CC 05-13-19 #5 Study Session FY 19-24 Proposed CIP_Written Communications(42) Sent I rahulvasanth@protonmail.com I ProtonMail https://mail.protonmail.com/sent/6QH6GtfY2-TyNWMAdDJAP49 ...
of3
All-Inclusive Playground at Creekside Park
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:07 PM
From : Rahul rahulvasanth@protonmail.com
Cc s/1J l!1 fFs-'
BCC : sscharf@cupertino.org sscharf@cupertino.org, dpaul@cupertino.org dpaul@cupertino.org, JWilley@cupertino.org JWilley@cupertino.org,
~ia-~~~~~~~c~~e~i~~:~~~ ~i~~g~~~~~c~~~rtino.org n"I nks@c.uf(r-\-iwc.o~-------··----·-·------......... .
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilman Willey, Councilman Paul, and Councilman Sinks,
I would like to provide some clarification on amending the grant and having the all-inclusive playground where it will best serve the community: Creekside Park .
I spoke at length witti the G rants Management A11alyst at the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department last Thursday; we had a productive
conversation about the possibility of having the all-inclusive park at Creekside Park . At first, he seemed to imply that there wasn't precedence--it had not been
done in the past--and was a matter of fairness.(! thinklhat this is a uniqu situation ; we've never all-inclusive playgrounds before; it is important that it be done the
right way at the right place. He was not pleased that city staff had not readied out to update county staff about the dog park citin g:a safety concern between
having many dogs at aA all-inclusive park that will have more..vulnerabl.e individuals. I spoke at length about why many residents believe Creekside Park meets
and exceeds many of the county's grant criteria and learned that the concern was less about county staff time invested and more a matter of procedure. He
prov.ided encouragement for discussions as it's always a good thing and thanked me for my advocacy. fe-le mentioned that only city staff can initfatethe process. I
think (personal thought, not what he said) it's important to request the grant be amended or that a new grant be approved than relinquishing the approved grant.
He has seen instances where funds are lost over a verbal agreement, and he said that the decision would be made not by the county Parks department but
Supervisor Simitian who has the power drive this change.
He directed me to a staff member who handled the all-inclusive park grants at Supervisor Simitian's office. Initially, she mentioned they'd put in stringent
guidelines in the interest of fairness, but after hearing about how Creekside Park is situated near two elementary schools, a middle school, and one of two high
schools in the city, had more than double the number of parking spaces, was on an active bus route so individuals with developmental disabilities could come to
the park (versus being dropped off a half mile away at Jollyman), in an area with much higher residential density--this would serve more Cupertino residents
much better, and many other reasons, she mentioned another resident had contacted her and shared similar concerns. She liked that many, if not all of the
criteria on the grant for Jollyman applied to or were far exceeded by Creekside Park and said that would be a compelling argument city staff should put forward.
While she could not make any guarantees, she mentioned what the city and residents could do, and encouraged residents to get involved and speak with
Council. She said that given community support that having the all-inclusive park for reason X/Y /Z perhaps the county would consider a different process.
The staff report states, "The location at Jollyman Park is closely tied to the evaluation of the grant. Grant administration staff from Santa Clara County have
informed the City that if the location is changed that the City will no longer receive the approved grant."
From my 26 minute conversation with County staff (Grants Management Analyst at Parks and Recreation) and my 15 minute conversation with Supervisor
Simitian's staffer that handled all of the all-inclusive grant applications, this is not entirely true . (And from what I have read county's AIPG Procedural Guide, the
specific Jollyman Park location is not as closely tied as one might believe .) I believe that there is a possibility for Creekside Park to serve as the site for the all-
inclusive playground without losing the county funding. At the very least, it is worth discussing . This process has to be initiated by city staff as indicated by
Supervisor Simitian's staff and the county Parks/Rec staff.
