This report is intended to study the capacity of the City's public park system, and the extent to which that capacity is met or exceeded. For the purposes of this study, park capacity is defined as the amount of use our parks are receiving as compared to the amount of use they are capable of sustaining. This report completes Phase I of the study, designed to determine the extent to which the park system is used. Phase II, if necessary, would seek solutions to identified capacity problems.

The report identifies three tools with which staff can measure whether the City's parks are taxed beyond capacity. They are the "population ratio method" (number of open space acres provided per 1,000 population); park conditions; and park user perspectives. Despite the fact that the City can always use more open space to good advantage, and that park capacity is an issue which will require careful monitoring in future years as populations grow, the general findings of Phase I are that by all accounts, Sunnyvale is endowed with a healthy amount of open space which, although well-used by the public, is not abused or taxed beyond capacity.

Despite overwhelming evidence in support of this claim, the report also suggests that there are specific components of specific sites which are periodically taxed beyond capacity, most notably group picnic sites and multi-purpose athletic fields associated with some of the City's larger parks. This comes as no surprise, however, as parks are not designed to accommodate the heaviest use they are expected to receive, particularly if that heavy use is anticipated to last for short periods of time.

The report also acknowledges public interest in several issues unrelated to staff's definition of "park capacity", including issues surrounding who gets to use--or who has priority use of--the City's parks; enforcement of existing park rules and regulations; "good neighbor" policies; issues surrounding neighborhood parking and traffic; and setting park use limits below the level of capacity.

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

In order to gain as much stakeholder involvement in the policy-making process as practical, staff pursued the following avenues of public contact:

• Publication and posting of the Study Issue in City's Quarterly Report, inviting all residents to provide input in a variety of forms.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #1, 1/27/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #2, 3/24/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #3, 5/12/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #4, 9/22/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #5, 12/8/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #6, 12/21/99.
• Park user surveys conducted by Applied Survey Research, a professional consulting firm.
• Several meetings with and letters to residents representing the Las Palmas Park neighborhood.
• July 1, 1999, and January 26, 2000, letters to those interested in park capacity issues (please see Attachment A – Letters to Those Interested in Park Capacity Issues).
• Notification of study in Sunnyvale Sun, July 28, 1999, (please see Attachment B – Notification of Study in Sunnyvale Sun, July 28, 1999).
• Publication and posting of Council Study Session, 9/28/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Public Hearing, 2/9/00.
• Publication and posting of Council Agenda/Public Hearing, 3/28/00.
• This report is available at the Library, Community Center, Corporation Yard, Parks and Recreation Administrative Office, and on the City's Internet home page.

The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that Council accept staff’s assessment that Sunnyvale’s public parks are not, in general, taxed beyond capacity, according to the park capacity definition contained in this report. Further, direct staff to assess each neighborhood park individually, to determine if each complies with the intent of the Open Space Sub-Element to meet the needs of each of the neighborhood planning areas (staff has since attempted to incorporate more information to that effect in this report). Encourage staff to continue working with park users and Sunnyvale residents living adjacent to public parks to resolve "good neighbor" issues through operational and administrative measures where possible.

Staff recommends that Council adopt the conclusions presented in this report, accept that Sunnyvale's public parks are not, in general, taxed beyond capacity, and direct staff to take no further action to mitigate park capacity issues. Encourage staff to continue working with park users and Sunnyvale residents living adjacent to public parks to resolve "good neighbor" issues through operational and administrative means.

Parks and Recreation Commissioner Pete Contostavlos raised this as a potential Study Issue based on personal experience with Las Palmas Park, which is heavily used at times, and on the input of other residents living within the Las Palmas neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Commission gave this issue its highest priority in terms of possible studies for Calendar Year 1999.

City Council agreed with the Commission, awarding this issue its highest priority for study by the Parks and Recreation Department in 1999. Subsequently, staff prepared a two-year work plan (please see Attachment C – Two-Year Work Plan) in order to complete the study. Phase I (1999) was intended to determine the extent to which the public parks system is used, with Phase II devoted to finding solutions to any specific capacity problems identified during Phase I. This report represents the conclusion of Phase I.

