purpose Teen Center SpaceExpand Amphitheater Event Space Relocate Group Picnic Area Relocate + Expand Playground Area Expand Festival Area Indoor/Outdoor Link Between Quinlan Courtyard + Event Lawn Renovate for Flexible Community Use, Provide Shade Event Staging Area (N) Event Staging Area (N) Pedestrian Connection Improve and Reduce Water Feature Improve Landscaping, Remove Berms Expand Event Lawn Potential to Expand Senior Center Services Potential to Add + Improve Senior Parking/Dropoff Quinlan Community Center Tennis Courts Veterans Memorial This option focuses on providing arts and event facilities. All options provide increased tree planting for shade and repurposes the inactive pond area. PROS: Event staging area, additional event venue and revenue potential, consolidated and expanded event lawn space, expanded play area could include destination/inclusive/nature play, secondary event lawn area, new arts/performance/community/incubator space with parking structure, potential expansion of senior services and improvements to parking in that area, improved indoor/outdoor linkage between Quinlan and event lawn, landscape improvements. CONS: Loss of lighted ball field and group picnic area; new building/parking structure has significant cost implications and potential traffic impacts. Memorial Park Conceptual Design Draft Options 05.03.2018 ARTS AND EVENTS 200’100500 Stevens Creek Blvd N. S t e l l i n g R d Christensen Dr Mary A v e Alves Dr An t o n W a y EXPANDED FEATURE MAP LEGEND (N)PROPOSED SITE FEATURE IMPROVED FEATURE NEW FEATURE ACTIVE RECREATION EVENT SPACE FLEXIBLE EVENT LAWN PASSIVE RECREATION BUILT FEATURES LANDSCAPE+WATER FEATURES Expand Play Area Improve Courts: Tennis+Pickleball Venue Walking Loop Keep Berm (N) Water Feature Around Gazebo (N) Playground Expand Senior Center Services Add + Improve Senior Parking/ Dropoff (N) Event Lawn w/ Staging Areas Quinlan Community Center Event Lawn Redesign Parking Lot to Increase Spaces Improve Indoor/Outdoor Link Between Quinlan Courtyard + Event Lawn Improved Fitness Center Veterans Memorial Gazebo Group Picnic Area Renovate + Expand Amphitheater Event Space (N) Walkway (N) Aquatic Facility/Pool w/ Support Building(s) Expand Event Space Pedestrian Path (N) Multistory Gym w/ Rooftop Activity + Potential Parking Structure Softball Field Memorial Park Conceptual Design Draft Options 05.03.2018 ACTIVE & MULTI-USE 200’100500 This option focuses on providing active and multi-use facilities. All options provide increased tree planting for shade and repurpose the inactive pond. PROS: Expanded event lawn space, expanded play area could include destination/inclusive/ nature play, improved pickleball facilities, swimming center, stronger connection between Senior Center and recreation opportunities, recreational gym, expansion of senior services and improvements to parking in that area, improved indoor/outdoor linkage between Quinlan and event lawn, walking loops, landscape improvements. CONS: New buildings and pool have significant cost implications, potential traffic impacts and need for parking structure. Stevens Creek Blvd N. S t e l l i n g R d Christensen Dr Mary A v e Alves Dr An t o n W a y EXPANDED FEATURE MAP LEGEND (N)PROPOSED SITE FEATURE IMPROVED FEATURE NEW FEATURE ACTIVE RECREATION EVENT SPACE FLEXIBLE EVENT LAWN PASSIVE RECREATION BUILT FEATURES LANDSCAPE+WATER FEATURES CITY OF CUPERTINO Parks & Recreation System Master PlanParks & Recreation System Master Plan COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY SUMMARY Final Draft · May 2017 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY SUMMARY Introduction............................................................................................... 1 Who Responded?....................................................................................... 1 Level of Satisfaction................................................................................... 2 Frequency of Participation......................................................................... 4 Barriers to Participation............................................................................. 5 Potential Additions to The Parks and Recreation System.......................... 8 Appendix A: Survey Results (RHAA) Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 COMMUNITY-WIDE SURVEY SUMMARY INTRODUCTION From March 24th to July 19th, 2016, the City of Cupertino implemented a communitywide survey to collect input on the state of the City’s parks and recreation system and potential improvements and alterations to the system in the future. This document summarizes the major findings from the results, including MIG’s analysis. The survey collected input from a total of 679 respondents and was widely advertised through a variety of public announcements, events, and the City’s website. The 27-question survey was conducted using the online survey service Survey Monkey, with paper questionnaires available. Appendix A presents the original questions and the raw results of the survey, as exported from Survey Monkey. Many of those who responded expressed interest in further involvement and participation, with about one-third of respondents providing their email addresses for the contact list for the Master Plan. WHO RESPONDED? Nearly 75% of the survey participants indicated they were Cupertino residents, and almost 18% reported that they work in Cupertino. These results indicate that both the employment and resident populations provided perspectives towards the survey. The age profile of respondents is depicted in Table 1, also showing a comparison to the City of Cupertino (2010 Census Estimates). TABLE 1: AGE OF RESPONDENTS AGE CATEGORIES SURVEY CENSUS (2010 ESTIMATES) Under 18 4.4% 29.5% 18-29 2.7% 7.3% 30-39 12.1% 13.5% 40-49 27.4% 19.5% 50-64 24.1% 17.8% 65 and over 23.9% 12.4% No answer 5.3% Totals 100% 100% 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary As Table 1 shows, the majority of respondents are ages 40 to 64 (51.5%). This is slightly larger than the percentage of City residents in the same age category (37.3% as per 2010 U.S Census). Few youth under the age of 18 responded to the survey, while respondents over the age of 60 were over-represented (24% of the respondents indicated they were 65 years or older compared to 12.4% as per 2010 U.S Census). A total of 406 respondents indicated that they were residents of Cupertino. Of these, 336 provided details regarding the area of Cupertino in which they lived (see below). MIG conducted additional analysis of the survey results, aggregating data based on where respondents live and analyzing whether there were differences in responses based on their location east and west of Highway 85. In some cases, responses differed substantially. This analysis notes where responses from residents east and west of Highway 85 differed by 8-10% or more. Many survey respondents indicated where they lived within 8 different areas of Cupertino. For this analysis, results from areas 1,2,5,6 were noted as "West" and areas 3,4,7,8 are noted as "East" using Highway 85 as divider. The remaining respondents were grouped in the "No answer" category, which includes people who do not live in Cupertino as well as those who did not answer this question. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION The survey results indicate that while there is general satisfaction with parks and recreation services, there is room for improvement. A series of four questions about different aspects of parks and recreation services provides insights. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Community-wide Survey Summary TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SATISFACTION ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM IN GENERAL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE… NO OPINION VERY DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED SOMEWHAT SATISFIED VERY SATISFIED quality of Cupertino's parks and recreation facilities? 3% 3% 15% 54% 25% quality of Cupertino's recreation programs? 24% 2% 13% 40% 22% maintenance of Cupertino's parks and recreation 4% 3% 14% 47% 32% safety of Cupertino's parks and recreation facilities? 7% 2% 8% 42% 41% • When asked about satisfaction with parks and recreation facilities, though only 19 respondents reported being “very dissatisfied” overall, the top answer was “somewhat satisfied” (54%) with 15% choosing “somewhat dissatisfied.” Three follow-up questions delved into different areas of parks and recreation services, and the responses provide insights: • When asked about satisfaction with programs, almost a quarter of respondents chose “no opinion”, indicating a lack of familiarity with Cupertino’s program offerings. While the percentage of those “very satisfied” is about the same as with overall service satisfaction, the percentage of “somewhat satisfied” dropped by more than 10%. • The level of satisfaction with park safety is highest, with more than 40% choosing “very satisfied” and a similar percentage choosing “somewhat satisfied.” • Park maintenance also was rated higher than services overall, with more than 30% reporting that they are “very satisfied” with another 47% selecting “somewhat satisfied.” 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary MIG analyzed the data to understand differences in satisfaction between participants living east and west of Hwy 85. As Figure 1 illustrates, participants living west of Hwy 85 indicated more overall satisfaction with the parks and recreation facilities. A review of open-ended responses across the survey reveals many comments that note that East Cupertino needs more high-quality parks and recreation amenities. In the tables and charts breaking down east, west, and no answer, the final column includes all respondents that did not indicate where they live in Cupertino. This includes respondents who work or visit Cupertino. FIGURE 1. SATISFACTION WITH CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES, BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION East West No Answer Very Satisfied 21%36%22% Somewhat Satisfied 54%47%58% Somewhat Dissatisfied 20%12%13% Very Dissatisfied 5%3%2% No Opinion 1%1%5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e ( % ) Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 5 Community-wide Survey Summary FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION Two questions asked about frequency of visits to parks and frequency of participation in programs. As Figure 2 illustrates, the results show that respondents have more familiarity with and use of Cupertino’s parks, and less familiarity with and use of Cupertino’s programs. • About a third have never participated in a City program, compared to 2% reporting never visiting a City park. • Almost 55% reported visiting parks four times a month or more, whereas for Cupertino’s programs, only 18% participate at that same rate. FIGURE 2. PARTICIPATION IN CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMMING A total of 445 respondents provided open-ended comments about how they used Cupertino’s parks and recreation services over the past year. Respondents identified recreation activities they pursue in parks (dog walks, soccer, exercise, for example); named specific parks or facilities they visit; and wrote about specific programs and activities. A review of these comments shows the range of recreational pursuits supported by Cupertino. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Parks and Recreation Facilities Recreation Programming 4 or more times a month 2-3 times a month Once a month Less than once a month Never 6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION Parks The survey asked respondents to indicate what challenges, if any, prevented them from using parks in Cupertino. Raw results and results by geography are shown in Table 3. When looking at all responses, the top reason for not visiting parks is “too busy.” In communities with Cupertino’s demographic profile, this is typically the top reason. Cupertino’s results, particularly when cross-tabulated by place of residence, reveals different patterns. • Respondents from the east side of the city were more likely to indicate that quality of park amenities and features and the location of parks kept them from using City parks (23% each), as well as “better parks offered outside Cupertino.” • West side Cupertino respondents reported lack of parking as the top reason, followed closely by “better parks offered outside Cupertino”, “too busy” and park quality. • The results for this question are consistent with the results on satisfaction with park maintenance and safety, with lack of safety/lighting and lack of maintenance the least frequently cited barriers to use • Especially notable is the high percentage of respondents listing “other” and “none of the above” as barriers to using parks, significantly higher for Cupertino residents than for visitors or employees. Those who selected “other” had an opportunity to write in a specific comment. A total of 141 people wrote in comments, some of which were very detailed. Some comments reiterated reasons already listed in the survey answers (lack of parking, lack of bike/ped accessibility, park location). Multiple comments addressed the lack of restrooms, the inability to get a reservation for a facility, the lack of walking/hiking paths in parks, and both the presence of dogs in parks and the lack of dog parks. FIGURE 3. WRITE-IN COMMENTS FOR BARRIERS TO USING PARKS Note: The word cloud (above) is a pictorial representation of the themes that emerge from all the open-ended responses received. Larger type fonts are words that many respondents used and smaller type fonts represent words that fewer respondents used in their open-ended responses. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 7 Community-wide Survey Summary Table 3 shows responses by location (east, west, and no answer) as well as all respondents that did not indicate where they live. This includes respondents who work or visit Cupertino. TABLE 3: BARRIERS TO USING CUPERTINO’S PARKS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE CITY’S PARKS? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) VALUES EAST WEST NO ANSWER ALL RESPONSES Better parks offered outside Cupertino 20% 17% 17% 18% I am too busy/don't have time 15% 17% 19% 17% Quality of park amenities & features 23% 16% 15% 17% Lack of parking 17% 19% 16% 17% Location of parks 23% 10% 10% 14% Parks are too crowded or over- programmed 14% 11% 10% 11% Lack of bicycle/pedestrian accessibility 13% 10% 5% 9% Lack of park maintenance 7% 6% 8% 7% Lack of safety or lighting 9% 4% 7% 7% Other (please specify) 27% 26% 20% 24% None of the above 19% 30% 32% 27% Number of respondents in each category (Note that multiple answers were allowed) 188 148 262 598 8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary Facilities and Programs The survey then asked respondents what challenges prevented them from using recreation facilities or attending programs. A total of 590 people responded to this question. Similar to the question on barriers to park use, the responses show “too busy” as a top barrier and indicate that lack of maintenance is not a barrier to using facilities and programs. • The most frequently selected answer was “none of the above” (29%). This answer did not allow comments, so it is not possible to further evaluate perceptions about barriers to programs. • Schedule and availability received 25% of responses overall, indicating a need for different programming approaches and models. More than 1/3 of east side residents chose this answer, and 28% of west side residents did. A review of write-in comments to the “other” response also reveals comments about schedule. • “Other” received 20% of responses, and 118 people wrote in comments. • While many of the comments addressed topics that were covered by the answer choices, the topic of program cost as a barrier was mentioned in several comments. • Though program quality received only 11% of responses overall, it was a barrier for significantly more east side residents (19%) compared to west side residents (8%). • Notably, a preference for private clubs and providers did not rank highly as a reason for not using Cupertino programs and facilities. This indicates that the Cupertino market is open to City- provided programs and facilities. In the tables and charts breaking down east, west, and no answer, the final column includes all respondents that did not indicate where they live in Cupertino. This includes respondents who work in or visit Cupertino. TABLE 4: BARRIERS TO USING CUPERTINO’S RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS WHAT, IF ANYTHING, PREVENTS YOU FROM USING THE CITY’S RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) VALUES EAST WEST NO ALL RESPONSES Schedule & availability of programs 35% 28% 16% 25% I am too busy/don't have time 20% 25% 23% 23% Quality of programs 19% 8% 11% 13% Location of facilities 14% 9% 9% 11% Lack of parking 10% 7% 7% 8% Prefer using private gyms/clubs/facilities 10% 9% 5% 8% Lack of maintenance of facilities 5% 4% 6% 5% Lack of bicycle/pedestrian accessibility 9% 4% 3% 5% Other (please specify) 23% 20% 18% 20% None of the above 22% 31% 34% 29% Number of respondents in each category (Note that multiple answers were allowed) 188 148 254 590 Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 9 Community-wide Survey Summary POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM A series of questions asked about preferences for potential additions. These questions provided four answer choices, and evaluating both the level of support for and opposition to answer choices provides insights about possible future directions. Additional Amenities The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding amenities to parks in Cupertino, shown in Figure 4. • Providing access to natural open spaces and adding and enhancing park trails and pathways garnered widespread support and little opposition. This was highlighted in the open-ended responses throughout the survey, with many participants noted they would like to see more natural pathways and off-street trails, including bike paths linking parks and an extension of the existing Stevens Creek Trail. • Additional cricket fields garnered the most opposition (26%), with limited support. • In contrast, opinion about additional dog areas appears divided, with 19% opposed and 17% strongly in favor. This was consistent with the pattern seen in the write-in comments. • Of note, participants living east of Hwy 85 were much more likely to be strongly in favor of athletic fields and sports courts and more strongly opposed to certain recreation amenities. • Respondents, regardless of location, highlighted the need for more basketball courts, tennis courts and bocce courts throughout Cupertino. Many survey participants wrote in that they would like to see a half or full-sized basketball court in Wilson Park, located in the South Blaney neighborhood. 10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary FIGURE 4. INTEREST IN RECREATION AMENITY ENHANCEMENTS OR ADDITIONS Athletic fields Cricket fields Picnic/BBQ spaces Dog areas Playground/tot lots Community gardens Fitness/exercise spaces and equipment Park trails and pathways Access to natural open space Sport courts (i.e. tennis, volleyball, basketball etc.) Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 11 Community-wide Survey Summary Additional Recreation Programs The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding different types of recreation programs, and 559 provided responses as shown in Figure 5. • Overall, there was support for each option and limited opposition. This aligns with earlier results indicating a desire for more programming options. • Additional nature and environmental programs received the most support and least opposition, also following patterns seen throughout the survey. • The results show a high level of support for more special events. FIGURE 5. INTEREST IN RECREATION PROGRAM ADDITIONS OR ENHANCEMENTS While this question did not provide an opportunity to write in comments, a review of other open-ended responses highlighted several potential programming additions, including the need for more programming for youth with special needs or disabilities and the need for programming geared towards teens. Performing, visual, cultural arts Classes for lifelong learning Before and after school programs Nature and environmental programs Aquatic programs Adult sports/fitness Youth sports/fitness Special events (i.e. Earth Day, 4th of July, festivals, etc.) 12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Community-wide Survey Summary Additional Recreation Facilities The survey asked respondents to indicate their interest in adding different major recreation facilities. A total of 554 people responded to this question. • Most notable was the “neutral” responses. For all facility options, the neutral option received the most responses. This pattern was not seen on the two previous questions. • Of all the facility options, a year-round aquatic center appears to have the most support with fewer neutral responses than other answer choices. It should be noted that the answer choice does not make it clear whether this would be an outdoor facility or an indoor facility. Though the local norm is outdoor pool facilities, some write-in comments in other sections of the survey brought up the idea of an indoor pool. • Another community center has the least support and most opposition of all the answer choices. • The results of this question seem to indicate that there is more interest in the community in enhancements to existing parks and expansion of program than in adding major facilities. It also indicates that more evaluation of needs and the recreation market to develop a market-based space program would be advisable if Cupertino explores adding more recreation buildings or major facilities, or even considers major renovation to existing spaces. FIGURE 6. INTEREST IN ADDING RECREATION FACILITIES Multi-use gymnasium Year-round aquatic center Another community center More reservable event/ meeting/ conference spaces Makerspace (technology and innovation center) Fine arts studio and gallery Gymnastics center Performance center for theater, dance, music New location for teen/youth center Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A- 1 APPENDIX A: VISION AND GOALS QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY This document summarizes the data from the online survey that the City of Cupertino administered as a part of the several outreach activities for its parks and recreation system master plan update. The online survey was focused on eliciting community feedback that would help define the Master Plan vision and goals. The survey was open for community input from July 10th to August 9th, 2017. A total of 1,206 respondents participated in the survey but may not have answered every question. Full results are presented as data tables and figures below. For all questions, the percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents who viewed the question—whether or not an answer was selected. For a few questions, respondents could write-in additional comments if their responses were different from the default answer choices. A summary of the write-in responses can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C presents the questionnaire. OUTREACH EFFORTS The City staff used various social media platforms, printed publications, flyers, mailing lists and email notifications to publicize the survey link and prompt as many respondents as possible. Following is a summary of the outreach efforts undertaken for this survey:  July through final week: o Cover article in The Scene (July/August 2017 issue) mailed to more than 20,000 households in Cupertino. Copies of the publication were provided at the City Hall, Library, Quinlan and Senior Center. o Hard copies of the survey and postcards were made available at Quinlan and Senior Center. o Email notifications sent to the Senior Center notification list (over 1600 members) and people on the project notification list (over 230). o Survey link posted to the websites such as Next Door, Twitter, Facebook, City’s website home page and on McClellan Ranch Preserve Facebook page. o Flyers and postcards distributed at the Library, City Hall, BBF Golf Course, Sports Center, Senior Center and at the Summer Concert at Memorial Park (Killer Queens). o Lawn signs posted at all City parks, trails and recreation facilities. o Email blast to around 14,300 Recreation program participants. o Email notifications sent to City staff, Commissioners, and Council members (over 250) and over 100 Sports Center members. Notification regarding the survey included in the quarterly online newsletter issued to approx. 380 block leaders. A-2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables o Requested email notification distribution to Chamber of Commerce members and Rotarians. o Email notification sent to summer staff and part time staff, and block leaders. o Email notification and flyers distributed to 840 Citizen Corps and community members involved in safety and emergency response. o Hard copies provided at Teen Center and teens encouraged to participate. o Announced at Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. o Questionnaires and flyer provided at the Teen section of two local libraries. o Questionnaires distributed at summer camp families with youth. o Distributed surveys to teens and counselors at Leader-in-Training dinner. o Questionnaires, flyers and promotion provided at National Night Out event. o  Final Week of Survey: o Facebook promotion in the local region continued with final week reminder. o Email notification reminder to Rec program participants (over 14,750 subscribers). o Email notification reminder City staff, Commissioners, Council members, Sports Center members, block leaders, etc. o Last Week of Survey reminder posted to NextDoor, Twitter, City and McClellan Ranch Facebook pages Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-3 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 1: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS BEST DESCRIBE THE IDEAL FUTURE FOR CUPERTINO’S PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM? (CHOOSE YOUR TOP 4) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Safe 601 47.3% Friendly/welcoming 512 40.3% Bikeable/walkable 478 37.6% Natural 453 35.6% High quality 334 26.3% Healthy 310 24.4% Inclusive/diverse 298 23.4% Quiet/peaceful 296 23.3% Multi-generational 289 22.7% Playful 241 19.0% Accessible/equitable 168 13.2% Educational 149 11.7% Innovative 139 10.9% Unique/extraordinary 121 9.5% Interconnected 104 8.2% Exciting 72 5.7% Collaborative 37 2.9% A-4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 2: HOW SHOULD NATURE BE INCORPORATED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Improve or restore creeks, meadows, natural areas and wildlife habitat in existing parks 552 49.3% Plant trees and native plants across the community to create green space 432 38.6% Acquire more natural areas to protect wildlife and provide quiet areas for people to connect with nature 413 36.9% Provide places to interact with and explore plants, animals and their natural environment 251 22.4% Support environmental education and nature interpretation 168 15.0% Add bird-friendly or pollinator-friendly plantings and features in parks and city properties 155 13.9% None of the above / this is not important to me 30 2.7% Other (please describe): 33 3.0% TABLE 3: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT A VARIETY OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide different types of recreation facilities, programs and activities for all ages, abilities, cultures and interests 584 52.2% Include varied types of active recreation (e.g., sports, fitness, biking) and passive recreation (e.g., relaxing, picnicking, playing board games) 513 45.8% Increase both indoor and outdoor recreation facilities and programs 308 27.5% Provide more traditional recreation options, such as sports fields and courts, picnic areas, and playground equipment 233 20.8% Introduce new, exciting, trendy or innovative opportunities 155 13.9% Support drop-in, unprogrammed activities 130 11.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 33 3.0% Other (please describe): 37 3.3% Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-5 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 4: HOW SHOULD PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES REFLECT CUPERTINO’S UNIQUE CHARACTER AND IDENTITY? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Integrate local history, art, culture and natural resources in parks and facilities 503 45.0% Involve nearby neighbors in the planning, design and development of parks, recreation facilities and trails 247 22.1% Protect historic buildings and landscapes 407 36.4% Create more options for education and lifelong learning through parks and programs 279 24.9% Design parks with different color palettes, elements and themes so that each has a unique character 346 30.9% None of the above/this is not important to me 66 5.9% Other (please describe): 35 3.1% TABLE 5: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO’S CULTURAL DIVERSITY INFLUENCE PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Identify and provide recreation facilities that support diverse cultural interests, such as tai chi space and cricket pitches 575 54.9% Provide more multicultural festivals, events and programs 450 43.0% Hire more staff who speak different languages and understand different cultures 126 12.0% Provide programs, information, signage and materials in different languages 109 10.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 213 20.3% Other (please describe): 65 6.2% A-6 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 6: HOW SHOULD RECREATION ACCESS BE ENHANCED IN CUPERTINO? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are easy to reach by foot and bicycle 403 38.5% Ensure that parks and facilities are accessible for people of varied physical ability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 289 27.6% Provide recreation facilities that are usable year- round and in all seasons 287 27.4% Invest in more park land distributed across the city 261 24.9% Focus on low cost or free activities and events in neighborhood parks 242 23.1% Strive to provide more parks and/or recreation opportunities in east Cupertino 143 13.7% Consider motorized transportation options to parks and recreation facilities such as shuttles, drop-off areas, improved parking, etc. 129 12.3% Provide support to seniors to get to parks and facilities 104 9.9% None of the above/this is not important to me 19 1.8% Other (please describe): 18 1.7% Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-7 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 7: HOW SHOULD CUPERTINO IMPROVE TRAILS AND CONNECTIVITY? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide more on and off-street trails and bikeways to support walking and biking and to reduce traffic congestion 476 45.5% Connect the Stevens Creek Trail to County parks and open space areas 428 40.9% Provide loop trails and internal paths in parks 321 30.7% Provide more trails in creek corridors, rail corridors and off-street locations 298 28.5% Vary trail length, types and challenge levels to expand trail-related recreation options 253 24.2% None of the above/this is not important to me 56 5.4% Other (please describe): 27 2.6% TABLE 8: HOW SHOULD EXTRAORDINARY PLAY OPPORTUNITIES BE PROVIDED? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Encourage play for all age groups, including children, teens, adults and seniors 500 49.7% Provide universally accessible play areas for people all abilities 289 28.7% Stimulate the imagination by providing nature play, sand and water play, or interactive and adventure playgrounds with movable and loose parts 257 25.6% Provide unique destination play areas in community parks 196 19.5% Provide more water play features (splash pads/splash play areas) for play on hot days 193 19.2% Provide temporary “pop-up play” programs and amenities in different locations around the city 107 10.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 115 11.4% Other (please describe): 28 2.8% A-8 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 9: HOW COULD CUPERTINO SUPPORT THE ARTS IN PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Increase visual, performing and fine art programs, events and festivals 466 46.3% Develop a cultural, fine and performing arts center with elements such as an indoor theater, kiln room, classrooms and program space for music, dance, and arts programs 448 44.5% Integrate public art and sculptures to create memorable places 310 30.8% Provide and enhance interpretive elements and monuments to tell a story about Cupertino and the surrounding region 184 18.3% None of the above/this is not important to me 121 12.0% Other (please describe): 30 3.0% TABLE 10: WHAT COULD YOUTH OR TEEN EMPOWERMENT LOOK LIKE IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Connect youth and teens to volunteer opportunities and internships 401 39.9% Consider a new café-style activity center for teens which could include maker/incubator spaces and other programming themes 274 27.2% Add more challenging and adventurous recreation facilities, such as zip lines, climbing spires and bike skills parks 249 24.8% Involve youth and teens in designing park spaces and planning events and programs 219 21.8% Support teen opportunities for skill building, college application assistance, employment training, trips and excursions 207 20.6% Provide more nighttime teen activities and social events 167 16.6% Improve and/ or relocate the Teen Center 84 8.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 93 9.2% Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-9 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 11: HOW COULD CUPERTINO BETTER SUPPORT SPECIAL EVENTS AND GROUP GATHERINGS? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Provide small events in neighborhood parks, such as movies in the park, concerts and recreation activities that would appeal to nearby neighbors 502 51.6% Support outdoor health, wellness and fitness activities, such as races, walkathons, park boot camps, etc. 293 30.1% Increase community-wide events, fairs and festivals at Memorial Park and other community spaces 291 29.9% Provide reservable large group picnic shelters and/or pavilions in parks 274 28.2% Support temporary unique events, such as "pop- up" parklets or temporary street closures for special programs 160 16.4% None of the above/this is not important to me 69 7.1% Other (please describe): 22 2.3% A-10 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 12: WHAT COULD HELP CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION OFFER WELCOMING PLACES AND SERVICES? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Make parks more comfortable by providing or enhancing support amenities such as benches, shade structures, water fountains and bike racks 569 58.5% Provide restrooms in neighborhood parks 358 36.8% Provide small social spaces, seating areas and activity hubs in parks 202 20.8% Improve technology in parks and facilities (for example, provide WiFi in parks) 138 14.2% Provide more places to take my dog that are off- leash 134 13.8% Improve entryways to parks and recreation facilities to make them more attractive, accessible, and welcoming 98 10.1% Simplify the ability to report unsatisfactory park conditions or concerns using the web or a smartphone app 94 9.7% Improve customer service to make it easier to register, reserve and use parks, facilities and programs 64 6.6% None of the above/this is not important to me 31 3.2% Other (please describe): 28 2.9% Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-11 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 13: HOW COULD PARTNERSHIPS BE SUPPORTED IN CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION? (SELECT UP TO 2) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Work with schools, the Library and other community organizations to offer more and different programs and event 494 50.8% Expand volunteer opportunities for all ages 390 40.1% Identify and explore new opportunities to share existing public or private facilities 303 31.1% Identify partners to help build and operate new public facilities 285 29.3% None of the above/this is not important to me 91 9.4% Other (please describe): 14 1.4% FIGURE 1: FOR EACH OF THE GOAL AREAS BELOW, PLEASE TELL US HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO INCLUDE THESE IDEAS IN GOALS FOR CUPERTINO’S PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM. A-12 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables RECREATION INTERESTS AND PARTICIPATION TABLE 14: DO YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RECREATION AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Nature Walks/Hikes 598 63.7% Walking for Pleasure or Fitness 597 63.6% Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts 457 48.7% Bicycling (recreation) 431 45.9% Fairs and Festivals (attend) 426 45.4% Exercising/Aerobics/Weightlifting 408 43.5% Gardening 344 36.6% Swimming 341 36.3% Arts and Crafts 335 35.7% Picnicking 327 34.8% Playground (visit/play) 296 31.5% Volunteer Activities 296 31.5% Library Programs 286 30.5% Jogging/Running 272 29.0% Tours and Travel 254 27.1% Dog Walking/Dog Parks 252 26.8% Wildlife Watching (including bird watching) 251 26.7% Senior Center Activities 248 26.4% Yoga 231 24.6% Musical Instrument (play) 225 24.0% Instructional/Educational Classes 211 22.5% Summer Camps 198 21.1% Technology/Programming 197 21.0% Basketball 181 19.3% Bicycling (commute/transportation) 180 19.2% Environmental Education/Nature Study 177 18.9% Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-13 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Sports Events (attend) 158 16.8% Dancing 158 16.8% Tennis 155 16.5% Soccer 154 16.4% Golf/Driving Range 141 15.0% Badminton 121 12.9% Table Tennis/ Ping Pong 111 11.8% Cultural Events/Performing Arts/Concerts 102 10.9% Baseball 87 9.3% Tai Chi 85 9.1% Martial Arts 76 8.1% Volleyball 75 8.0% Preschool 73 7.8% Teen Center Activities (at library or city) 72 7.7% Skateboarding 52 5.5% Other 51 5.4% Softball 50 5.3% Football 47 5.0% Roller Hockey/Roller Skating 37 3.9% Disc Golf 34 3.6% Racquetball/Squash/Handball 30 3.2% Cricket 29 3.1% Pickleball 27 2.9% Footgolf 24 2.6% A-14 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables FIGURE 2: ARE THERE ANY OTHER GOALS OR IMPORTANT IDEAS SHOULD THE MASTER PLAN CONSIDER? A total of 318 people responded to the open-ended question noted above. Comments received are presented in Appendix B in their entirety. Specifically, the need for more or improved access to parks, open and natural space and trails was emphasized by many respondents. Several respondents also suggested different ideas for play areas (e.g., water play, unique and iconic play areas, classic play structures, accessible play areas) and trails (e.g., jogging paths, loop trails, bike trails, guided hikes, eco- trails, interpretive trails). Many respondents requested more community events and activities that would bring the community together. The word cloud (below) is a pictorial representation of the words that were repeated most frequently in the written comments. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-15 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF TABLE 15: PLEASE INDICATE YOUR GENDER? ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Male 334 35.7% Female 531 56.7% Transgender 0 0.0% Prefer not to answer 38 4.1% TABLE 16: WHAT IS YOUR AGE? (CHOOSE ONE) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Under 14 30 3.2% 14 – 17 63 6.7% 18 – 29 46 4.9% 30 – 39 77 8.2% 40 – 49 159 17.0% 50 – 64 255 27.2% 65 – 74 155 16.6% 75 + 83 8.9% Totals 936 100% TABLE 17: OF THE PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY RESIDE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING YOURSELF, HOW MANY ARE: ANSWER COUNT Under the age of 18 425 Over the age of 50 649 A-16 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables FIGURE 3: WHERE DO YOU LIVE? Inset map (right) shows respondents from cities such as Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, San Jose have participated in the survey. These respondents may work or attend school in Cupertino. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan |A-17 Vision and Goals Questionnaire Summary TABLE 18: DO YOU LIVE, WORK OR ATTEND SCHOOL IN CUPERTINO? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)? ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE Yes, I live here 701 75.9% Yes, I work here 214 23.2% Yes, I attend school here 187 20.2% I do not live, work or attend school in Cupertino 73 7.9% TABLE 19: WHAT ETHNIC GROUP DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A PART OF OR FEEL CLOSEST TO? (CHOOSE ONE) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE African American or Black 4 0.4% Asian - Cambodian 0 0.0% Asian - Chinese 139 15.2% Asian - Filipino 7 0.8% Asian - Indian 110 12.0% Asian - Japanese 22 2.4% Asian - Korean 9 1.0% Asian - Laotian 0 0.0% Asian - Thai 0 0.0% Asian - Vietnamese 7 0.8% Asian - Other 14 1.5% Caucasian or White 410 44.7% Latino or Hispanic 20 2.2% Pacific Islander 0 0.0% Two or more races 46 5.0% Other (please describe): 32 3.5% No answer 97 10.6% Totals 917 100% A-18 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Appendix A: Summary Tables TABLE 20: WHAT PRIMARY LANGUAGES ARE USED IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) ANSWER COUNT PERCENTAGE English 820 89.4% Cantonese 38 4.1% Chinese 57 6.2% French 14 1.5% German 7 0.8% Hindi 38 4.1% Japanese 19 2.1% Korean 10 1.1% Mandarin 41 4.5% Spanish 24 2.6% Tagalog 2 0.2% Thai 2 0.2% Vietnamese 7 0.8% Prefer not to answer 22 2.4% Other (please describe): 138 15.1% Cupertino Parks & Rec System Master Plan, Citywide Survey 2017, Activity Participation Results Responses to the question: "Do you or members of your household participate in any of the following recreation & leisure activities? " All Residents only Families with kids < 30 yrs < 18 yrs 65+ yrs Asian- Chinese Asian- Indian Cau- casian Number of respondents 939 701 425 139 93 238 139 110 421 OVERALL %%%%%%%%% 1 Walking for Pleasure or Fitness 63.6%67.5%56.9%40.3%31.2%68.9%56.1%51.8%72.0% 2 Nature Walks/Hikes 63.7%67.0%59.1%40.3%31.2%63.0%63.3%60.0%70.5% 3 Cultural Events/Perf. Arts/Concerts (attend) 48.7%51.8%44.0%30.9%21.5%52.9%46.8%42.7%54.2% 4 Bicycling (recreation) 45.9%46.9%54.6%40.3%41.9%30.7%41.7%48.2%46.6% 5 Fairs and Festivals (attend) 45.4%46.9%44.0%27.3%20.4%45.8%46.0%38.2%48.2% 6 Exercising/Aerobics/Weightlifting 43.5%46.6%38.1%32.4%23.7%50.4%44.6%39.1%48.9% 7 Gardening 36.6%38.8%32.9%23.0%16.1%37.4%31.7%31.8%41.6% 8 Swimming 36.3%38.4%50.8%46.0%43.0%20.2%48.9%41.8%32.1% 9 Arts and Crafts 35.7%37.9%42.1%35.3%35.5%26.9%41.7%39.1%30.2% 10 Picnicking 34.8%37.1%35.5%15.8%9.7%29.0%36.0%24.5%35.6% 11 Playground (visit/play) 31.5%34.1%47.5%25.9%25.8%17.6%46.8%31.8%25.2% 12 Volunteer Activities 31.5%34.1%31.5%28.1%26.9%30.7%32.4%36.4%30.2% 13 Library Programs 30.5%33.0%36.2%21.6%19.4%26.9%40.3%34.5%26.8% 14 Jogging/Running 29.0%30.0%39.1%44.6%39.8%11.8%34.5%44.5%21.6% 15 Tours and Travel 27.1%28.7%20.0%10.1%8.6%37.8%27.3%11.8%30.6% 16 Dog Walking/Dog Parks 26.8%27.2%24.7%19.4%16.1%20.2%20.1%20.9%32.5% 17 Wildlife Watching (including bird watching) 26.7%28.7%23.1%14.4%10.8%28.2%22.3%15.5%35.2% 18 Senior Center Activities 26.4%28.5%9.9%2.9%3.2%57.6%25.2%9.1%34.7% 19 Yoga 24.6%25.7%25.4%19.4%11.8%15.5%30.9%36.4%21.6% 20 Musical Instrument (play) 24.0%23.3%33.9%34.5%41.9%13.9%27.3%30.9%19.2% LEGEND: Responses > 50% 40-49% 30-39% 25-29% 20-24% ONE OR MORE GROUPS > 20%All Residents only Families with kids < 30 yrs < 18 yrs 65+ yrs Asian- Chinese Asian- Indian Cau- casian Instructional/Educational Classes 22.5%24.5%24.5%14.4%11.8%21.8%28.8%22.7%20.9% Technology/Programming 21.0%23.1%29.2%26.6%25.8%9.7%21.6%39.1%17.3% Summer Camps 21.1%22.5%39.3%26.6%28.0%4.6%31.7%30.0%12.4% Basketball 19.3%19.1%33.4%39.6%45.2%1.7%26.6%40.9%8.8% Bicycling (commute/transportation) 19.2%19.4%22.6%30.2%29.0%9.7%15.8%22.7%20.2% Environ. Ed./Nature Study or Appreciation/4-H 18.8%21.1%20.7%12.9%12.9%17.2%12.9%16.4%22.1% Dancing 16.8%18.3%20.2%18.0%15.1%13.4%20.1%24.5%13.1% Sports Events (attend) 16.8%15.8%19.8%18.7%17.2%11.8%15.1%9.1%18.8% Tennis 16.5%17.3%23.1%18.0%18.3%6.7%23.7%20.0%13.3% Soccer 16.4%17.0%25.2%25.2%26.9%5.9%13.7%26.4%14.7% Badminton 12.9%13.8%21.2%23.0%25.8%2.9%20.1%37.3%4.3% Table Tennis/ Ping Pong 11.8%11.6%19.1%16.5%21.5%4.2%18.7%20.0%7.8% Tai Chi 9.1%10.1%7.1%2.9%1.1%13.4%20.9%1.8%7.1% OTHER Golf/Driving Range 15.0%16.8%13.2%8.6%9.7%16.4%17.3%4.5%15.4% Cultural Events/Perf. Arts/Concerts (participate) 10.9%12.3%14.4%10.8%11.8%8.8%12.9%19.1%7.8% Baseball 9.3%9.3%12.9%11.5%14.0%4.6%6.5%5.5%8.6% Volleyball 8.0%8.4%12.7%14.4%15.1%1.3%12.2%11.8%5.2% Martial Arts 8.1%8.3%13.2%12.9%11.8%2.1%10.8%4.5%5.9% Preschool 7.8%9.3%12.7%3.6%2.2%3.8%11.5%7.3%5.0% Teen Center Activities (at library or city) 7.7%8.0%14.8%15.8%19.4%1.7%7.2%19.1%3.3% Skateboarding 5.5%5.6%8.9%12.2%12.9%0.8%5.0%5.5%5.7% Other 5.4%5.8%4.7%2.9%1.1%8.0%6.5%2.7%5.7% Softball 5.3%5.6%6.4%5.0%4.3%3.4%0.7%0.9%6.7% Football 5.0%4.9%8.7%14.4%17.2%0.4%2.9%10.9%3.3% Roller Hockey/Roller Skating 3.9%3.6%5.9%7.2%5.4%1.7%5.8%2.7%4.0% Disc Golf 3.6%3.0%3.3%2.2%0.0%1.7%3.6%0.9%4.3% Racquetball/Squash/Handball 3.2%3.6%4.0%3.6%5.4%1.3%3.6%7.3%2.4% Cricket 3.1%3.1%5.9%6.5%8.6%0.4%0.7%16.4%0.7% Pickleball 2.9%2.3%2.8%2.9%3.2%3.4%2.2%0.9%2.9% Footgolf 2.6%2.0%2.4%2.9%1.1%1.3%1.4%0.0%2.9% Citywide Survey 2017 - Activity Participation Results, Page 2 of 2 Cupertino Parks & Recreation System Master Planlab Master Plan Advisory Group Meeting Priorities Workshop May 17, 2018 Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Ho w m a n y y e a r s h a v e y o u l i v e d i n C u p e r t i n o ? A. L e s s t h a n 1 y e a r B. 1 – 3 y e a r s C. 4 – 9 y e a r s D. 1 0 – 1 5 y e a r s E. 1 6 – 2 5 y e a r s F. I d o n o t l i v e i n C u p e r t i n o Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Do a n y c h i l d r e n 1 8 o r y o u n g e r l i v e i n y o u r ho u s e h o l d ? A. Y e s B. N o Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Ma n y p e o p l e t h i n k o f t h e m s e l v e s a s b e l o n g i n g t o a n et h n i c o r r a c i a l g r o u p . H o w d o y o u i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f ? (S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. A f r i c a n ‐ A m e r i c a n o r B l a c k B. A s i a n ‐ C h i n e s e C. A s i a n ‐ I n d i a n D. A s i a n o t h e r E. C a u c a s i a n o r W h i t e F. H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o G. M u l t i ‐ r a c i a l H. O t h e r / P r e f e r n o t t o a n s w e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t i s y o u r g e n d e r ? A. F e m a l e B. M a l e C. T r a n s g e n d e r / N o n ‐ B i n a r y D. O t h e r / P r e f e r n o t t o a n s w e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t i s y o u r a g e ? A. U n d e r 1 4 B. 1 4 ‐ 1 7 C. 1 8 ‐ 2 9 D. 3 0 ‐ 3 9 E. 4 0 ‐ 4 9 F. 5 0 ‐ 6 4 G. 6 5 ‐ 7 4 H. 7 5 + Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh e r e s h o u l d t h e C i t y f o c u s f u t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s ? (C h o o s e o n e . ) A. I m p r o v e , r e p a i r , r e p l a c e a g i n g a n d w o r n am e n i t i e s i n p a r k s B. A d d a v a r i e t y o f s m a l l n e w r e c r e a t i o n op p o r t u n i t i e s i n p a r k s C. D e v e l o p b i g n e w p r o j e c t s s u c h a s d e v e l o p i n g a ne w p a r k o r m a j o r n e w f a c i l i t y . Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g “ b i g m o v e s , ” s h o u l d t h e C i t y sh o u l d i n v e s t i n ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. D e v e l o p n e w n e i g h b o r h o o d p a r k s B. R e n o v a t e o r a d d f a c i l i t i e s t o p a r k s C. E n h a n c e a n d p r o t e c t n a t u r a l a r e a s D. A d d o r e x p a n d m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s E. D e v e l o p t r a i l s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s s h o u l d t h e C i t y pu r s u e d e v e l o p i n g ? ( S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i ‐ p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r s e n i o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d a t h l e t i c f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e T W O l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e Ci t y ’ s h i g h e s t p r i o r i t i e s . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e T W O l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e Ci t y ’ s l o w e s t p r i o r i t i e s . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e O N E f a c i l i t y t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e C i t y ’ s t o p pr i o r i t y . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / o u t d o o r p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab If f u n d i n g i s l i m i t e d a n d s m a l l e r f a c i l i t i e s a r e de v e l o p e d , w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d b e y o u r pr i o r i t y ? ( C h o o s e o n e . ) A. C o m m u n i t y p o o l B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r C. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m D. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Co m m u n i t y P o o l Mi d ‐ s i z e d T h e a t e r Si n g l e G y m n a s i u m Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y t h e C i t y s h o u l d pr i o r i t i z e . A. C o m m u n i t y p o o l B. L a r g e a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y A. C o m m u n i t y P o o l B. L a r g e A q u a t i c F a c i l i t y Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e p e r f o r m i n g a r t s s p a c e t h a t t h e Ci t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e . A. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r A. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t y t h a t t h e C i t y s h o u l d pr i o r i t i z e . A. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( w i t h gy m n a s i u m ) B. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m A. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( w / r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ) B. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab a. I n d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l co u r t s f. O u t d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s (b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) Of t h e f o l l o w i n g s p o r t s c o u r t s , w h i c h T W O d o yo u t h i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? b. I n d o o r b a s k e t b a l l c. I n d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s (b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) ) e . O u t d o o r b a s k e t b a l l d. O u t d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l co u r t s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Of t h e f o l l o w i n g s p o r t s c o u r t s , w h i c h T W O do y o u t h i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? A. I n d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l B. I n d o o r b a s k e t b a l l C. I n d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s ( b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) D. O u t d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l E. O u t d o o r b a s k e t b a l l F. O u t d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s ( b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) G. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Of t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , w h i c h T W O d o y o u t h i n k th e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? f. C o m m u n i t y G a r d e n d. N a t i v e p l a n t i n g s / l a n d s c a p i n g in p a r k s e. M o r e n a t u r a l a r e a s / p r o t e c t e d c r e e k co r r i d o r s a. F o r m a l / o r n a m e n t a l ga r d e n b. H e a l i n g / s e n s o r y g a r d e n c. D e m o n s t r a t i o n G a r d e n w i t h ed u c a t i o n a l / t e a c h i n g f o c u s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Of t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , w h i c h T W O d o y o u th i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? A. F o r m a l / o r n a m e n t a l g a r d e n B. H e a l i n g / s e n s o r y g a r d e n C. D e m o n s t r a t i o n g a r d e n D. C o m m u n i t y g a r d e n E. N a t i v e p l a n t i n g s / l a n d s c a p i n g i n p a r k s F. M o r e n a t u r a l a r e a s / p r o t e c t e d c r e e k c o r r i d o r s G. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t i s y o u r p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e f o c u s o f Me m o r i a l P a r k ? A. N a t u r a l i z e d c i v i c g a t h e r i n g B. A r t s a n d e v e n t s C. A c t i v e a n d m u l t i ‐ u s e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : E x i s t i n g C o n f i g u r a t i o n Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : N a t u r a l i z e d C i v i c C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : A r t s & E v e n t s C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : A c t i v e & M u l t i ‐ U s e C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t y o u r p r e f e r r e d co n c e p t ? ( S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. I t h a s t h e f a c i l i t i e s I t h i n k a r e m o s t i m p o r t a n t B. I t c r e a t e s a s o c i a l a n d a c t i v i t y h u b f o r o u r c o m m u n i t y C. I t h a s t h e b e s t g r e e n s p a c e / o p e n s p a c e D. I t k e e p s t h e p a r k s i m i l a r t o t h e w a y i t i s n o w E. I t a p p e a r s t o b e t h e m o s t a f f o r d a b l e c o n c e p t F. I d o n ’ t l i k e a n y o f t h e t h r e e c o n c e p t s G. I l i k e a l l o f t h e c o n c e p t s t o s o m e e x t e n t H. O t h e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e n a t u r a l i z e d c i v i c ga t h e r i n g c o n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e n a t u r a l i z e d l a n d s c a p i n g B. I t h a s t h e m o s t g r e e n s p a c e C. T h e s e r e n e p a s s i v e u s e s D. T h e a d d e d w a l k i n g p a t h s E. T h e r e n o v a t e d p l a y g r o u n d F. I t k e e p s t h e p a r k s i m i l a r t o t h e w a y i t i s n o w G. I t d o e s n o t a d d a m a j o r n e w f e a t u r e H. O t h e r I. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e a r t s a n d e v e n t s co n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e a d d e d p e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. T h e i n c u b a t o r h u b C. T h e e x p a n d e d a n d i m p r o v e d o u t d o o r e v e n t s p a c e D. T h e e x p a n d e d a m p h i t h e a t e r E. T h e e x p a n d e d p l a y a r e a F. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e G. R e n o v a t i o n o f Q u i n l a n ’ s o u t d o o r p l a z a H. O t h e r I. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e a c t i v e a n d m u l t i ‐ us e c o n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e e x p a n d e d a n d i m p r o v e d o u t d o o r e v e n t s p a c e B. T h e r e t a i n e d b a s e b a l l f i e l d C. T h e a d d e d s w i m m i n g p o o l / a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y D. T h e a d d e d g y m w i t h r o o f t o p a c t i v i t i e s E. T h e e x p a n d e d S e n i o r C e n t e r a n d i m p r o v e d p a r k i n g F. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e a r o u n d t h e g a z e b o G. M o r e p a r k i n g a t Q u i n l a n H. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e I. T h e a d d e d w a l k i n g p a t h l o o p J. O t h e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o n e o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s b e s t c a p t u r e s y o u r vi s i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e o f M e m o r i a l P a r k ? A. N a t u r a l i z e d c i v i c g a t h e r i n g B. A r t s a n d e v e n t s C. A c t i v e a n d m u l t i ‐ u s e D. A m i x o f t h e c o n c e p t s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t w h a t w e d i s c u s s e d to d a y ? ( C h o o s e o n e . ) A. A d d i t i o n o f n e w r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s B. E n h a n c e m e n t s t o M e m o r i a l P a r k C. R e a s o n a b l e l e v e l o f p r o p o s e d i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d in v e s t m e n t D. S e r v i c e s a r e i m p r o v e d f o r k e y a g e g r o u p s E. O t h e r F. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Pa r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Co m m u n i t y P r i o r i t i e s W o r k s h o p May 17, 2018 Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Ho w m a n y y e a r s h a v e y o u l i v e d i n C u p e r t i n o ? A. L e s s t h a n 1 y e a r B. 1 – 3 y e a r s C. 4 – 9 y e a r s D. 1 0 – 1 5 y e a r s E. 1 6 – 2 5 y e a r s F. I d o n o t l i v e i n C u p e r t i n o Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Do a n y c h i l d r e n 1 8 o r y o u n g e r l i v e i n y o u r ho u s e h o l d ? A. Y e s B. N o Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Ma n y p e o p l e t h i n k o f t h e m s e l v e s a s b e l o n g i n g t o a n et h n i c o r r a c i a l g r o u p . H o w d o y o u i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f ? (S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. A f r i c a n ‐ A m e r i c a n o r B l a c k B. A s i a n ‐ C h i n e s e C. A s i a n ‐ I n d i a n D. A s i a n o t h e r E. C a u c a s i a n o r W h i t e F. H i s p a n i c o r L a t i n o G. M u l t i ‐ r a c i a l H. O t h e r / P r e f e r n o t t o a n s w e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t i s y o u r a g e ? A. U n d e r 1 4 B. 1 4 ‐ 1 7 C. 1 8 ‐ 2 9 D. 3 0 ‐ 3 9 E. 4 0 ‐ 4 9 F. 5 0 ‐ 6 4 G. 6 5 ‐ 7 4 H. 7 5 + Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Pr i o r i t y P r o j e c t s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g “ b i g m o v e s , ” s h o u l d t h e C i t y in v e s t i n ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. D e v e l o p n e w n e i g h b o r h o o d p a r k s B. R e n o v a t e o r a d d f a c i l i t i e s t o p a r k s C. E n h a n c e a n d p r o t e c t n a t u r a l a r e a s D. A d d o r e x p a n d m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s E. D e v e l o p t r a i l s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s s h o u l d t h e C i t y pu r s u e d e v e l o p i n g ? ( S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i ‐ p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r s e n i o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d a t h l e t i c f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e T W O l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e Ci t y ’ s h i g h e s t p r i o r i t i e s . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e T W O l a r g e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e Ci t y ’ s l o w e s t p r i o r i t i e s . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / y e a r r o u n d p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. G y m n a s i u m E. T e c h n o l o g y c e n t e r , i n c u b a t o r h u b , m a k e r s p a c e F. T e e n s p a c e a n d s e r v i c e s G. E x p a n d e d s e n i o r s e r v i c e s o r c e n t e r H. N e w s p o r t s f i e l d s a n d f a c i l i t i e s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e O N E f a c i l i t y t h a t s h o u l d b e t h e C i t y ’ s t o p pr i o r i t y . A. A q u a t i c f a c i l i t y / o u t d o o r p o o l B. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r C. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( wi t h g y m n a s i u m ) D. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab If s m a l l e r r a t h e r t h a n l a r g e r f a c i l i t i e s a r e d e v e l o p e d , wh i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d b e y o u r p r i o r i t y ? (C h o o s e o n e . ) A. C o m m u n i t y p o o l B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r C. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m D. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Co m m u n i t y P o o l Mi d ‐ s i z e d T h e a t e r Si n g l e G y m n a s i u m Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y t h e C i t y s h o u l d pr i o r i t i z e . A. L a r g e a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y B. C o m m u n i t y p o o l A. C o m m u n i t y P o o l B. L a r g e A q u a t i c F a c i l i t y Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e p e r f o r m i n g a r t s s p a c e t h a t t h e Ci t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e . A. L a r g e p e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r A. P e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. S m a l l ‐ t o ‐ m i d ‐ s i z e d t h e a t e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Se l e c t t h e r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t y t h a t t h e C i t y s h o u l d pr i o r i t i z e . A. L a r g e m u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r (w i t h g y m n a s i u m ) B. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m A. M u l t i p u r p o s e r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ( w / r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r ) B. S i n g l e g y m n a s i u m Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab a. I n d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l co u r t s f. O u t d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s (b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) Of t h e f o l l o w i n g s p o r t s c o u r t s , w h i c h T W O d o yo u t h i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? b. I n d o o r b a s k e t b a l l c. I n d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s (b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) ) e . O u t d o o r b a s k e t b a l l d. O u t d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l co u r t s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Of t h e f o l l o w i n g s p o r t s c o u r t s , w h i c h T W O do y o u t h i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? A. I n d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l B. I n d o o r b a s k e t b a l l C. I n d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s ( b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) D. O u t d o o r t e n n i s / p i c k l e b a l l E. O u t d o o r b a s k e t b a l l F. O u t d o o r s p o r t s c o u r t s ( b a d m i n t o n , b o c c e , f u t s a l … ) G. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Of t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , w h i c h T W O d o y o u t h i n k th e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? f. C o m m u n i t y G a r d e n d. N a t i v e p l a n t i n g s / l a n d s c a p i n g in p a r k s e. M o r e n a t u r a l a r e a s / p r o t e c t e d c r e e k co r r i d o r s a. F o r m a l / o r n a m e n t a l ga r d e n b. H e a l i n g / s e n s o r y g a r d e n c. D e m o n s t r a t i o n G a r d e n w i t h ed u c a t i o n a l / t e a c h i n g f o c u s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Of t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , w h i c h T W O d o y o u th i n k t h e C i t y s h o u l d p r i o r i t i z e ? A. F o r m a l / o r n a m e n t a l g a r d e n B. H e a l i n g / s e n s o r y g a r d e n C. D e m o n s t r a t i o n g a r d e n D. C o m m u n i t y g a r d e n E. N a t i v e p l a n t i n g s / l a n d s c a p i n g i n p a r k s F. M o r e n a t u r a l a r e a s / p r o t e c t e d c r e e k c o r r i d o r s G. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : E x i s t i n g C o n f i g u r a t i o n Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : N a t u r a l i z e d C i v i c C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : A r t s & E v e n t s C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Me m o r i a l P a r k : A c t i v e & M u l t i ‐ U s e C o n c e p t Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e n a t u r a l i z e d c i v i c ga t h e r i n g c o n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e n a t u r a l i z e d l a n d s c a p i n g B. I t h a s t h e m o s t g r e e n s p a c e C. T h e s e r e n e p a s s i v e u s e s D. T h e a d d e d w a l k i n g p a t h s E. T h e r e n o v a t e d p l a y g r o u n d F. I t k e e p s t h e p a r k s i m i l a r t o t h e w a y i t i s n o w G. I t d o e s n o t a d d a m a j o r n e w f e a t u r e H. O t h e r I. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e a r t s a n d e v e n t s co n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e a d d e d p e r f o r m i n g a n d f i n e a r t s c e n t e r B. T h e i n c u b a t o r h u b C. T h e e x p a n d e d a n d i m p r o v e d o u t d o o r e v e n t s p a c e D. T h e e x p a n d e d a m p h i t h e a t e r E. T h e e x p a n d e d p l a y a r e a F. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e G. R e n o v a t i o n o f Q u i n l a n ’ s o u t d o o r p l a z a H. O t h e r I. N o n e o f t h e a b o v e Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t t h e a c t i v e a n d m u l t i ‐ us e c o n c e p t ? ( C h o o s e t w o . ) A. T h e e x p a n d e d a n d i m p r o v e d o u t d o o r e v e n t s p a c e B. T h e r e t a i n e d b a s e b a l l f i e l d C. T h e a d d e d s w i m m i n g p o o l / a q u a t i c f a c i l i t y D. T h e a d d e d g y m w i t h r o o f t o p a c t i v i t i e s E. T h e e x p a n d e d S e n i o r C e n t e r a n d i m p r o v e d p a r k i n g F. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e a r o u n d t h e g a z e b o G. M o r e p a r k i n g a t Q u i n l a n H. T h e w a t e r f e a t u r e I. T h e a d d e d w a l k i n g p a t h l o o p J. O t h e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh i c h o n e o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s b e s t c a p t u r e s y o u r vi s i o n f o r t h e f u t u r e o f M e m o r i a l P a r k ? A. N a t u r a l i z e d c i v i c g a t h e r i n g B. A r t s a n d e v e n t s C. A c t i v e a n d m u l t i ‐ u s e D. A m i x o f t h e c o n c e p t s Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Wh a t d o y o u l i k e m o s t a b o u t y o u r p r e f e r r e d co n c e p t ? ( S e l e c t a l l t h a t a p p l y . ) A. I t h a s t h e f a c i l i t i e s I t h i n k a r e m o s t i m p o r t a n t B. I t c r e a t e s a s o c i a l a n d a c t i v i t y h u b f o r o u r c o m m u n i t y C. I t h a s t h e b e s t g r e e n s p a c e / o p e n s p a c e D. I t k e e p s t h e p a r k s i m i l a r t o t h e w a y i t i s n o w E. I t a p p e a r s t o b e t h e m o s t a f f o r d a b l e c o n c e p t F. I d o n ’ t l i k e a n y o f t h e t h r e e c o n c e p t s G. I l i k e a l l o f t h e c o n c e p t s t o s o m e e x t e n t H. O t h e r Cu p e r t i n o P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S y s t e m M a s t e r P l a n lab Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 1 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP – MAY 2018 PUBLIC WRITTEN INPUT #1: Aquatic Facility/ Year Round Pool  Do we need an aquatic facility in Cupertino? o De Anza right across the street  Huge pool/available to public o Blackberry Farm pool & YMCA Seems redundant  Pool available for recreation/open swim would be great and does not exist in CPT.  How about an indoor pool? YMCA!  I actually think this is quite important – there is pent-up demand. De Anza is not available  More opportunities and ownership having our own community pool, rather than renting.  There should be two swimming areas, one for competitive swimming and another for fun. I honestly think that Blackberry Farm may be a great place for kids, but maybe not a great one for teens, and since De Anza won’t provide their pool to the public, we should have a bigger competitive swimming pool, for competitive teams.  Since there is talk of a new gym facility, maybe where tennis courts are now, why not put in an indoor pool? Then there would be a combo gym w/ indoor pool-25 yards, 306 lanes. Ask, what is the purpose of the pool: o Pure workout o Place for kids to play in pool o Competitions  Build a pool that meets greatest demand. No separate pool building. #2: Performing & Fine Arts Center  Partner with De Anza for larger site  Balance with: o professional theatre + programming o use of space to inspire youth in the arts 2 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Chapter 1: Title  Great for other performing art groups, and great location for a performing arts center. This also inspires our next generation for events/performances like this because besides programming, math, & STEM, performing arts is important as well.  Is there an existing building that can be repurposed? A partnership with private company or De Anza College? o Concur with this – CUSD maybe.  Having a convertible performance area would give flexibility (moving wall, etc.) Maybe have a teen center location here focusing on performing arts. o Love this idea – concur o Good idea #3: Gym/ Recreation Center – Sports Fields, Courts & Facilities  Seems like youth sports groups needs fields  Not excited about creating more facilities that encroach or use existing park space. With all of the development proposed for Cupertino – need open spaces/fields  Keep softball field  Great idea of adding in a new gym & new sports field, I feel like that some of our current sport courts are pretty outdated so it’s a great thing that new sport courts are being added.  Balance of active and passive (un-regulated pickle ball, ping pong tables, passive exercise equipment) rec opportunities  Add/create pickle ball courts for regular use – drop in? reserved?  Expand sports center into multi-story facility, consider whether an indoor pool could be here instead of a separate facility.  Add outdoor athletic equipment – Greenfield makes excellent equipment  Inside basketball better than outside! #4: Senior Space/Teen Space – Incubator Hub/Maker Space  We have a great senior center. Perhaps more facilities for recreation classes would be nice – but we lack facilities for teens. As a senior, I would not prioritize greatly improving senior center  Adding outdoor senior (: o Exercise equipment o Conduct “how to” classes o Have more parking.  More technology for Senior Center (Greenfield)  Put a second story on the Senior Center to handle future expansion. Lots of room for seniors to use teach “stuff”. For example, how to use cell phone and text and load movies on TV.  Add Greenfield Outdoor Fitness Equipment to an area near the Senior Center. Great idea for all.  As great as concept for teen space is, they are rarely used by teens past 14 years.  Versatile spaces not limited to a single type of activity o Use this to expand program variety. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 3 Chapter 1: Title #5: Memorial Park, Arts & Events Concept  Like the idea of a performing arts/theatre, but the City should use Flint Center or the small music department theatre at De Anza or the City should purchase additional land to build a dedicated theatre arts/performance arts/children’s theatre complex like Sunnyvale or Mountain View.  Parking will be a huge issue.  Not happy to have playground area near Quinlan taken away.  Love performance/art center – wrong site  Like performing arts, but not enough parking  There are too many “activities” and buildings for space available with little parking.  Not enough parking, too much festival area.  Multi use building, include new teen center, is great, but look at existing builds elsewhere or work w/ De Anza or local companies.  Look at multi-site teen center to serve different areas. It’s dangerous for teens to bike to it now. Joint use w/ high schools?  Mountain bike access to Quinlan/new performing center through park.  No need for water feature – eliminate – expensive difficult to maintain. Don’t forget we already spent $ to take it out of Quinlan.  Redoing the amphitheater is a great idea – orient for shade and for avoiding sun in eyes while sun is setting.  Expanded amphitheater is brilliant – consider canopy for bands + symphonies.  Like shade area by center, expand over preschool.  Like expended lawn. #6: Memorial Park, Active & Multi-Use Concept  The idea about an aquatic facility & new sports courts is a great renovation to have, but more green and nature spaces would make the park even better.  Concur with above, except that Cupertino doesn’t need another aquatic facility – we have Blackberry Farm pool & De Anza pool.  Senior Center pretty good as is.  Add bike path in addition to walking paths – link bike paths to park.  No gym/facilities – keep it green.  Aquatic center is a long overdue need – De Anza pool is not generally available – no public place to swim.  Expansion of play area and addition of tot lot are important.  More green space here would be good.  Multi-use trails please!  Like preschool playground idea NEED SHADE + bigger sandbox area.  All plans need parking.  Like multi story gym with parking.  Too many activities for this park!!! o People need quit, green spaces, not more traffic, congestion & lack of parking  This concept would increase the need for parking which is expensive & would worsen traffic.  The site access is already limited & would worsen.  Like this concept 4 | Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Chapter 1: Title  Combine Aquatic & Gym  Improved parking  Too congested, too noisy with aquatic center & gym so close to home at the Commons. These would cause huge traffic problems. Not enough parking for busy facilities, there are many pools and gyms in Cupertino already (high schools, De Anza, YMCA, etc.)  Provide outdoor fitness equipment such as Greenfields Outdoor Fitness Equipment o Partner with Rotary Club to make it happen.  Renovate the open air amphitheater. Improve seating on hillside and renovate “stage” area.  Put the lawn back!  No need for water features. This conflicts with water conservation. Think of other drought tolerant plants for décor. o Agreed by a second person.  Playground needs to be fenced off for safety.  Need for more water features in all of the concepts. Could be smaller than current ponds, but larger than shown on 3 plans. Need more push to bring recycled water to this area (also for landscaping). Water feature add serenity to the park.  Public pickleball courts!  The plan seems a bit too busy. o Agreed by a second person.  Add a signal at Alves – replace all the flashing lights and bumps. o This would make exiting Sports Center easier. o Agreed by a second person and third person. #7: Memorial Park, Naturalized Civic Gathering Concept  This is my favorite option but I would like the amphitheater not so close to the Commons homes – too much noise and traffic issues.  First choice of options presented – best for the space available.  Wet creek bed with another small fountain – this is my favorite!  Like the increased walking trails & natural look  No water features preferred (we’ve already had to remove the water feature at Quinlan – very difficult/expensive to maintain after year one).  No water feature – no geese – irresponsible waste of water – unhygienic – bacteria/viruses o Agreed by a second person.  Smaller water feature reduce with recycle water with high circulation to water fields  Green space and trails, nice. Would like some more, smaller water features/fountains for serenity’s sake. Push for recycled water for features and landscape.  Greenfield Outdoor Fitness Equipment o www.greenfieldoutdoorfitness.com o Ask for catalog  Water = geese!  Good idea to have expanded “green” lawns for children to play on. Also, good to have expanded amphitheater area. Parks & Recreation System Master Plan | 5 Chapter 1: Title #8: Natural Areas, Trails & “Other” Input  Glad to prioritize nature and habitat, not just in natural areas.  Should highlight & expand sport fields @ schools for many activities.  My top priority would be to keep/improve natural habitats. Cupertino is going to undergo a lot of construction in the next decade (Vallco/Oaks). We need to preserve our natural spaces so people can connect with nature. More important than creating a lot of new facilities/structures.  Expand/extend existing walking paths  Preserve natural habitats in place and expand/add more natural path/ walking paces (natural or paved as needed. o Volunteers could help maintain these.  Put up signs along the orange orchard – Do Not Pick – save for 2nd Harvest Food Bank! o This year there were none for them. COMMENT CARDS Topic: Representation  I feel that the people in the room were not representative of our community as a whole. The majority of the attendees were over 60. Their interests are different than other age groups and I would claim different than the majority of our residents. Topic: Parking/Water Feature  Allow parking along Christensen Dr. This will increase the parking areas and easy access to the park for handicapped.  Allow the vehicles to drive through to Christensen Drive to eliminate congestion on the Senior Center area and Mary Ave.  