And actually, looking at the grant application, there is very little that is unique to Jollyman Park that does not also apply to Creekside Park and aside from the very
few residents who had positive feedback at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, there is no mention of resident outreach. Most references to location
relate to the city as a whole in proximity to cities in the county. The grant application refers to CUSD and FUHSD and this is an area in Creekside Park's favor. It is
much closer to far more schools from Sedgewick Elemtary, Eaton Elementary, Hyde Middle, and Cupertino High School. Many of these students go through
Creekside park on the way to and from home and spend time in the park. What better place for an all-inclusive playground , "where everyone can play and grow
together, regardless of their age or abilities ."? Under "C . Public Access" our city staff describes the bus routes, "This stop enjoys frequent service by bus routes
25, 53, 55 and 323,
each within a short distance of the site at the corner of McClellan Road ." But the feasibility study states the "5. Bus Drop-off No [under the column
"Present"] 1875' from park -too far to consider." There are so many different contradictions between what the feasibility study says, what the staff reports say,
and what residents have heard from staff pertaining to this matter that I feel perhaps Jollyman Park might not be the best site.
A half mile walk is not accessible. The overwhelming majority of individuals with developmental disabilities do not own cars or have a drivers license, and this
isn't quite accessible. This same bus route , the 25s is a comparable distance from Creekside Park (about 0 .6 miles) but there is also the 26 bus line which stops
right next to Creekside Park along Miller Avenue along multiple points. This is accessible. There is a great emphasis on the highways and other cities as people
drive to all-inclusive playgrolflj,~rom all around the region . Creekside Park accommodates many more visitors with its 101 parking slots compared to Jollyman's
47 . Jollyman Park has only ~rl"andicap parking slot--Creekside Park has five. Public Access is essential, and what really has not been discussed is the
question : "how are people getting here, is this park facilitating accessible transit, and is it accessible in that there's actually space to park?
The feasibility study states "It is anticipated that the residents of Cupertino would make up approximately 85% of the users, .,m .. ==,.,,,..,-.,....,u,_.,,.c..,,~ .,..~,,
,~,.-~...,.,,..,....,,=,..,~=-"'•=•'""~•. However, it is anticipated that as additional inclusive play areas develop nearby, that nonresident percentages will drop, and
resident percentages will rise."
What is likely the only all-inclusive playground our city is going to get should be be placed in a park where most residents live. Creekside Park is much more
accessible for all residents of Cupertino .
On page 11, the feasibility study writes "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."
And again , Creekside Park fits the criteria beautifully. 5 accessible stalls for 101 parking slots. Jollyman Park has just 2 . Both have bathrooms that are deemed
"ADA compliant" but Creekside has triple stall bathrooms it right next to the parking and the proposed all-inclusive playground, while Jollyman has single stalls
600 feet away. Clearly, Creekside Park has been designed with ADA-compliance in mind to a much greater extent than Jollyman . This difference is inherent not
only in bathroom location , water fountains , or parking but so much more.
Under access the feasibility study: "The location of bus stops should be considereIt ljQl/11~\/erLbuses are not necessarily a prime mode of transportation to all-
inclusive playgrounds by the physically challenged community." while allocating no\,dl ~~lts routes in its weightage. It goes on to say "Bicycle access is an
important feature to provide for the public, as this will be an
~II-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."
5/13 /2019 , 6:38 PM
(42) Sent I rahulvasanth @ protonmail.com I ProtonMail https :/ /mail. protonmail.com/sent/6QH6GtfY2-Ty NWMAdDJAP49 ...
~ of 3
There is another line in the staff report " ... Creekside parks , regularly experience busy conditions with larger crowds and higher noise levels that can be less
welcoming for those that are sensitive ." Yet the feasibility study ranks Creekside Park as having less noise and better and equal point allocation in every metric
pertaining to noise compared to the Jollyman site . Students from different schools , people enjoying different activities , and more community members is not what
I would call a "crowd" but a golden opportunity. Opportunity for better connection and integration; what makes the all-inclusive parks "magical" is that children and
everyone can play together, have fun together, and accept one another without stigmatization . The fundamental premise is that the implementation of the ADA
does not go far enough; while deemed necessary, being "ADA-compliant" is not sufficient; "all-inclusive" is the gold standard.