Relevant City policy includes the following:

Maintain a system of parks that assures all residents, workers and visitors access to recreational opportunities by providing neighborhood parks, athletic/play fields and special use facilities (Open Space Sub-Element), and

Action Statement D.1.c.: Implement systems for monitoring and responding to changes in social conditions, legislation, and other issues impacting service delivery (Recreation Sub-Element)

This is the key question. Yet finding answers requires studying the City's parks on a number of different levels. Staff began this study understanding that a simple answer to reflect the condition of the City's entire park system might not be possible. This was an acknowledgment of various factors, including the fact that different parks receive different amounts of use; that use patterns are heavily influenced by different times of the day, week, and year (i.e., a park might only be taxed beyond capacity for one or two hours during a particular time of the week and at a particular time of year); and that various components within the same park might sustain very different levels of use.

There are no strict objective criteria with which to measure park capacity. Despite the fact that determining capacity is easier for certain park components than it is for others, one can not say with any conviction that X number of people constitutes the exact and unchanging capacity of a particular site. There are, however, three measures which staff can use to gauge whether or not the City's parks are taxed beyond capacity. A brief discussion of each follows:

1. Acreage/Population Standards (Population Ratio Method).

The effectiveness of community services can be measured by the standards judged by professional organizations to be the acceptable minimums. Ideally, national standards would apply to communities of all sizes. However, no precise formula exists to produce a standard that can be applied across-the-board in all communities. Therefore, it is often difficult or inadvisable to apply national standards without question to specific locales. The uniqueness of differing geographical, cultural, climatic, and socioeconomic characteristics, makes it imperative that every community develop its own standards for recreation, parks, and open space.

Nonetheless, the population ratio method remains the best known and most widely used method for determining park and recreation space standards. While the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) cautions against using it in an absolute sense (for reasons detailed above) it also considers this to be the most applicable and defensible standard with which to measure the adequacy of park and recreation resources in a particular community. This method has been developed through observation, evaluation, and experience over time, and according to the NRPA, "park lands acquired through application of this standard have been judged by professionals and accepted by citizens as adequate."

The primary attractions of the population ratio method are:

• its simplicity;
• the basic logic that recreation must be related to people; and;
• the ease with which it can be updated during periods of urban growth.

2. Park Conditions.

The physical condition of a park site is one of the best indicators of its ability to sustain the amount of use it receives. This is particularly true in areas such as Sunnyvale, where the financial resources are provided to mitigate the effects of normal wear and tear. The physical condition of a park speaks volumes in terms of the type of use it is receiving, and its ability to withstand that use. If a park is taxed beyond capacity, or is abused by its users, that fact is generally apparent in physical signs quite noticeable to park staff and the general public. This measure also has the obvious advantage over national standards of being very pertinent to specific locations and circumstances.

This measure obviously requires a determination of the condition of a City's parks. The City of Sunnyvale has created a very sophisticated and comprehensive park evaluation process based on "quality standards" to determine the condition of its sites -- a process considered by industry professionals to be an example of "best practices" and referenced in the publication titled "Municipal Benchmarks" (publisher/Sage, 96) (please see Attachment D – Sunnyvale Parks’ Quality Standards Manual Table of Contents and Introduction).

3. Park User Perspectives.

The third measure on which staff can rely to help assess park capacity is the perspective of park users. While various park visitors will have different thresholds in mind when they assess park capacity, the general, collective opinion of park users as to the crowdedness of a facility remains a valuable indicator. With this in mind, staff utilized a professional consulting firm to survey park "visitors" perspectives of park capacity during peak season summer months. A total of 848 surveys were taken with a confidence rating of +-3% in statistical results: 53% of those surveyed were Sunnyvale residents, and of those residents, 56% indicated they lived within ½ mile of the park at which they were surveyed.