Keep water feature in the park to add attraction and motion. CITY OF CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room 10185 North Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA Thursday, May 17, 2018 6:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Tambe called the meeting to order at 6:36pm in the Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room, at 10185 North Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners present: Meenakshi Biyani, Neesha Tambe, Carol Stanek, Helene Davis (arrived at 6:43pm) Commissioners absent: Judy Wilson Staff present: Christine Hanel, Kevin Khuu, Gail Seeds ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Public Input Gail Seeds introduced Cindy Mendoza, from MIG, and reviewed the overall process on the workshop. Cindy reviewed the purpose of the meeting, summarizing the overall big moves from the Master Plan and explained the interactive portion of the presentation. Asked questions to the attendees and received real time feedback (see Attachment F in the Master Plan item for the June 7 meeting.) Moved on to the group activities and broke out into the 8 information stations for attendees to write comments/quesitons on the various options presented, which included: the aquatic facility/year round pool, performing and fine arts center, gymnasium/recreation center and sports fields courts and facilities, incubator hub/maker space/teen space/senior space, memorial park arts and events concept, memorial park active and multi-use concept, memorial park naturalize civic gathering concept, and the natural areas and trails and all other input. Chair Tambe continued the meeting at 7:58pm. Staff reported a summary of the comments written at the various stations (full comments can be found in Attachment G of the Master Plan item for the June 7 meeting). Jacob R, representing Watsonville, presented a list of questions for attendees to think about in regards to the Master Plan project. The Commission provided some input, but requested bringing this subject back to the June meeting, to provide more thorough feedback and direction. Commissioner Stanek suggested more investigation on the conflict of opinions on the aquatic facility, since it has no multipurpose use. Commented that the performing arts center idea has more support, possibly at Vallco or Memorial Park, and about being more open to moving popular use spaces or facilities. To think about increasing accessibility for all facilities, including more parking and increasing the various methods of transportation. Chair Tambe commented on keeping the connectivity between the recreation services and all of the parks, to ensure that any facilities built have the capability to function, and be accessible, at max capacity, and to create multiuse spaces. Also, to ensure that we maintain the current, frequent use spaces or ensure that they’re being moved to an equally accessible location. Suggested for the community to come back to the June meeting and asked that if anyone has connections to private partnerships, to speak to the Commission or Recreation staff. Commissioner Davis supported ensuring that we are following what the whole community wants and suggested that revenue generation is important to think about, along with being flexible and creative with the ideas. ADJOURNMENT – Chair Tambe adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Khuu, Administrative Assistant Recreation and Community Services Department Minutes approved at the___ regular meeting DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 N. STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3135 • FAX: (408) 777-3137 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WORK PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 Updated 6/1/18 August 3, 2017  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan * August 23, 2017  Discuss Commission’s Work Plan for FY 2017/2018 September 7, 2017  Godbe Survey Results  McClellan Ranch Parking Lot Improvement  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan - Vision and Goals, Prioritization Criteria, and Preliminary Opportunities Analysis September 19, 2017 – Work Plan presentation to City Council October 2017 - Cancelled November 2, 2017  Age Friendly City Initiative Presentation  2016/2017 Budget Presentation  Community Gardens Presentation  CIP Priorities November 9, 2017 Special Meeting  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Update and Draft Recreation Program Overview December 7, 2017  Citywide Pedestrian Plan Presentation  McClellan Ranch Parking Lot Improvement Update  Accreditation Update – Governance, Mission, and Vision  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update January 4, 2018  Blackberry Farm Presentation  Property Acquisition at 10301 Byrne Avenue  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update February 1, 2018  San Francisco Shakespeare Presentation  Jollyman Park – Off Leash Hours Presentation  Afterschool Enrichment Presentation  Cricket Feasibility Study February 28, 2018 Special Joint Meeting  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan * March 1, 2018  Summer & Neighborhood Events Presentation  Teen Programs Update  Department/City Work Plan April 5, 2018  Healing Gardens Presentation  McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements – Conceptual Planning & Design  Code of Conduct May 5, 2018  CIP Presentation  Neighborhood Events  New Enterprise Software  Code of Conduct May 17, 2018 Special Meeting/Workshop  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Public Input Workshop June 7, 2018  Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan July 5, 2018  No meeting August 2, 2018  Sports Center Upgrades Presentation  Comprehensive Revenue Policy  Equity Plan  Work Plan 2018/2019  Accreditation Update – Public Info Policy and Involvement  Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan * Special Meetings to Be Scheduled:  Splash Pad Field Trip Items to schedule: o Case Management Presentation o Recreation Staff Goals Presentation o Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – Trail Proposal o Jollyman Park – Off Lease Hours Follow-Up o Age Friendly Transportation Service o Bee Apiary/Bee Guild Update o Emergency Services Update o Lawrence-Mitty Project Update o Connected or Smart City o Partnerships with CUSD/Sedgwick Property o One or Two Year Recreation Work Plan RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • WWW.CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 7, 2018 Subject Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Recommended Action Receive the feasibility study prepared by Verde Design, and provide direction. Background The city has retained Verde Design to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of creating an inclusive play area in Cupertino. There is currently no all-inclusive play area in the city. The purpose of this portion of study is to identify sites that are suitable for locating an inclusive play area, conduct a preliminary evaluation of the potential sites, and to determine site(s) that warrant further consideration for inclusive play. Discussion The attached study presents the results of the feasibility analysis to date. The findings will be presented for feedback by the public and the Parks and Recreation Commission. For locations that area deemed suitable for further evaluation, the consultant team will develop sample conceptual plans and draft cost estimates which will be brought to the Commission for consideration. Sustainability Impact This feasibility study does not have any sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact Funds for this feasibility study are allocated in the FY18 Capital Improvement Program. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Park Improvement Manager Reviewed by: Christine Hanel, Assistant Director of Recreation and Community Services Approved for Submission by: Christine Hanel, Assistant Director of Recreation and Community Services Attachments: A – Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study, Draft, May 2018 EXISTING PARKS & FACILITIES REVIEW, RANKING AND CONCLUSIONS Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Final May 29, 2018 Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 1 All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………… 2 INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………….……. 4 EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES MAP…………………………………... 6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND ……………………….…… 7 PARK SITE REVIEWS ………………………………………………………………………….. 18 SITE COMPARISONS AND RANKING ……………………………………………….……… 45 CONCLUSIONS ……….………………………………………………………………………… 52 CONCEPTUAL PLANS …………………………………………………………………….…… 56 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES ………………………………………………………….. XX Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the City of Cupertino’s work on the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan, staff looked at outdoor facilities projects. One of the facilities that has been targeted by the city is an all-inclusive playground. The city’s understanding of an all-inclusive playground is “a universal play area that provides the opportunity for recreational play for all ages regardless of ability including: a well-designed site that supports child development, integrated play and social opportunities for children as well as family members with mobility, visual, hearing, sensory, social/emotional, communication, cognitive and other impairments. Special consideration given, but not limited to shade, surfaces, seating, and providing parallel play with varied levels of challenge. The City of Cupertino Department of Recreation and Community Services is working with Verde Design to prepare a Feasibility Study to identify city park sites where an all-inclusive playground could be located. The feasibility study includes three primary tasks: Task One will be the description and requirements of all-inclusive playgrounds, their integration into existing park sites, evaluation of the four park sites selected for this study based upon their size and their proximity to arterial or collector streets: Memorial Park, Creekside Park, Jollyman Park and Monta Vista Park. Each park will be vetted through a matrix of infrastructure needs and siting conditions. These findings will be used to rank each site to determine the most appropriate park site(s) in which to incorporate an inclusive playground. Task Two will utilize the park site evaluation information to develop two preliminary conceptual plans and draft cost estimates. These conceptual plans will be site specific diagrams that graphically represent spatial relationships and connections of the facilities that make up the playground, and with the existing site. Once completed, these concepts will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission and other groups as directed. Task Three will be to provide materials to support grant applications and related fund seeking purposes. The City will be involved in each task as well as have the final review and approval prior to the next step being started. This study will identify the positive and negative aspects of having an all-inclusive playground at each of the four sites and outline the rationale for the recommendation of the top all-inclusive playground location(s). The exact siting location, size, and refined shape of the playground will be determined during the future design phase of the project. This feasibility study is intended to be a supporting document to the city’s Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. The conclusions and recommendations of this study are to give direction while assisting to fulfill the community’s vision of a cohesive strategy and action plan to help guide the future development, renovation, and management of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 4 INTRODUCTION Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 5 INTRODUCTION Four park sites were selected to be visited, reviewed and assessed for their suitability for receiving an all-inclusive playground. The selection was based on site attributes including: 1. Being within the geographical city limits. 2. Evaluation of adjacent park site land use and development of surrounding properties that are conducive to playground users of all ages and abilities. 3. Proximity to major arterial or collector access streets with easy vehicular access and proximity to public transportation (bus system). 4. The ability to dedicate 0.6 to 1.0 acres or more within the city park for an inclusive playground 5. Topography and site challenges of developing an inclusive playground including ADA compliant access routes and requirements of the play use areas. 6. The existing uses and possible future uses of the park land being appropriate to be near an inclusive playground. The four park sites selected; Memorial Park, Creekside Park, Jollyman Park, and Monta Vista Park were walked by city and consultant staff. Each site was photographed and reviewed based on an assessment matrix. (See pages 18 through 44). Each of the park sites has its own personality and character which can be recognized by the designated uses, the existing built facilities and support infrastructure, the location of parking and circulation paths, as well as the general health of the trees and landscaping, The city has developed exceptional parks for the community. The recreational uses, social uses, and the support facilities, are well thought out and maintained to a high level. Each of the four parks visited have areas that could be considered for the location of an inclusive playground. However, not all sites have the desirable area (0.8 acres or more), or, all the amenities that would create a positive environment for the specific user group we are considering. The two conceptual designs will meet the identified objective of showing the sample siting and sample layouts suitable for an appropriate park location, while being suitable for all ages and abilities. The playground concept can be integrated into the existing park as recommended in this study. The following map locates each of the selected parks and other city recreational facilities. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 7 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 8 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AN ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND The following considerations that have been used to evaluate each of the four park sites being considered for an all-inclusive playground. SIZE AND FOOTPRINT 1. Overall Playground Area a. The typical sized for an all-inclusive playground can start at 0.6 to 1.0 acres, but a minimum size of 0.8 and larger is desirable. b. The area can vary based on the programming of the playground, the targeted age groups, the theme, and the number of features. If it is intended to address specific multiple ages, the footprint will be larger. c. The available area and other uses will help determine where the inclusive playground is located. d. If cost is a driving factor, the construction budget will also determine the size and footprint of the project. EXPECTED USAGE 1. Estimated Visitorship Based on two all-inclusive playgrounds on the peninsula, the expected visitorship at the Cupertino all-inclusive playground could peak at 200 on a busy day, 500 visitors on a busy weekend (Saturday and Sunday), and possibly between 1,880 and 2,000 visitors per month. 2. Visitors would come to enjoy the playground from local Cupertino neighborhoods as well as from the surrounding region. It is anticipated that the residents of Cupertino would make up approximately 85% of the users, with the remainder coming from other areas outside of Cupertino. Palo Alto’s Magical Bridge playground currently receives over 50% nonresident use. However, it is anticipated that as additional inclusive play areas develop nearby, that nonresident percentages will drop, and resident percentages will rise. 3. There are currently two popular all-inclusive playgrounds built within Santa Clara County, Magical Bridge in Palo Alto and Rotary PlayGarden in San Jose, with six others currently being planned in the County. Planned inclusive playgrounds include sites in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Morgan Hill, two more in San Jose, and an additional Palo Alto location at Addison Elementary, as well as another one in Redwood City in San Mateo County that is currently in construction. The playgrounds within the County may see some drop in regional visitorship once these playgrounds are constructed. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 9 PARKING 1. For a 0.6 to 1.0 acre all-inclusive playground, providing a minimum of 5 to 6 accessible parking stalls is recommended. A ratio developed for a comparable site involved 23 parking stalls per acre of playground footprint, inclusive of ADA stalls. ADA standards require 1 accessible stall per 25 standard stalls. However, given the nature of inclusive play area visitorship and likely higher use by visitors of varied abilities, a recommended minimum quantity for the size of playground being considered is 5-6 ADA stalls (rather than a single stall). ACCESS 1. Vehicular Access Types a. When considering vehicular access, automobile and van access is necessary. The airporter sized vans or small school buses should also be considered when looking at road width, curb radii, parking stall sizes, and drop-off areas. 2. Public Transportation Access a. The location of bus stops should be considered. However, buses are not necessarily a prime mode of transportation to all-inclusive playgrounds by the physically challenged community. 3. Pedestrian, Bicycle, Non-vehicular Access a. Pedestrian, ADA compliant, access is mandatory from city streets, vehicular parking areas, drop-off areas, and throughout the park to the playground. b. Bicycle access is an important feature to provide for the public, as this will be an all-inclusive playground that will attract users of all abilities. Some users would be children and adults that prefer to ride a bike to the park instead of driving. Ideally bike racks should be within sight of the playground. PLAYGROUND ELEMENTS 1. Play Use Areas a. The elements of an all-inclusive playground are specifically designed to allow for play and growth experiences that encourage users of all abilities to play by themselves or with others. The elements can be in single areas to allow for focused play, resting or quiet social interaction, or they can be grouped to provide overlapping interactions with spatial relationships of walking or crawling under and over, strolling or running through and around. Each area would be developed to engage the senses of sound, sight and touch with color, textures, movement and the opportunity to respond to the elements or be responsible for creating the feature’s activity. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 10 b. The type, number, shape and size of play use areas will depend on the available site area for the playground, the communities input on the types of activities and features, and the City’s construction budget. c. Typical use areas: 1) Entry Area 2) Swing Area 3) Spinner Area 4) Slide Area 5) Climbing Area 6) Tot Area 7) Sound and Tactile Area 8) Quiet Area 9) Observation Areas 10) Picnic Areas 11) Wheel Chair and Stroller Parking Areas 2. Play Features a. Swing Area: b. Spinner Area: 1) Biggo Swing 1) Spinner Bowl 2) Sway Glider 2) Dish Spinner 3) Wheelchair Swing 3) Cozy Cocoon 4) Expression Swing 4) Integration Carousel 5) Bucket Swing 5) Net Spinner c. Slide Area d. Climbing Area 1) Roller Slide 1) Rock Climber 2) Tunnel Slide 2) Climber Net 3) S Slide 3) Climber Wall 4) Double Slide 4) Loop Climbers 5) Waterfall Slide 5) Climbing Eagles Nest e. Sound and Tactile Area f. Tot Area 1) Laser Harp 1) Tot Slide 2) Chimes 2) Expression Swings 3) Tuned Drums 3) Play House 4) Kettle Drum 4) See-Saw 5) Pulse Table Tennis 5) Kinder Bells 3. Specialty Elements a. Specialty elements can include, but are not limited to: 1) Donor wall, paving or site features 2) Play House 3) Amphitheater/Outdoor Classroom 4) Restroom Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 11 SWING AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 12 SPINNER AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 13 SLIDE AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 14 CLIMBING AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 15 SOUND AND TACTILE AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 16 TOT AREA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 17 MAINTENANCE DEMAND 1. Maintenance Needs a. The maintenance needs of an all-inclusive playground are similar to that of a standard playground of the same materials. But, frequency of maintenance is based on higher usership of inclusive play sites versus conventional play sites. This would include restroom servicing and maintenance. b. During the design of the playground, the layout of paths, walls and equipment, and the selection of materials, it is recommended that the maintenance staff be involved so the city staff and design team understand the maintenance personnel’s needs. c. It is also advantageous to have the maintenance staff involved in the process, so they understand the design, materials, codes, and provide feedback relative to the expectations for the overall maintenance of the playground. 2. Maintenance Protocols a. Due to a higher user population, the play elements and surface materials do tend to wear more rapidly and will need to be monitored for needed touchup, repairs or replacement to ensure the playground remains safe, clean, and up to code. b. With the higher than normal use of the site features and play elements, it is recommended that a cleaning protocol be established and frequency scheduling to ensure the health, safety and welfare of those using the playground. The protocol would include: 1) Washing of all play equipment surfaces 2) Washing of all tables, benches and seating areas 3) Vacuuming and rinsing of all resilient rubber surfaces 4) Collecting and disposing of all man-made and natural debris from the site 5) Emptying trash and recycling receptacles as needed 6) Reporting site and facility areas of concern to maintain ADA compliance 7) Inspection and frequency protocol 8) Other Best Practices: • Inspecting seams of surfacing materials • Inspecting for wear and facility maintenance needs • Pruning plant material • Dead heading plant blooms Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 18 PARK SITE REVIEWS Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 19 PARK SITE REVIEWS Each site was walked and reviewed using the following conditions assessment criteria. The criteria are items that were considered for locating an all-inclusive playground within a park. Following the Infrastructure Needs and Siting Conditions, are the Existing Conditions Assessments, including site aerials and photographs to further illustrate how each site is adapted to incorporate the proposed all-inclusive playground. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 1. Accessible Restroom a. All-inclusive playgrounds are heavily used, and it is important to have an ADA compliant restroom building close enough that it allows for quick and easy responses by playground users of all abilities. b. If a restroom is installed due to the addition of an all-inclusive playground, two ADA compliant, non-gender, stalls would be the minimum. c. If the playground is being located near an existing restroom building, the building should be assessed for its ADA compliance and items not in compliance updated as required. 2. Shade a. Prolonged exposure to direct sun is an issue at all parks, but to inclusive playgrounds there is a tendency to stay and play longer. This and the rising concern over skin cancer makes it necessary to provide shade areas within and as part of the playground. b. Shade can be provided by shade structures, and/or mature trees. c. When there is a desire that shade ultimately be provided by trees, an option can be that large trees are planted at construction, along with shade structures that are located in such a manner that in time, when the trees mature and offer the desired shade, the structures can be removed if desired. 3. Lighting a. Most of the city’s parks are currently only open for use during daylight hours until one hour after sunset. The parks are not lit for night use. b. Each of the four parks reviewed have security lighting provided in the parking lots and along the pedestrian pathways, including the locations being considered for a playground. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 20 c. During the design process, it should be determined if the existing lighting is sufficient to get people to and from the new playground location safely. The lighting level and needs within the playground will also need to be determined and designed accordingly. d. Memorial Park hosts evening events and its softball field and tennis courts are illuminated for evening use. 4. Amenities: Drinking Fountains and Seating a. Drinking fountains are a necessary component of playgrounds with active users. b. The new recommended standard for drinking fountains are ADA compliant fountains with water bottle fillers. c. Drinking fountains should be located either within the playground, adjacent to, or near the playground entrance. d. If there is not an ADA compliant drinking fountain close to a chosen playground location, one should be added. e. Seating should be provided close to the play areas for parents/guardians, family members and other users. 5. Utilities a. Utilities required for the installation of an all-inclusive playground typically include: 1) Domestic Water – for restroom, drinking fountains and irrigation. 2) Sanitary Sewer – for restroom and drinking fountains. 3) Electricity – for restroom, additional lighting, security system, sound features and irrigation controller. 4) Storm Drainage – for hardscape, landscape, in and around the playground. 5) Irrigation – for water conserving planting in and around the playground. b. Working with the city as well as the community, the playground design and site components will be developed. The final design will determine what utilities are needed and to what level. c. The new utilities required will depend on what site utilities and features are existing at the chosen site. For example, if a restroom and a drinking fountain currently exists and they are deemed close enough, new water and sanitary sewer would not be required. d. The four city parks reviewed appear to have most of these utilities on site, but not necessarily in close proximity to the proposed playground location. Using the city’s as-built plans, it can be determined how close and what size the existing utilities are, and which utilities will need to be installed, once the final site is selected. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 21 6. Parking a. The ADA minimum required ratio between accessible stalls to standard stalls in a parking lot is a 1 ADA stall for every 25 standard stalls. Each of the park sites reviewed are in compliance with this requirement. b. It is important to locate all-inclusive playgrounds relatively close to ADA parking. Each of the of the park sites reviewed meet this goal. 7. Circulation a. ADA compliant circulation is mandatory and needs to be available from the parking lot’s accessible ramp to the playground. It is preferable that the playground be located close to, or at a reasonable distance from the lot’s accessible ramp. Though not required, this circulation, if possible, should be provided by a minimum 6’ wide path to enable ease of wheelchair use with pedestrian use. b. ADA compliant circulation from the playground to the rest of the park is also an important consideration. The all-inclusive playground will be a major draw to persons needing accessible circulation, but this access needs to be provided to the rest of the park to allow all users to use all the park. Families will often have some kids playing sports while others are enjoying the playground. The interface between all activities and the playground should be accessible to all. 8. Adjacent Facilities a. It is important to review adjacent activities and facilities to determine if there are any conflicts in area uses with the all-inclusive playground. b. Conflicts to consider would be loud noises, yelling, repetitive sounds, errant balls, and other issues that would disturb or deter from the safe environment of the playground for the mentally and emotionally challenged users. SITING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Acoustics a. Acoustics play an important part in locating an all-inclusive playground. Sounds from both outside and from inside the playground can have negative effects on both users and neighbors. b. Loud noises, yelling and repetitive sounds can disturb or deter from the safe environment of the playground for the mentally and emotionally challenged users. c. Noises from outside the playground can come from busy streets, sports fields, sports courts, adjacent high use properties, can be problematic for sensitive user. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 22 d. By their nature, All-inclusive playgrounds are highly used and can generate a higher level of noises than a non-inclusive playground that can have an impact on adjacent neighbors or businesses. e. Locating the playground should consider providing a buffer distance of 20’ to 50’ from residential property lines. The distance depends on the playground design and activities orientation. Other considerations would be to include berms, screen planting and sound walls in the design when in close proximity of residential or other populated property uses. 2. Visibility a. Visibility is key to actual safety and perceived safety of the playground users. When siting an all-inclusive playground there should be open and clear visibility from adjacent streets, parking lots and public use areas. This should allow for surveillance of the playground and adjacent areas. b. The design of the playground should maintain an open feel without areas to hide in or be behind and out of site. All areas of the playground should be visible from two or more directions of observation and have access paths that provide the opportunity for parents, or guardians, to let their children play on their own while being easily and constantly seen. 3. Mature Trees a. Playgrounds are constructed of materials that can stand up to excessive use and abuse. While these materials create an environment of color, texture, movement and safety, mature trees provide both a natural, “living,” aspect to an otherwise manmade space. They also provide shade to what can be a very hot, bright and uncomfortable place. b. Keeping and utilizing existing mature trees in the siting and design of an all- inclusive playground is beneficial for the overall comfort of the playground, as well as to the physical and mental health of the users. c. The condition of the existing trees should be assessed by an Arborist to determine the health and longevity of each tree. The suitability of each tree, and the tree species, should be a driving factor of the playground location, design, and if the trees can remain or need to be removed from the proposed built environment. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 23 PARK SITES - EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENTS MEMORIAL PARK – PLAY AREA A 34,950 S.F. - 0.8 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 2 380' from possible playground area, too far away 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 1 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 2 Shade 1. Structures No 2. Trees Yes 2 1 south and 1 west of the possible play area Lighting 1. Night Use Yes Night use - softball field north of possible play area 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard Yes 380' away at restroom building 2. ADA Compliant Yes 380' away at restroom building Utilities 1. Drainage Yes If pond drainage system is utilized 2. Water No No apparent domestic water close to play area 3. Sewer No No apparent sewer close to play area 4. Electrical Service Yes At amphitheater 5. Irrigation Yes Adjacent landscaping Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 79 47 in east lot, 32 in west lot 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 4 2 in east lot, 2 in west lot 3. Bicycle Parking No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 24 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes 2. Ramps No 3. Stairs No 4. From Parking Yes Will need to be designated as such 5. Bus Stop No At Senior Center, too far away Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts No 2. Basketball Courts No 3. Soccer Field No 4. Softball Field Yes 500' from possible play area 5. Baseball Field No 6. Picnic Area - Tables Yes 1 7. Seating Benches Yes 3 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy Yes During over 24 special events and festival activities 2. Protected Yes Well within the overall park area 3. Busy Street No Well within the overall park area 4. Proximity to Features No 70' from softball outfield fence 5. Proximity to Neighbor No Well within the overall park area Visibility 1. From City Street No Well within the overall park area 2. From Parking Lot Yes 100' from west parking lot 3. From Park Features Yes From veteran's Memorial and the Gazebo Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 2 Good condition 2. Varieties Site Grading 1. Flat Site Yes In pond area 2. Gentle Slopes Yes At some edges 3. Steep slopes Yes At some edges 4. Creative Possibilities Yes Raised perimeter path and overlooks 5. Difficult Site No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 25 MEMORIAL PARK - PLAY AREA B 26,140 S.F. - 1.0 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 2 20' from possible playground area 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 1 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 2 Shade 1. Structures No 2. Trees Yes 15 Spotted throughout play area Lighting 1. Night Use Yes Tennis Courts east of Anton Way 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard Yes 1 At restroom building 2. ADA Compliant Yes 1 At restroom building Utilities 1. Drainage Yes If pond drainage system is utilized 2. Water Yes Domestic water at Restroom Building 3. Sewer Yes Sewer at Restroom Building 4. Electrical Service Yes Lighting, electrical at restroom building 5. Irrigation Yes Adjacent landscaping Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 32 In west lot 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 2 In west lot 3. Bicycle Parking No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 26 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes Around perimeter of play area 2. Ramps No 3. Stairs No 4. From Parking Yes Signage would help 5. Bus Stop Yes At Senior Center, a bit far away Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts Yes 4 East of Anton Way 2. Basketball Courts No 3. Soccer Field No 4. Softball Field No 930' from possible play area 5. Amphitheater Yes With high berm between the two 6. Picnic Area - Tables Yes 7 To the west and southwest of the play area 7. Seating Benches Yes 3 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy No Area is within the overall park area 2. Protected Yes Area is within the overall park area 3. Busy Street Yes Stevens Creek Boulevard 4. Proximity to Features No 240' from amphitheater with berm in between 5. Proximity to Neighbor Yes Housing Development across Stevens Creek Blvd. Visibility 1. From City Street No From Anton Way, but a berm obscures a clear view 2. From Parking Lot No 280' from west parking lot with berm in between 3. From Park Features Yes From Senior Center Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 16 Some in good condition, many in poor condition 2. Varieties Black Walnut Site Grading 1. Flat Site No 2. Gentle Slopes Yes At some edges 3. Steep slopes Yes At some edges 4. Creative Possibilities Yes Raised center 5. Difficult Site No Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study 0 50'100'200'300' NORTH 0 50'100'200'300' NORTH MEMORIAL PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT 21 C2 D1 D1 D2 D2 C2 C1/E2 E1 B B A/F2 F1E3 E5 E5 E5E5 E5 SITE A SITE B ANTON WAY MARY AVENUE ST E V E N S C R E E K B O U L E V A R D B B B B C2 C2 C2 C2 SITE A (34,950 S.F. / 0.8 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 380’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 3 GOOD HEALTH C1 NIGHT LIGHTING 1 SOFTBALL FIELD C2 SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 79 47 IN EAST LOT AND 32 IN WEST LOT D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 4 2 IN EAST LOT AND 2 IN WEST LOT E1 MULTI-USE LAWN 1 410’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2 SOFTBALL FIELD 1 500’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 AMPHITHEATER 1 E4 GAZEBO 1 E5 PICNIC TABLES 1 OUTSIDE OF PLAYGROUND SITE B (43,912 S.F. / 1.0 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 20’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 16 POOR HEALTH C2 SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 32 32 IN WEST LOT D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 2 IN WEST LOT E3 AMPHITHEATER 1 E5 PICNIC TABLES 11 (10) OUTSIDE OF PLAYGROUND F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA 1 AT ADJACENT PATH F2 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - STANDARD 1 AT RESTROOM BUILDING E4 Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study MEMORIAL PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS 22 A - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM E3 - AMPHITHEATER B - SHADE TREES D1 - PARKING STALLS - STANDARD E4 - GAZEBO C1 / E2 - LIGHTED SOFTBALL FIELD D2 - PARKING STALLS - ADA E5 - PICNIC TABLES C2 - SECURITY LIGHTING SITE A (34,950 S.F. / 0.8 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 380’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 3 GOOD HEALTH C1 NIGHT LIGHTING 1 SOFTBALL FIELD C2 SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 79 47 IN EAST LOT AND 32 IN WEST LOT D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 4 2 IN EAST LOT AND 2 IN WEST LOT E1 MULTI-USE LAWN 1 410’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2 SOFTBALL FIELD 1 500’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 AMPHITHEATER 1 E4 GAZEBO 1 E5 PICNIC TABLES 1 OUTSIDE OF PLAYGROUND Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study MEMORIAL PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS 23 A / F2 - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM - DRINKING FOUNTAIN STANDARD D1 / D2 - PARKING STALLS - STANDARD AND ADA F1 - DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA B - SHADE TREES E3 / E4 - AMPHITHEATER AND GAZEBO C2 - SECURITY LIGHTING E5 - PICNIC TABLES SITE A (34,950 S.F. / 0.8 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEMQTY.DESCRIPTION AACCESSIBLE RESTROOM1380’ FROM PLAYGROUND BSHADE TREES3GOOD HEALTH C1NIGHT LIGHTING 1SOFTBALL FIELD C2SECURITY LIGHTING YESFOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1PARKING STALLS - STANDARD7947 IN EAST LOT AND 32 IN WEST LOT D2PARKING STALLS - ADA42 IN EAST LOT AND 2 IN WEST LOT E1MULTI-USE LAWN1410’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2SOFTBALL FIELD1500’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3AMPHITHEATER1 E4GAZEBO1 E5PICNIC TABLES1OUTSIDE OF PLAYGROUND SITE B (43,912 S.F. / 1.0 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 20’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 16 POOR HEALTH C2 SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 32 32 IN WEST LOT D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 2 IN WEST LOT E3 AMPHITHEATER 1 E4 GAZEBO 1 E5 PICNIC TABLES 11 (10) OUTSIDE OF PLAYGROUND F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA 1 AT ADJACENT PATH F2 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -STANDARD 1 AT RESTROOM BUILDING Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 30 CREEKSIDE PARK 28,500 s.f. - 0.65 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex Yes 3 At building adjacent to play area 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 3 At building adjacent to play area 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 3 At building adjacent to play area 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 3 At building adjacent to play area Shade 1. Structures Yes 1 Next to site with recreation building, but not play area 2. Mature Trees Yes 16 South, west and north of play area with sun areas Lighting 1. Night Use No No sports lighting 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard Yes 1 At building adjacent to play area 2. ADA Compliant Yes 2 1 at building adjacent to play area and 1 at picnic area Utilities 1. Drainage Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 2. Water Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 3. Sewer Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 4. Electrical Service Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 5. Irrigation Yes System is evident adjacent to play area Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 102 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 5 3. Bicycle Parking Yes 4 At north end of play area Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 31 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes Connecting to parking and all areas of the park 2. Ramps No Primarily level site 3. Stairs No Primarily level site 4. From Parking Yes Wide walk at back of drop off area adjacent to building 5. Bus Stop Yes 1 In front of park on Miller Ave. 1,030' from play area Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts No 2. Basketball ½ Courts Yes 2 1 adjacent to play area, 1 at north end of play area 3. Soccer Field Yes 3 Fields to both north and south sides 4. Softball Field No 5. Baseball Field No 6. Picnic Area Yes 6 Picnic tables with 3 barbeques 7. Seating Benches Yes 6 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy No 685' from Miller Avenue 2. Protected Yes By building from parking lot and by creek from neighbors 3. Busy Street No Miller Avenue is 120' from play area 4. Proximity to Features Yes Close to one soccer field and half basketball court 5. Proximity to Neighbor No Creek on west side, recreation building on East Visibility 1. From City Street No Miller Avenue is 685' from play area 2. From Parking Lot No Recreation building partially blocks view 3. From Park Features Yes From one soccer field and basketball ½ court Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 16 Most are