The weightage of the feasibility study heavily skews the results . Creekside Park and Jollyman Site A are separated in the end by 93 points . The values attached
to the weights are arbitrary to the point where significant differences are not accounted for between parks . Though the staff report and grant application claim
Creekside Park is much noisier, it receives 60 points to Jollyman site A's 46 points, a better score. Despite having more than double the number of parking stalls
(total and accessible) Creekside Park receives 94 total points to Jollyman Site A 's 131 points . And the "Public Bus Stop near Park" criteria gives Jollyman 15
points to Creekside's 25 points despite the feasibility study previously saying it is "too far to consider." By multiplying the weightings in a manner that is not
explained , despite the fact that Creekside Park receives better or even scores in the vast majority of metrics, it loses out most of its points in two areas and is
considered in the lowest tier of all-inclusive playground priorities. Under "visibility" it receives 40 points--Jollyman Site A gets a whopping 140 points. Under
"Space Available for Playground Area," Creekside Park is arbitrarily assigned a smaller area and receives 40 less points than that of Jollyman A .
I'm curious why the half basketball court and small patch of grass by the parking lot not considered . By incorporating this , the Creekside site would be a full acre,
greater than that of the Jolly man site and receive 100 points (it would also gain another 20 points in relation to Jollyman it loses for being too close to the
Basketball Court). Additionally, there is an area to the northeast portion of the park with a clear line of site to the street and again , greater in size than the
Jollyman site. Yes, it does not have the same degree of nearby parking, but Jollyman Site A received a higher score (despite having 44 fewer parking slots and 4
fewer accessible slots) for having "availability of existing parking ."
What this really seems to be saying is that Creekside Park (with double the parking) sees much more engagement from residents, and there's no quantifiable
metric or evidence that Creekside Park cannot accomodate "regular high use." Is it not better to have the all-inclusive playground in areas most attend? The
feasibility study adds that "The site is busy with soccer games and tournaments, Friday Farmers Market, summercamps and other uses," which should not be
seen as a bad thing . The Farmer's Market has changed locations multiple times over years and was cited as a key factor that adversely affected the Creekside
Park site . While there may be soccer games or events, the vast majority of time throughout the day will not have these events. It ties back into having the all-
inclusive playground in a community setting where all can come and interact with one another. The room at Creekside Park is mostly treated as a bad thing in that
it limits sight , but not given credit for the good aspects such as noise reduction, serving as a buffer between other regions of the park, and the possibility of
parents reserving the room birthday parties for their children at the all-inclusive park and integration between this community space and the all-inclusive
playground site .
The feasibility study also mentions "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." But no points are allocated for this.
What is most telling is the end of the segment on Creekside Park "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."
"Already gets visited by multiple schools?" This is one of the strongest arguments for Creekside Park and the language seems to imply that we need to bring
people to parks without programs, students, or usage when it should be the other way around. This is about the all-inclusive park. The feasibility study is the main
supporting argument utilized heavily in the grant application, staff reports , council meetings, and elsewhere . I want to be optimistic about this , but it really feels
like the study had an end result in mind . Despite the arbitrary weights and end result, the feasibility study offers a compelling argument for the Creekside Park
site . As shown above, the feasibility study is incorrectly represented in the grant application but in a way that benefits Creekside Park .
I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with procedures, but the line "The program is governed by any existing or future policies and procedures that may be approved
or amended from time to time by the Board of Supervisors" under the document titled ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM TWO
Procedural Guide bears relevance to the matter.
The County Grant Project Eligibility Criteria are better served by Creekside Park or apply in the same way because it is located in the same city with the same
policies .
Item 2 "The playground must be accessible to the public on a non-discriminatory basis" The bus routes that bring residents directly on-site (as opposed to walking
half a mile) and the greatly increased amount of parking refiect this, not to mention the location of bathrooms on-site (not almost a thousand feet away at
Jollyman Site A) much better at Creekside Park than at Jollyman.
Item 5 "the project must be for a regionally serving playground ... " Sedgewick Elementary, Eaton Elementary, Cupertino High School, and Hyde Middle School are
within spitting distance and have programs with students with developmental disabilities and far more people live in the area surrounding/actually use the park.