Using the measures described above to evaluate the capacity of Sunnyvale's parks, staff finds the following:

In general, and by all accounts, this City is blessed with a healthy amount of open space which, although well-used by the public, is not abused or taxed beyond capacity. This general finding is supported by an overall assessment of each of the three capacity measures discussed above.

1. Acres Per Person Standards.

As indicated earlier in this report, the NRPA considers the population ratio method to be one of the most viable measures for determining the adequacy of a community's open space resources. To this end, and supporting the fact that this is a viable measure of community service, the City has long maintained as one of its Community Condition Indicators the number of acres of open space provided per 1,000 population.

The NRPA's national standards and guidelines recommend an open space system be composed of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. The City’s Open Space Sub-Element currently notes approximately 7 acres per 1,000 population (please see Attachment E – Excerpt from Open Space Sub-Element) which is within the range advocated by NRPA. While this would appear to be on the lower end of the acceptable scale, it is nonetheless considered acceptable, and a reminder that this is a national standard that must be adapted to local situations is important. As the City's open space Sub-Element indicates, "unlike many areas of the country, expanses of open space within developed urban areas (like Sunnyvale) is less common; large expanses of open space are preserved largely in hillside communities and adjacent areas. This is the case in Santa Clara County with thousands of acres preserved by the County and Mid-peninsula Open Space District."

In addition, the NRPA cautions that "planners should avoid setting a high standard. A high standard, with an excessive inventory of highly developed and maintained, but lightly used, park areas, could, in today's economy, raise some difficult questions and concerns in the minds of public officials."

Despite this positive finding, staff believes this is an area the City will need to monitor carefully into future years. As the Open Space Sub-Element suggests, "Increasing population and changing demographic characteristics will continue to impose increasing demands on urban open space, particularly parks and recreation facilities." In fact, a seemingly unlimited demand for new and different uses of a finite amount of open space is one of the greatest challenges facing the park and recreation profession today. The fact that the application of national standards to Sunnyvale's specific condition supports staff's finding that the City's parks are not taxed beyond capacity in no way suggests that additional open space would not be warranted or desirable. Clearly the addition of mini-parks in specific areas not well-served by the existing park system (such as the recent addition of Victory Village Park) can help meet needs not identified by City-wide averages, and the fact that Sunnyvale rests on the lower end of the desired acres per 1,000 population scale leaves room for improvement where possible.

The Parks and Recreation Commission requested that staff further review this tool to determine the adequacy and/or ability of the City’s neighborhood parks to serve each of the City’s nine planning areas. The NRPA’s national standards and guidelines recommend an open space system include anywhere from one to two acres per thousand population of neighborhood parks. All the caveats and cautions which staff expressed earlier in this report regarding national standards apply in this case as well, but again, based on these criteria the City’s neighborhood parks should be adequate to serve the City’s needs (please see Attachment F - Neighborhood Park Acres Per Thousand Population By Planning Area).

It is important to note that the City does fail to meet the NRPA’s recommended standards relative to community parks (25 + acres in size, providing 5-8 acres per 1,000 population), despite the fact that it makes up for the loss in terms of overall acres per thousand population through the addition of school grounds and special use facilities. While these latter sites help the City to achieve an acceptable amount of open space based on overall acreage to population criteria, they cannot serve the same purpose as community parks, and staff believes lack of community open space is the real root of many of the public’s concerns regarding park use captured later in this report.

2. Park Conditions.

The City enjoys a well-deserved reputation for excellence with regard to the maintenance of its public park system. This is continually underscored and reinforced by three separate sources:

• Formal evaluations of park conditions based on objective criteria are conducted three times annually, the results of which reflect exceptional park conditions and are summarized within the City’s Outcome Measures, (please see Attachment G – Fiscal 1998/99 Program Performance Report and Results for Selected Sites).
• Satisfaction Surveys completed by park users annually, the results of which show an overall satisfaction rating of 90+% with all three park components: landscaping, recreational facilities and support facilities (please see Attachment H – Customer Satisfaction Survey Totals and Results for Selected Sites.
• Benchmarking trips to other communities, as well as the anecdotal reactions of visitors to Sunnyvale who compare this City's park system favorably with those of other communities.