in good condition, some Pears suffering blight 2. Varieties Oaks, Ash, Ornamental Pear Site Grading 1. Flat Site Yes Flat with spread out shaped area 2. Gentle Slopes No 3. Steep slopes No 4. Creative Possibilities No Keep existing trees and view of riparian corridor 5. Difficult Site Yes Tight area with many existing amenities Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study CREEKSIDE PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT A G B1 B2 B1 SITE CALA B A Z A S C R E E K MI L L E R A V E N U E C D1 D2 D2 D3 D2 D1 D1 C C E1 E1 E2 E3/F2 E4 E2 E2 F1/F2 C C 26 SITE (28,500 S.F. / 0.65 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM-UNISEX 3 B1 SHADE TREES 16 GOOD HEALTH B2 SHADE STRUCTURE 1 PART OF REC. BUILDING C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 102 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 5 D3 BICYCLE PARKING 4 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 2 E2 SOCCER FIELD 3 E3 PICNIC TABLES 6 PICNIC TABLES WITH 3 BARBECUES E4 SEATING BENCHES 6 F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -STANDARD 1 F2 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -ADA 2 G BUS STOP 1 1,030’ FROM PLAYGROUND Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study CREEKSIDE PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS A / F1 / F2 - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM / DRINK-ING FOUNTAIN STANDARD / ADA C / E1 - SECURITY LIGHTING / BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT D5 / E1 / E2 - BICYCLE PARKING / BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT / SOCCER FIELD B1 - SHADE TREES E4 - SEATING BENCHES E3 / E4 / F2 - PICNIC TABLES / SEATING BENCHES / DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA B2 - SHADE STRUCTURE C / D1 / D3 - SECURITY LIGHTING / PARKING STALLS - STANDARD AND ADA G - BUS STOP 27 SITE (28,500 S.F. / 0.65 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM-UNISEX 3 B1 SHADE TREES 16 GOOD HEALTH B2 SHADE STRUCTURE 1 PART OF REC. BUILDING C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 102 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 5 D3 BICYCLE PARKING 4 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 2 E2 SOCCER FIELD 3 E3 PICNIC TABLES 6 PICNIC TABLES WITH 3 BARBECUES E4 SEATING BENCHES 6 F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -STANDARD 1 F2 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -ADA 2 G BUS STOP 1 1,030’ FROM PLAYGROUND Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 34 JOLLYMAN PARK – PLAY AREA A 30,540 s.f. - 0.86 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area Shade 1. Structures No 2. Trees Yes 20 West and south of play area, with sun areas Lighting 1. Night Use No No sports lighting 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard No 2. ADA Compliant No Utilities 1. Drainage Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 2. Water No System is evident adjacent to play area 3. Sewer No 4. Electrical Service Yes From path lighting system 5. Irrigation Yes System is evident adjacent to play area Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 49 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 2 ADA ramp from parking lot to path to play area 3. Bicycle Parking No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 35 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes From parking lot and to park perimeter 2. Ramps No 3. Stairs No 4. From Parking Yes 145' from parking lot to play area 5. Bus Stop No 1875' from park - too far to consider Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts No 2. Basketball Courts No 0.5 480' from play area 3. Soccer Field Yes 4 (2) adjacent, (2) 690' from play area 4. Softball Field No 5. Baseball Field No 950' feet from play area 6. Picnic Area Yes 5 Non-ADA tables with 2 barbeques 7. Seating Benches Yes 2 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy Yes At times street and soccer field can get noisy 2. Protected No By low fence, with path open to street sidewalk 3. Busy Street Yes But not that noisy 4. Proximity to Features Yes Soccer fields 5. Proximity to Neighbor Yes Landscape buffer Visibility 1. From City Street Yes Area is flat with easy visibility 2. From Parking Lot Yes Area is flat with easy visibility 3. From Park Features Yes Area is flat with easy visibility Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 20 Good condition 2. Varieties Pine, Cedar, Redwood, Pepper Site Grading 1. Flat Site Yes With a few high curbs 2. Gentle Slopes No 3. Steep slopes No 4. Creative Possibilities Yes Trees make for an interesting location 5. Difficult Site No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 36 JOLLYMAN PARK - PLAY AREA B 37,355 s.f. - 0.85 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 1 600' from play area Shade 1. Structures No 2. Trees Yes 18 West and south of play area, with sun areas Lighting 1. Night Use No 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard No 2. ADA Compliant Yes 1 Adjacent to ADA entry of play area Utilities 1. Drainage Yes System is evident adjacent to play area 2. Water Yes At drinking fountain 3. Sewer Yes At drinking fountain 4. Electrical Service No System is evident adjacent to play area 5. Irrigation Yes System is evident adjacent to play area Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 49 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 2 ADA ramp from parking lot at path to play area 3. Bicycle Parking No Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 37 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes From parking lot to play area and at perimeter of park 2. Ramps No 3. Stairs Yes At one entry to play area 4. From Parking Yes 250' from parking lot to play area 5. Bus Drop-off No 1875' from park - too far to consider Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts No 2. Basketball Courts Yes 0.5 Adjacent to play area 3. Soccer Field Yes 4 (2) adjacent, (2) 450' from play area 4. Softball Field No 5. Baseball Field Yes 1 865' feet from play area 6. Picnic Area Yes 2 Non-ADA tables 7. Seating Benches Yes 1 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy No Moderate distance from street and activities 2. Protected Yes Buffer space on all sides, lower elevation than path 3. Busy Street No 235' from street 4. Proximity to Features Yes Basketball court and soccer fields 5. Proximity to Neighbor No Landscape buffer Visibility 1. From City Street No Lower elevation that path 2. From Parking Lot No Parts are visible, but not all of play area 3. From Park Features Yes From soccer and basketball Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 18 Good condition, Pears in fair condition 2. Varieties Ornamental Pear, Redwood, Ash Site Grading 1. Flat Site No 2. Gentle Slopes Yes On turf sides 3. Steep slopes Yes On path and one turf side 4. Creative Possibilities Yes Change in elevation would help with slide area 5. Difficult Site No Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study NORTH 0 50'100'200'300' JOLLYMAN PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT NORTH 0 50'100'200'300' D1 D2 E1 A E5 E5 E5 E5G E4SITE A SITE B DUMAS DRIVE DE FOE DRIVE SO U T H S T E L L I N G R O A D JO L L Y M A N D R I V E DE F O E D R I V E BB B B B B CC C C C SITE A (37,624 S.F. / 0.86 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 600’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 27 GOOD HEALTH C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOT D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 49 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 1 480’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2 SOCCER FIELD 2 (2) 690’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 BASEBALL FIELD 1 950’ FROM PLAYGROUND E4 SEATING BENCHES 2 E5 PICNIC TABLES 5 NON ADA TABLES WITH 2 BARBECUES E3 SITE B (37,355 S.F. / 0.85 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 600’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 18 MODERATE TO GOOD HEALTH C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOT D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 49 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 1 E2 SOCCER FIELD 3 (2) 450’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 BASEBALL FIELD 1 865’ FROM PLAYGROUND E5 PICNIC TABLES 2 NON ADA TABLES F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA 1 G STAIRS TO PLAYGROUND 1 E2 E2 F1 32 E5 E4 Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study JOLLYMAN PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS A / E2 / E3 - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM / SOCCER FIELD / BASEBALL FIELD C / D1 / D2 - SECURITY LIGHTING / PARKING STALLS STANDARD AND ADA E2 / E4 - SOCCER FIELD AND SEATING BENCH B - SHADE TREES E1 - BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT E5 - PICNIC AREA C - SECURITY LIGHTING E2 / E4 / E5 - SOCCER FIELD / SEATING BENCHES / PICNIC TABLES E5 - PICNIC AREA 33 SITE A (37,624 S.F. / 0.86 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 600’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 27 GOOD HEALTH C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOT D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 49 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 1 480’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2 SOCCER FIELD 2 (2) 690’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 BASEBALL FIELD 1 950’ FROM PLAYGROUND E4 SEATING BENCHES 2 E5 PICNIC TABLES 5 NON ADA TABLES WITH 2 BARBECUES Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study JOLLYMAN PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS A / E2 / E3 - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM / SOCCER FIELD / BASEBALL FIELD D1 - PARKING STALLS - STANDARD E2 - SOCCER FIELD B - SHADE TREES D2 - PARKING STALLS - ADA E5 / G - PICNIC TABLES / STAIRS TO PLAYGROUND C - SECURITY LIGHTS E1 - BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 34 SITE B (37,355 S.F. / 0.85 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 600’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 18 MODERATE TO GOOD HEALTH C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOT D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 49 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 2 E1 BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT 1 E2 SOCCER FIELD 3 (2) 450’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3 BASEBALL FIELD 1 865’ FROM PLAYGROUND E5 PICNIC TABLES 2 NON ADA TABLES F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA 1 G STAIRS TO PLAYGROUND 1 SITE A (37,624 S.F. / 0.86 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEMQTY.DESCRIPTION AACCESSIBLE RESTROOM1600’ FROM PLAYGROUND BSHADE TREES27GOOD HEALTH CSECURITY LIGHTINGYESFOR PATHS AND PARKING LOT D1PARKING STALLS -STANDARD49 D2PARKING STALLS - ADA2 E1BASKETBALL 1/2 COURT1480’ FROM PLAYGROUND E2SOCCER FIELD2(2) 690’ FROM PLAYGROUND E3BASEBALL FIELD1950’ FROM PLAYGROUND E4SEATING BENCHES2 E5PICNIC TABLES5NON ADA TABLES WITH 2 BARBECUES Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 41 MONTA VISTA PARK 11,060 s.f. - 0.7 ACRE SITE FEATURE YES/NO QUANTITY COMMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Accessible Restroom 1. Unisex 2. No. of Accessible Stalls Yes 2 In building - 150' from play area 3. No. of Male Stalls Yes 1 In building - 150' from play area 4. No. of Female Stalls Yes 2 In building - 150' from play area Shade 1. Structures No 2. Trees Yes 11 In south turf area Lighting 1. Night Use No 2. Security Yes Security lighting of paths and parking lot Drinking Fountain 1. Standard Yes 1 At Building 2. ADA Compliant Yes 1 At building Utilities 1. Drainage Yes System is evident adjacent to possible play area 2. Water Yes System is evident adjacent to possible play area 3. Sewer Yes System is evident adjacent to possible play area 4. Electrical Service Yes System is evident adjacent to possible play area 5. Irrigation Yes System is evident adjacent to possible play area Parking 1. Standard Stalls Yes 44 Adjacent and near possible play area 2. Accessible Stalls Yes 5 3 at parking adjacent to possible play area 3. Bicycle Parking No Not close to possible play area Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 42 Circulation 1. Accessible Paths Yes From adjacent building and parking lot 2. Ramps No 3. Stairs Yes To north walk 4. From Parking Yes Runs along east side of possible play area 5. Bus Stop No 2,015 from play area, too far to consider Adjacent Facilities 1. Tennis Courts Yes 2 2. Basketball Courts No 3. Soccer Field No 4. Softball Field No 2 Across parking lot, too far to consider 5. Baseball Field No 6. Picnic Area Yes 3 Close to Voss Avenue 7. Seating Benches Yes 1 SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY COMMENTS SITING CONDITIONS - CONTINUED Acoustics 1. Noisy No Residential neighborhood 2. Protected No South side is adjacent to Voss Avenue 3. Busy Street Yes Residential street 4. Proximity to Features No Sport fields are far away, across parking lot 5. Proximity to Neighbors Yes Across Voss Avenue Visibility 1. From City Street Yes South side is adjacent to Voss Avenue 2. From Parking Lot Yes East side adjacent to parking lot 3. From Park Features No Mature Trees 1. Condition Yes 11 Good condition 2. Varieties Redwood Site Grading 1. Flat Site Yes North half is flat 2. Gentle Slopes Yes South half has a gentle slope 3. Steep slopes No 4. Creative Possibilities No 5. Difficult Site Yes Too small for this use Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study MONTA VISTA PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT NORTH 0 50'100'200'300' 37 A / F1 E3 E2 E2 SITE SO U T H F O O T H I L L R O A D WOODRIDGE COURT VOSS AVENUE MC K L I N T O C K L A N E BB C C C D1 E1 E1 D1 D1 D2 D2 D2 SITE (30,820 S.F. / 0.7 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 150’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 11 C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS -STANDARD 44 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 5 E1 SOFTBALL FIELD 2 ACROSS PARKING LOT E2 PICNIC AREAS 3 CLOSE TO VOSS AVENUE E3 SEATING BENCH 1 F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN -ADA 1 AT BUILDING E2 Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study MONTA VISTA PARK - EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS 38 A - ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM D1 / D2 - PARKING STALLS - STANDARD AND ADA E2 - PICNIC AREAS B - SHADE TREES D1 / D2 - PARKING STALLS - STANDARD / ADA E3 - SEATING BENCH C - SECURITY LIGHTING E1 - SOFTBALL FIELD F1 - DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA SITE (30,820 S.F. / 0.7 ACRE) PROJECT DATA ITEM QTY.DESCRIPTION A ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 1 150’ FROM PLAYGROUND B SHADE TREES 11 C SECURITY LIGHTING YES FOR PATHS AND PARKING LOTS D1 PARKING STALLS - STANDARD 44 D2 PARKING STALLS - ADA 5 E1 SOFTBALL FIELD 2 ACROSS PARKING LOT E2 PICNIC AREAS 3 CLOSE TO VOSS AVENUE E3 SEATING BENCH 1 F1 DRINKING FOUNTAIN - ADA 1 AT BUILDING Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 45 SITE COMPARISONS AND RANKING Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 46 SITE COMPARISONS AND RANKINGS In the following Park Site Comparison Matrix, each Infrastructure Needs and Siting Conditions criteria has been scored at a level between 0 to 5. 1. A scoring of 0 represents a non-score, due to the item or condition not existing on site. 2. A Ranking score of 1 represents the lowest score, due to the item or condition being of the lowest value to the project. 3. A Ranking score of 5 represents the highest score, due to the item or condition being of the highest value to the project. 4. Weighting scorings of 20, 10, 5, 2 and 1 represent importance levels deemed as Very High, High, Medium, Low, and Very Low. SCORING AND WEIGHTING Weighting Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Restroom Building ADA Compliant 10 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 Close to Playground 10 4 40 5 50 5 50 2 20 2 20 4 40 Shade Shade Structures at Playground 2 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mature Trees at Playground 5 3 15 4 20 5 25 5 25 4 20 2 10 Lighting Lighting from Parking Lot to Play Area 2 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Drinking Fountain ADA Compliant Fountain near Playground 2 3 6 5 10 5 10 2 4 5 10 2 4 Utilities Drainage near Playground 2 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 3 6 Domestic Water near Playground 2 2 4 5 10 5 10 2 4 5 10 4 8 Sanitary Sewer near Playground 5 2 10 5 25 5 25 2 10 2 10 4 20 Electrical Service near Playground 2 5 10 5 10 5 10 1 2 1 2 4 8 Irrigation Service near Playground 2 5 10 5 10 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 Parking Standard Stalls 10 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 Accessible Stalls 6-8 Stalls 10 3 30 3 30 4 40 2 20 2 20 4 40 Bicycle Parking near Playground 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 Availability of existing parking 20 1 20 1 20 2 40 3 60 3 60 4 80 Circulation Accessible Paths throughout Park 5 5 25 4 20 5 25 5 25 5 25 3 15 Accessible Ramp and Path from Parking 5 4 20 4 20 5 25 5 25 5 25 5 25 Public Bus Stop near Park 5 5 25 5 25 5 25 3 15 3 15 2 10 Adjacent Facilities Basketball Courts too close to Playground 5 5 25 5 25 1 5 5 25 1 5 5 25 Soccer Field close to Playground 10 5 50 5 50 3 30 3 30 3 30 5 50 Softball Field close to Playground 10 3 30 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 Picnic Tables close to Playground 1 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 Benches close to Playground 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 Frequency & scale of site use adj. to play area 10 1 10 1 10 2 20 4 40 5 50 4 40 MONTA VISTAPARK SITES MEMORIAL AREA - A MEMORIAL AREA - B CREEKSIDE JOLLYMAN AREA - A JOLLYMAN AREA - B INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 47 For this study, 0.6 acres has been established as the minimum size acceptable as a viable area for an all-inclusive playground, although 0.8 acres or more is recommended. SCORING AND WEIGHTING Weighting Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Score 1-5 WEIGHTED SCORE Acoustics Noise from Busy Streets 5 5 25 4 20 4 20 2 10 4 20 3 15 Noise from Sport Features 10 3 30 5 50 3 30 3 30 4 40 4 40 Noise from Neighboring Properties 2 5 10 4 8 5 10 3 6 4 8 3 6 Visibility Surveillance from City Street 10 0 0 2 20 0 0 5 50 0 0 5 50 Surveillance from Parking Lot 10 2 20 0 0 2 20 4 40 3 30 5 50 Surveillance from Park Features 5 5 25 5 25 2 10 5 25 5 25 2 10 Visibility from/proximity to Neighbors 5 5 25 5 25 4 20 5 25 4 20 0 0 Mature Trees Condition of Tree Health 5 5 25 2 10 5 25 5 25 3 15 3 15 Site Grading Flat Site without Obstructions 2 5 10 3 6 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 Gentle Slopes that Add Interest 2 3 6 4 8 0 0 2 4 5 10 1 2 Slopes that Help Create Slide Area 2 4 8 3 6 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 Space Available for Playground Area 1-.5ac. (0), .6ac. (2), .7ac. (4), 8 - 1.0ac. (5)20 5 100 4 80 2 40 4 80 5 100 2 40 Configuration & flexibility of avail. space 10 5 50 5 50 4 40 5 50 5 50 1 10 Site Location Central Location for Community 10 5 50 5 50 3 30 4 40 4 40 1 10 100 839 121 874 126 793 100 886 102 863 99 809 4 4 2 2 1 6 4 1 3 3 5 5 SITING CONDITIONS RANKING SCORE TOTALS PARK SITES MEMORIAL AREA - A MEMORIAL AREA - B CREEKSIDE JOLLYMAN AREA - A JOLLYMAN AREA - B MONTA VISTA Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 48 PARK SITE RANKINGS The four park sites that were walk and reviewed are all unique, with their existing conditions, features and support facilities. Each of these items plays an important part in the viability of the location within the existing park and the development of an all-inclusive playground. Two of the parks, Memorial Park and Jollyman Park each have two areas that were considered as having merit for a playground. All the park sites have adequate parking with ADA accessibility stalls, at times when the parking is not in demand for other site uses and have appropriate ramps and access to the play areas. As identified in the scoring matrix above, parking is already in demand at each site to varying degrees before the addition of an inclusive playground. Each site also has an ADA compliant restroom building that is either adjacent to or within reasonable walking distance to the play area. The ranking of the park playground areas was based on the scoring of positive attributes verses negative attributes. Some of these items are already on site and won’t need to be a part of the construction budget. Others make the area more desirable from a design perspective. The park sites have been ranked 1 through 6, based on their comparison scoring. We also offer subjective comments based on our experience of what makes a good candidate for developing an all-inclusive playground. The following sites are ranked in order based on the Site Comparison criteria. RANKED NO. 1: JOLLYMAN PARK – AREA A Area A of Jollyman Park is approximately 0.86 acres and is located just east of Stelling Road, in the northwest corner of the park. This is a very good site area for a playground. The following site criteria facilitated this park area to be ranked highly: 1. There are many existing very large shade trees that help create a nice protected area. 2. Parking is close and accessible by existing paths. 