The feasibility study cited heavily by city staff both in reports and grant application states this clearly.
Item 6 "The Project must include a design that goes above and beyond minimum standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act, to ensure that seniors ,
children and parents with disabilities can truly make use of the playground ." Item 2 and Item 5 clearly fit Creekside Park when taking Item 6 into consideration .
Jollyman Park meets the bare minimum but does not go above and beyond .
Appendi x I, the Evaluation Factors of the Guide is worth looking at on page 23. You will find that much of the criteria is met simply by virtue of being a Magical
Bridge Playground and any location specific criteria non-unique to Jollyman but to the entire city. Within the subcriteria and what has been written in the grant
application, nearly every single instance of Jollyman Park is served equally or in many cases , better by the Creekside Park site .
This is a 1.45 million aollar county grant wi th 1.2 million dollars coming from our city .and what has been an-estimated 5 million dollars in.Jotal cost. It also includes
maintenance costs for 20 years which the city will be covering. tt's highly likely that ou city will never have an all-inclusive park at this scale again, and it's
important to take that into consideration when looking at where parks in Cupertino are located-aRd what opportunities exist for park expansions overall.
I'm-writing because I believe that all residents of Cupertino must be well represented on all projects am:Ldec isioris , big· and small. Both the-current Council and the
previous Council have stressed the imf)ortance of community engagement. Where was the community engagement in this process? The staff report cites the
Parks and Recreation Commission's Master Plan which itself many residents have felt lacked representative community engagement and is a work in (much
needed) progress. The staff report actually says "If the City Council chooses to proceed with an all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park , a robust community
involvement process will occur. The intention is to involve the neighbors and the wider community in the design process and to develop a play area that truly
represents our community." But only after the major decision has been made. When touring the Magical Bridge Playground this March in Palo Alto, the Board
Director told many Cupertino residents that she had not heard of the possibility of any other sites for the all-inclusive playground than Jollyman. Between the
5/13 /2019 , 6:38 PM
(4 2 ) S ent I rahulvasanth @ protonmail.com I ProtonMail https://mail.protonmail.com/sent/6QH6GtfY2-TyNWMAdDJAP49 ...
3 of 3
various inaccuracies and inherent bias or perhaps arbitrary weightage of the feasibility study, the various contradictions in communication during
Commission/Council/written documentation provided , I find it hard to believe that this has been a fair process . This feels similar to how the previous Council
operated , that residents replaced . Whether the all-inclusive playground is at Creekside Park or Jollyman , or any other location , the process has been deeply
flawed . The only community engagement that went into the site was a single Parks Commission meeting held during a time where residents were focusing on a
much larger matter. There are so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the documents shared by city staff and I am appalled with the lack of
transparency and acc ountability in this process .
I strongly urge you to direct staff to initiate discussions with the County staff and help begin a process of community engagement that this community truly
deserves . I spoke with nearly sixty residents around Hyde, Eaton, Cupertino High, and Sedgwick and not one had heard about this or knew of ii, and every one of
them felt that Creekside Park was a better location .
Cree kside !"ark offers the best site for the all-inclwsive playg ro und as it fits the needs of the com mun ity and is much more a ligned with the spirit of what the ADA
embodies ; going above and beyond to bring accessibility and independence to individuals w ith disabilities in an affirmative fashion. This best served in the place
the staff report , feas ibil ity study, sehools, pare nts , and resid.e nts agree is the most integrated setting wit h varied but heavily engaged commu □ityJ nvolve m ent:
Creekside Park.
Sincerely,
Rahul Vasanth
Representing myself only.
5/13 /2019 , 6 :38 PM
Kirsten Squarcia
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: All-Inclusive Playground at Creekside Park
A TT00001.htm
From: Rahul <rahulvasanth@protonmail.com >
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:08 PM
Subject: All-Inclusive Playground at Creekside Park
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice-Mayor Chao , Councilman Willey, Councilman Paul, and Councilman Sinks,
I would like to provide some clarification on amending the grant and having the all-inclusive playground where
it will best serve the community: Creekside Park.