3. Park User Perspectives.

In addition to the on-going collection of park user perspectives noted above (i.e., regarding park conditions), and as a part of this particular study, staff engaged the services of Applied Survey Research, a professional consulting firm, to gather the opinions of park users specifically with regard to whether or not they felt the parks were overcrowded or difficult to access: 53% of those surveyed were Sunnyvale residents, and of those residents, 56% indicated they lived within ½ mile of the park at which they were surveyed. The results of those surveys indicate that :

• The vast majority of park users (nearly 90%) feel the number of people using the City's parks is just right. This is particularly noteworthy, given that the surveys were taken during the summer's peak season, when park use was at its heaviest;
• Over half those interviewed suggested that they enjoyed the parks most when there were not a lot of, or "too many", other people around; yet
• Less than 10% of those surveyed felt there were too many visitors to the parks; and
• Eighty per cent of park users indicated they had no trouble in accessing recreational facilities over the past twelve months. While approximately twenty per cent indicated they did have trouble, many of the City's park facilities are available on a "first-come, first-served" basis, and it is not uncommon or unusual for those using facilities such as tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables or sports fields to have to wait for others to finish.

Please see Attachment I for a more detailed review of the consultants survey methodology and findings.

Despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting that in general the City's parks are not overused or abused, there are specific components of specific sites which are periodically taxed beyond capacity, most notably group picnic sites and multi-purpose athletic fields associated with some of the City's larger parks (please see Attachment J - Sunnyvale Open Spaces with Group Picnic Sites and/or Multi-Purpose Sports Sites).

This is not surprising, however, as parks are not designed to accommodate the heaviest use they are expected to receive, particularly if that heavy use is anticipated to last for short periods of time. That is, a certain amount of use above designed capacity is to be expected. Near the close of each Little League season, for example, it is not uncommon for a neighborhood park to host regional tournament play-offs involving numerous teams and hundreds of spectators over the course of a weekend. (Again, staff believes this is largely symptomatic of the City’s lack of community open space.)

Phase II was originally intended to span the course of Calendar Year 2000, and to develop solutions to capacity problems identified by this report. However, if Council agrees with the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report, Phase II will not be necessary.

If, on the other hand, Council determines that there are specific capacity issues worth resolving, there are essentially five methods of dealing with them. Each has to do with affecting park use patterns, and a brief description follows:

Additional Open Space. One of the shortcomings of our existing open space system is the lack of community parks designed to serve the entire population. Such open spaces are generally larger in size than the average neighborhood park, and are designed to facilitate larger group activities. As a result, Sunnyvale's neighborhood parks serve in many respects as its community parks as well, which has resulted in some of the "who gets to use the parks" issues discussed later and in more detail in this report. Unfortunately, this City is essentially "built-out", and there is little promise of additional large open spaces being developed. Sunnyvale Baylands Park does provide open spaces for large gatherings even on a regional basis, but it cannot serve all of the City's community park needs.

Park Design. The primary, and generally most effective, means by which park use within an established site is controlled is park design. This is because most park components are by their design self-limiting. For example, a tennis court will only support so many players, and a parking lot so many cars.

Park Use Policies. Another means of controlling park capacity is through park use policies. That is, park rules and regulations contained within the City Municipal Code, and as drafted administratively by the Director of Parks and Recreation. The establishment of new park policies can have an impact on park use. However, there is typically a limit to their effectiveness due to a certain percentage of visitors' lack of awareness (see "education" below) and/or willingness to ignore them (see "enforcement" below).

Education of Park Visitors. Another step in resolving capacity problems is to increase park users' awareness of related park rules and regulations. This helps to maximize the effectiveness of park rules and regulations by minimizing the number of park visitors who do not comply with them.

Enforcement of Park Rules and Regulations. A last resort involves increased enforcement of park rules and regulations designed to prevent capacity problems.

During the course of this Study, staff gathered a good deal of public input regarding separate, albeit somewhat related, issues. Due to the public's interest, staff identifies those issues below, as well as their possible ties to this study.