3. There is accessible circulation to all parts of the park. 4. The closest adjacent sport facility is a soccer field. The noise would be a moderate problem that could disturb sensitive users. 5. Some constraints are that the playground area is close to Stelling Road and the north property line, which could pose noise issues for sensitive users. 6. There is a restroom building, which is considered beyond the desirable walking distance. RANKED NO. 2: MEMORIAL PARK – AREA B Area B is located at the south end of the pond and south of the amphitheater mound. This area is 1.0 acres in size and encompasses the existing play area and the turf at the east, to the asphalt path. The following site criteria facilitated this park area’s ranking: 1. There is a restroom building across the asphalt path from the playground area. Therefore, less utility and architectural work are needed. 2. Existing drinking fountains are at the existing restroom and across the asphalt. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 49 3. Parking exists, although not immediately adjacent to the playground, as at some other sites, and the closest parking at the Senior Center is a permit parking area for senior center members. Parking availability is frequently low. During festivals the nearby parking areas are not available to the public, and visitors park at De Anza College. 4. There is accessible circulation to all parts of the park. 5. There are no adjacent sports or noisy features to disturb sensitive users. The park’s tennis courts and softball field are reasonably distant. 6. The site has a good buffer distance from residential, businesses and noisy streets. However, larger festivals occur at this site regularly as well as concerts, performances, summer camps, group picnics and other major activities. 7. The site area has elevation changes that will work in the favor of slide areas. 8. A negative that stands out is the lack of visibility for surveillance from Stevens Creek Boulevard and parking lots. Intangible aspects of this site include its location at the City’s largest, busiest park and its proximity to other desirable facilities and amenities. This setting can be desirable for those reasons. The location can also be challenging due to its uses for festivals, performances and other large activities. Parking is restricted during more than two dozen special events, mostly on weekends, and is at or over capacity on the west side of the site (in the area that serves the senior center) year- round on weekdays. Events also pose a noise issue for visitors that are sensitive to louder noise. RANKED NO. 3: JOLLYMAN PARK – AREA B Area B at Jollyman Park is an approximately 0.85 acre area located at the south side of the west side of the park. The following site criteria facilitated this park area’s ranking: 1. Parking is close and accessible by existing paths. 2. There is accessible circulation to all parts of the park. 3. The closest adjacent sport facility is a half-court basketball court that would probably be relocated to create more playground area, and the soccer field to the north. The baseball field at the east end of the site is at a suitably distant. 4. There is an existing berm that could be adjusted to help separate the uses, so this should help alleviate the problem of noisy activities that could disturb sensitive users. 5. The site has a landscape buffer and is a good distance from residential, and noisy streets. 6. The site area has elevation changes around three sides that could work in the favor observation and slide areas that are important to all-inclusive playgrounds. 7. The negative items include lack of certain nearby utilities for added improvements, and the lack of visibility for surveillance from the parking lot and South Stelling Road. 8. There is a restroom building, which is considered beyond the desirable walking distance. 9. There are existing large shade trees that are in questionable health and should be assessed by an Arborist. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 50 RANKED NO. 4: MEMORIAL PARK – AREA A Area A is located within the largest concrete pond area, at the northwest end of the pond system. The available area is 0.80 acres, or more, of wide open space, depending on other future desired features at Memorial Park. Development of this area will not take away from existing “people use” areas, as will be the case in other parks. The following site criteria facilitated this park area’s ranking: 1. There is a restroom building within a reasonable walking distance. 2. There are three existing large shade trees. 3. Parking is close and accessible from existing paths. 4. There is accessible circulation to all parts of the park. 5. The closest adjacent sport facility is the softball field. The field should not pose a noise problem that would disturb sensitive users. 6. The site has a good distance from residential, businesses and noisy streets. 7. The site area has elevation changes around the west and northern sides that could work for raised observation and slide areas. 8. Negative items include no drinking fountain or nearby water service, and the area can be seen from the west parking lot but has a lack of visibility for surveillance from streets. 9. As noted below, parking is an ongoing issue. The closest parking at the Senior Center is a permit parking area. Festivals and other activities dramatically affect parking availability and proximity. 9. Compatibility with other existing site uses is another concern. Large festivals occur at Memorial Park as well as concerts, performances, summer camps, group picnics and other major activities. Intangible aspects of this site include its location at the City’s largest, busiest park and its proximity to other desirable facilities and amenities. This setting can be desirable for those reasons. The location can also be challenging due to its uses for festivals, performances and other large activities. Parking is restricted during special events at Memorial Park, more than 2 dozen, mostly weekends, and is at or over capacity on the west side of the site year (in the area that serves the senior center) year-round weekdays. Events also pose a noise issue for visitors that are sensitive to louder noise. RANKED NO. 5: MONTA VISTA PARK Monta Vista Park is a 0.70 acre area made up of two front lawn panels east of the existing preschool and up to the sidewalk, at the parking lot to the east, as well as the south edge of the site along Voss Avenue. The following site criteria facilitated this park area’s ranking: 1. There are no shade trees that would affect the playground. 2. The area is not buffered or protected from the impacts of Voss Avenue or the impacts the playground would have on the neighbors across Voss Avenue. 3. The playground area backs up to the sidewalk of the parking lot and Voss Avenue. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 51 4. The site is basically flat and does not have a good configuration to enable ADA compliant ramping to a slide area. 5. A critical negative of this site is the limited available space and an undesirable configuration. RANKED NO. 6: CREEKSIDE PARK Creekside Park potentially has a 0.65 acre area available for the playground. The area is located to the west of the park’s existing recreation/restroom building. The existing playground and picnic area is situated among many shade trees and has views of an adjacent creek. Even though the recreation/restroom building is an asset to the play area, it blocks much of the view from the parking lot. The following site criteria facilitated this park area’s ranking: 1. An ADA compliant restroom at the adjacent building and shade structure. 2. Accessible drinking fountains at the restroom building. 3. Minimal need for use of utilities, due to adequate utility infrastructure currently in place. 4. Accessible circulation to all areas of the park. 5. The site has a good buffer distance from residential, businesses and noisy streets. 6. The only sport feature that would be in conflict would be the half-court basketball court to the south of the play area. 7. The site constraints include several lower branching shade trees, and the lack of natural elevation change. 8. The site is busy with soccer games and tournaments, Friday Farmers Market, summer camps and other uses. Parking demand regularly meets or exceeds current capacity. Busy soccer, camp and Farmers Market days could be a level of site use that is incompatible with the quieter setting which is desirable for playground users with sensory issues. A non-quantified, intangible aspect of this site is its location along the bank of Calabazas Creek. There may be opportunities for wildlife viewing and nature interpretation that would be compatible with inclusive play. The Creekside Park playground area already gets visited by multiple schools that are within walking distance to the park. The Creekside Park building is highly used for multiple year-round classes & summer camps. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 52 CONCLUSIONS Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 53 CONCLUSIONS Criteria presented in the matrices above provide a framework for considering desirability of several Cupertino park sites for potential addition of an all-inclusive play area. The criteria and weightings are intended to assist the site consideration in an organized fashion. They are also intended to invite consideration of a variety of site conditions, including strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and constraints. Based solely on the criteria and on the suggested weightings, the sites’ scoring can be interpreted as falling into three broad categories, a top tier a middle tier, and a bottom tier. The top tier would include sites scoring higher than 850 points and comprises the 3 highest ranking sites: Jollyman - Area A, Memorial Park - Area B, and Jollyman - Area B. Memorial Park - Area A ranked no. 4 would fall into the middle tier. The two lowest ranked sites, Monta Vista Park and Creekside Park would fall into the lowest tier. The scorings and rankings communicate a useful approach and a useful screening. However, the project team recommends further weighing several key considerations as a further screening. The key considerations include: 1. Frequency and intensity of existing site use Some users of all-inclusive play areas are sensitive to noise and movement. Dense, crowded or hectic adjacent activity is undesirable. A best choice site would be one that is reasonably calm adjacent to the play area as much as possible. Memorial Park is the city’s busiest park and hosts all the city’s largest festivals. The Memorial Park festival use area borders both of its potential play area sites. Special events, concerts, performances and many of the festival events also involve use of the amphitheater which is adjacent to the potential play area sites. Summer camps, group picnics and other activities occur regularly at the site as well. The project team believes that it will be very difficult to mitigate the effects of these high activity uses on sensitive play area visitors, and that an inclusive play area at this location may frequently be unwelcoming for its intended users. Unless these impacts can be addressed, Memorial Park for this reason could warrant being excluded from top tier consideration. Creekside Park is subject to regular high use. Soccer league play/tournaments and weekly Farmers Market are regular occurrences at this site, as are building rentals, summer camps and other programs. Although the activity is not as high as at Memorial Park, it is still enough that it may adversely affect inclusive play area users. At any of the potential sites, park and sport uses occurring adjacent to the proposed playground area should be reviewed for their levels of interference with the playground users’ special needs. Inclusive playgrounds are frequented by users of all ages and abilities, both physical and mental. Therefore, the playground users would benefit from a neutral zone between their fenced area and the other park use areas where sound can dissipate, views might be filtered, and balls and other equipment would be able to slow down and be retrieved before they pose a threat. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 54 2. Amount of available space and configuration The project team recommends that sites offering 0.8 acres of space or greater be prioritized for consideration, and that the configuration be suitable (i.e. a unified area that allows guardians to easily view those in their care). Based on this recommendation, Monta Vista Park and Creekside Park would be considered lower quality sites due to amount of space available, and in the case of Monta Vista Park, an undesirable configuration. 3. Availability of parking Each of the potential sites has two dozen or more parking spaces nearby. However, each of the park sites already host other uses and experience associated parking demands. The project team suggests that parking availability be actively considered in site selection. If existing parking cannot serve visitors for an added inclusive play area, then likely either a parking lot expansion would be needed (with the sacrifice of green space), a costly parking structure, or some other solution. At Memorial Park, the nearest parking is west of the potential play area vicinity. The south and central portions of the parking lot are permit parking for Senior Center members. The north portion is public. The lots are frequently near or at capacity most days of the week. Festivals also stage from this area. The availability of parking in the public parking section is low and cannot be counted on to serve play area visitors. Similarly, Creekside Park’s parking lot is at or beyond capacity during high activity uses of the site. A formal parking study has not been conducted and is not in the scope of this study. However, parking challenges already exist at these sites. Adding a new popular element such as an inclusive play area would involve addressing added parking demand. If the criteria above are prioritized, then Jollyman Park’s ranking is unaffected. Memorial Park Area B would move to a tier below top tier. Creekside Park and Monta Vista Park would remain in the current lower tier. Several other factors are important as well, and are included in the ranking matrix, but most have broader means of addressing. A few are discussed in more detail below. A. Effects of an all-inclusive playground on exiting park uses Each of the parks have existing established uses. The introduction of a new playground will have an impact on these uses and the people that enjoy the activities. The higher demand placed on the park by more users, will affect the existing facilities which may include the reduction of open space around sports fields, additional users utilizing the parking lot and pathway circulation, and higher use of the existing restrooms. These impacts can be minimized by thoughtful placement of the playground with respect to these existing uses. Some might include a buffer zone between the playground and other activities, or increased parking and pathway circulation to accommodate the increased demand. Some of the park sites have restroom buildings and drinking fountains that are close to other activities and are a considerable distance from the playground area. In the programming of the play area, the addition of a second restroom building may need to be considered. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 55 B. Effects of an inclusive playground on surrounding land uses All-inclusive playgrounds attract higher than average numbers of users and generate higher noise levels and traffic circulation than standard playgrounds. These playgrounds can have an impact on the surrounding land uses if the area is not planned properly. Therefore, it is suggested to choose a site with an available buffer distance, or one that provides the ability to create methods of visual screening and sound dissipation that can help protect neighbors. C. Effects on the playground users from surrounding land uses outside the park As with the adjacent park uses, the land uses that are close to the playground may affect sensitive users. The impacts of noise and movement from adjacent properties and busy streets can have impacts on the users of the playground, as do the park use activities. These impacts are typically a lesser degree due to fences along property lines and the usually greater distance between busy streets and play features. The orientation of raised structures and landscape areas, as well as the playground paths and play features can be very beneficial in minimizing potential impacts. D. Availability of infrastructure All-inclusive playgrounds benefit from restroom buildings that are adjacent to, or a short walking distance from, playground entrances. Such proximity is not always feasible, and in such cases the possibility of adding a restroom building needs to be considered. Also important is the availability of drainage, domestic water, sanitary sewer, electrical and irrigation utilities. CONCLUSIONS All four sites evaluated in this study could potentially host an inclusive play area. Based on the park site visits, feature data review, ranking results, and the overall findings, the consultant team invites the city to provide direction regarding moving forward with concepts for all-inclusive playgrounds at two locations. Based on the draft criteria and weightings in the matrix alone, top-ranked sites include Jollyman Park – Area A, Memorial Park – Area B, and Jollyman Park – Area B. Memorial Park – Area A ranked in the mid-range. Monta Vista Park and Creekside Park ranked the lowest. With further weighing of key considerations noted above, both sites at Jollyman Park continue to have strong merit and appear suitable. Memorial Park has some clear advantages but some significant potential disadvantages that could affect consideration of this park as a desirable site. Creekside Park and Monta Vista Park each have both opportunities and constraints that would involve use of thoughtful design solutions. However, inclusion of any additional desired criteria, different weightings, intangible/non-quantified factors or other considerations could affect which sites and locations are deemed most desirable. The consultant team looks forward to receiving feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the community on the study results to date. Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study Parks & Recreation All Inclusive Playground Feasibility Study | 56 CONCEPTUAL PLANS THESE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT TASK PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES THESE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT TASK