I spoke at length with the Grants Management Analyst at the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation
Department last Thursday; we had a productive conversation about the possibility of having the all-inclusive
park at Creekside Park. At first , he seemed to imply that there wasn't precedence--it had not been done in the
past--and was a matter of fairness. I think that this is a unique situation; we've never all-inclusive playgrounds
before; it is important that it be done the right way at the right place. He was not pleased that city staff had not
reached out to update county staff about the dog park, citing a safety concern between having many dogs at an
all-inclusive park that will have more vulnerable individuals . I spoke at length about why many residents
believe Creekside Park meets and exceeds many of the county's grant criteria and learned that the concern was
less about county staff time invested and more a matter of procedure. He provided encouragement for
discussions as it's always a good thing and thanked me for my advocacy. He mentioned that only city staff can
initiate the process. I think (personal thought, not what he said) it's important to request the grant be amended or
that a new grant be approved than relinquishing the approved grant. He has seen instances where funds are lost
over a verbal agreement, and he said that the decision would be made not by the county Parks depa1iment but
Supervisor Simitian who has the power drive this change.
He directed me to a staff member who handled the all-inclusive park grants at Supervisor Simitian's office.
Initially, she mentioned they'd put in stringent guidelines in the interest of fairness, but after hearing about how
Creekside Park is situated near two elementary schools, a middle school, and one of two high schools in the
city, had more than double the number of parking spaces, was on an active bus route so individuals with
developmental disabilities could come to the park (versus being dropped off a half mile away at Jollyman), in
an area with much higher residential density--this would serve more Cupertino residents much better, and many
other reasons, she mentioned another resident had contacted her and shared similar concerns. She liked that
many, if not all of the criteria on the grant for Jollyman applied to or were far exceeded by Creekside Park and
said that would be a compelling argument city staff should put forward . While she could not make any
guarantees, she mentioned what the city and residents could do, and encouraged residents to get involved and
speak with Council. She said that given community support that having the all-inclusive park for reason XN/Z
perhaps the county would consider a different process.
The staff report states, "The location at Jollyman Park is closely tied to the evaluation of the grant. Grant
administration staff from Santa Clara County have informed the City that if the location is changed that the City
will no longer receive the approved grant."
From my 26 minute conversation with County staff (Grants Management Analyst at Parks and Recreation) and
my 15 minute conversation with Supervisor Simitian's staffer that handled all of the all-inclusive grant
1
applications, this is not entirely trne. (And from what I have read county's AIPG Procedural Guide, the specific
Jollyman Park location is not as closely tied as one might believe.) I believe that there is a possibility for
Creekside Park to serve as the site for the all-inclusive playground without losing the county funding . At the
very least , it is worth discussing. This process has to be initiated by city staff as indicated by Supervisor
Simitian's staff and the county Parks/Rec staff.
And actually, looking at the grant application, there is very little that is unique to Jollyman Park that does not
also apply to Creekside Park and aside from the very few residents who had positive feedback at the Parks and
Recreation Co1mnission meeting, there is no mention of resident outreach. Most references to location relate to
the city as a whole in proximity to cities in the county. The grant application refers to CUSD and FUHSD and
this is an area in Creekside Park's favor . It is much closer to far more schools from Sedgewick Elemtary, Eaton
Elementary, Hyde Middle, and Cupertino High School. Many of these students go through Creekside park on
the way to and from home and spend time in the park. What better place for an all-inclusive playground, "where
everyone can play and grow together, regardless of their age or abilities."? Under "C . Public Access" our city
staff describes the bus routes, "This stop enjoys frequent service by bus routes 25 , 53 , 55 and 323,
each within a short distance of the site at the comer of McClellan Road." But the feasibility study states the "5 .
Bus Drop-off No [ under the column "Present"] 1875' from park -too far to consider." There are so many
different contradictions between what the feasibility study says, what the staff reports say, and what residents
have heard from staff pertaining to this matter that I feel perhaps Jollyman Park might not be the best site.