• Issues surrounding who gets to use--or who has priority use of--the City's public parks (resident vs. non-resident; immediate neighborhood vs. City-wide use; resident versus business).

• A resident who finds that the tennis courts at his neighborhood park are continually filled on Saturday mornings during the times he wishes to play. And who subsequently finds that the players using those courts are non-residents. He would like to restrict non-residents from playing on Sunnyvale’s park courts.

• The near-neighbor of a local school field who is concerned that the site is so well-used after school hours by youth soccer players from outside the neighborhood (residents, yes, but not from her neighborhood) that local adults find it difficult to walk the perimeter pathway or otherwise enjoy the open space. She feels the site should be available during most evenings for neighborhood adults to enjoy, and would like the City to stop permitting youth activities so often at this site.

• Residents who note that various private agencies (e.g., Northwest YMCA) are fairly regular visitors to a number of the City's public parks, and who question whether they should be allowed to access these sites in the large numbers that they do.

• Setting park use limits below the level of capacity. The fact that a particular park component (e.g., a tennis court or basketball court) is full, with people forced to wait their turn to use it, does not mean it is taxed beyond capacity. If this were the definition of "taxed beyond capacity", then almost every park component in our open space system could be considered taxed beyond capacity at one time or another.

• Enforcement of existing park rules and regulations. Staff routinely receives resident concerns regarding violations of park rules and regulations and several residents providing input cited park violations as their primary concern.

• "Good Neighbor" policies. Residents living immediately adjacent to neighborhood parks represent a unique group. There are many benefits associated with living near a public open space; yet there are drawbacks as well, not the least of which is the necessity of co-existing with a busy, sometimes noisy neighbor. For the most part, these concerns have nothing to do with park capacity--that is, most "near neighbor" issues arise during times when the park is not at capacity--many, in fact, arise when the park is significantly below capacity. And while many near-neighbor concerns are actually park enforcement concerns, many others reflect concern with activities that are well within accepted uses of the park.

• Issues surrounding neighborhood parking and traffic. This is a good example of the possible overlap of the three issues identified above. Neighborhood parking and traffic are of concern to almost every residential pocket in the Bay Area, particularly during weekends, and can be of particular concern to those living immediately adjacent to public facilities (e.g., "near neighbors" to a public park, or Community Center).

In the early stages of this Study, it became clear to staff that a number of concerns originating from the public under the heading of "park capacity" had little to do with the overuse of the City's open space. Rather, they fell into the other categories identified above. And while staff has chosen to distinguish between these issues and park capacity for the sake of clarification and effective problem-solving, it has not turned a deaf ear to related citizen concerns.

Quite the contrary. In fact, the root of many of these concerns can be significantly influenced by operational means and without necessitating a change in Council policy. Working with the Las Palmas neighborhood, for example, staff was able to effectively reduce a number of concerns related to park noise, illegal park activity, parking/traffic concerns, "good neighbor" issues, and neighborhood access to the park without seeking changes in Council policy.

It did require special effort by both staff and neighborhood residents working in close collaboration, but this is often exactly the type of relationship that yields the best results. In fact, while changes in administrative policies were instrumental in effecting some positive neighborhood changes affecting Las Palmas Park, there were several improvements that could only have resulted from the partnering of staff with members of the community (please see Attachment J – Letters Related to Las Palmas Neighborhood Issues).

And while some of these improvements are specific to Las Palmas Park, a number of others have been adopted Citywide and have therefore, benefited near neighbors of every neighborhood park. This is not to say that every resident concern regarding Las Palmas Park has been resolved, or that future concerns will not arise. It is simply to suggest that many of the concerns that did arise under the heading of "park capacity" were not capacity problems at all, and that many of these were able to be resolved administratively through cooperative relations with the neighborhood.

While staff believes there could be value in additional Study Issues aimed at further exploration of any of the "Other Park Use Issues" identified above, it believes the first step in attempting to deal with them would be through operational means in conjunction with local neighborhood residents.

There are no direct fiscal impacts--either capital or operating--posed by the results of this study. If Council directs further studies governing issues surrounding who gets to use the City's public parks; enforcement of park rules and regulations; "good neighbor" policies; neighborhood parking and traffic; or setting park use limits below the level of capacity, related fiscal impacts will be further studied as well (e.g., prohibiting non-residents from the neighborhood parks would have an impact on the Community Recreation Fund's revenue generation).

Based on the results of this Study, staff offers the following conclusions:

1. In general, the City's public park system is not taxed beyond capacity. It is well-used but not abused, with its overall condition considered a standard of national excellence.
2. There are specific components of specific parks which are periodically taxed beyond capacity--most notably group picnic areas and multi-purpose athletic fields--but they are exceptions to the rule, and even these features are not used beyond capacity on a regular basis.
3. Parks are not designed to accommodate the heaviest use they are expected to receive, particularly if that heavy use is anticipated to last for short periods of time. Ergo, a certain amount of use above designed capacity is to be expected.
4. The design of many park components, including that of parking lots and street parking, is essentially self-limiting in terms of capacity. That is, taxing them beyond capacity is not possible without breaking the law. In the latter case, the real issue is enforcement, not capacity.
5. The fact that a particular park component (e.g., a basketball court) is used to capacity, with people waiting their turn to use it, does not mean it is taxed beyond capacity. If this were the definition of "taxed beyond capacity", then almost every park component in our open space system is taxed beyond capacity at one time or another.
6. Many resident concerns raised under the heading of this Study Issue are not really park capacity issues. Rather, they reflect concern with various other park-related issues that, if Council wishes further study, warrant their own Study Issue.
7. The City’s open space system provides an ample amount of overall open space in the form of neighborhood parks; however, it does not provide sufficient open space designed primarily for community-wide needs (as opposed to neighborhood), and this is a major root of growing concern regarding neighborhood park use (e.g., who gets to use the neighborhood parks, and for what purpose?).

In order to gain as much stakeholder involvement in the policy-making process as practical, staff pursued the following avenues of public contact:

• Publication and posting of the Study Issue in City's Quarterly Report, inviting all residents to provide input in a variety of forms.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #1, 1/27/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #2, 3/24/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #3, 5/12/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #4, 9/22/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #5, 12/8/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Study Session #6, 12/21/99.
• Park user surveys conducted by Applied Survey Research, a professional consulting firm.
• Several meetings with and letters to residents representing the Las Palmas Park neighborhood.
• July 1, 1999, and January 26, 2000, letters to those interested in park capacity issues (please see Attachment A – Letters to Those Interested in Park Capacity Issues).
• Notification of study in Sunnyvale Sun, July 28, 1999, (please see Attachment B – Notification of Study in Sunnyvale Sun, July 28, 1999).
• Publication and posting of Council Study Session, 9/28/99.
• Publication and posting of Parks and Recreation Public Hearing, 2/9/00.
• Publication and posting of Council Agenda/Public Hearing, 3/28/00.
• This report is available at the Library, Community Center, Corporation Yard, Parks and Recreation Administrative Office, and on the City's Internet home page.

The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that Council accept staff’s assessment that Sunnyvale’s public parks are not, in general, taxed beyond capacity, according to the park capacity definition contained in this report. Further, direct staff to assess each neighborhood park individually, to determine if each complies with the intent of the Open Space Sub-Element that is to meet the needs of each of the neighborhood planning areas (staff has since attempted to incorporate more information to that effect in this report). Encourage staff to continue working with park users and Sunnyvale residents living adjacent to public parks to resolve "good neighbor" issues through operational and administrative measures where possible.

Staff recommends that Council adopt the conclusions presented in this report, accept that Sunnyvale's public parks are not, in general, taxed beyond capacity, and direct staff to take no further action to mitigate park capacity issues. Encourage staff to continue working with park users and Sunnyvale residents living adjacent to public parks to resolve "good neighbor" issues through operational and administrative means.