2
-'f
)f
1ess s
y D y C re
Campus Dr
McC lellan Rd
ege nd College ~
Prep rat ory Y
.... J QStel'ling & McClellan
• • • McCI , !Ian Rd
cl
'~
J
~St ude's
9 vm a MontE
T Episcop I Churc h
'fr 8min
0.4 mfile '-------'· • • • • LIi cW y e 1: •
Huntrldge ln
6
!:I
ID
S4
olly f'lln '
Good h ph rd
Christi n Churc h
vin Way
Kl win n
, 1000 South SteUing Road
Canlag ,e Cir
Jollyman Park
A half mile walk is not accessible. The overwhelming majority of individuals with developmental disabilities do
not own cars or have a driver's license, and this isn't quite accessible. This same bus route, the 25s is a
comparable distance from Creekside Park (about 0.6 miles) but there is also the 26 bus line which stops right
3
next to Creekside P ark along Miller A venue along multiple points. This is accessible. There is a great emphasis
on the highways and other cities as people drive to all-inclusive playgrounds from all around the region.
Creekside Park accommodates many more visitors with its 101 parking slots compared to Jollyman's 47 .
Jollyman Park has only one handicap parking slot--Creekside Park has five. Public Access is essential , and what
really has not been discussed is the question: "how are people getting here, is this park facilitating accessible
transit , and is it accessible in that there's actually space to park?
The feasibility study states "It is anticipated that the residents of Cupertino would make up approximately 85%
of the users, with th e re main de r com in g fr om oth er areas o uts ide o f Cup ertin o. Palo Alt o's Mag ica l Bri dge playground curre ntl y rece ives ove r 50% nonres iden t use.
However, it is anticipated that as additional inclusive play areas develop nearby, that nonresident percentages
will drop, and resident percentages will rise ."
What is likely the only all-inclusive playground our city is going to get should be be placed in a park where
most residents live. Creekside Park is much more accessible for all residents of Cupertino.
On page 11 , the feasibility study writes "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."
And again, Creekside Park fits the criteria beautifully. 5 accessible stalls for 101 parking slots. Jollyman Park
has just 2 . Both have bathrooms that are deemed "ADA compliant" but Creekside has triple stall bathrooms it
1ight next to the parking and the proposed all-inclusive playground, while Jollyman has single stalls 600 feet
away. Clearly, Creekside Park has been designed with ADA-compliance in mind to a much greater extent than
Jollyman. This difference is inherent not only in bathroom location, water fountains, or parking but so much
more.
Under access the feasibility study: "The location of bus stops should be consi dered. However, buses are not
necessarily a prime mode of transportation to all-inclusive playgrounds by the physically challenged
community." while allocating no points for bus routes in its weightage. It goes on to say "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."
4
There is another line in the staff report: " ... Creekside parks, regularly experience busy conditions with larger
crowds and higher noise levels that can be less welcoming for those that are sensitive." Yet the feasibility study
ranks Creekside Park as having less noise and better and equal point allocation in every metric pertaining to
noise compared to the Jollyman site. Students from different schools, people enjoying different activities, and
more community members is not what I would call a "crowd" but a golden opportunity. Opportunity for better
c01mection and integration; what makes the all-inclusive parks "magical" is that children and everyone can play
together, have fun together, and accept one another without stigmatization. The fundamental premise is that the
implementation of the ADA does not go far enough; while d e emed necessary, being "ADA-compliant" is not
sufficient; "all-inclusive" is the gold standard.
.. COMMENTS ··• · .. . ..
SITE FEATURE PRESENT QUANTITY .. · .
S11TING OONDinONS
Ac o ustiics
1 . No isy No 68 5 ' from M]H e r Ave nue
2 . Pimtected Ye s By buil ding from pa rking lot a nd lby creek fm m n e igh bo r s
3 . Busy Street No Mill er Avenu e is 685' firom pla y a rea
4 . Pr.oxim ity to f eatui res Vies Clo se to one socce.r fi e ld and h a lf b as!ket b aJI oo u1rt
5 . Pmxim ity t o Ne ighbo r iNtO Creek o n w est s id e, recreation b uildi ng on East
Pa rkinc
1. St and ard Stall s Yes 101
2 . Aooessib le St ails Yes 5
3. Bicycl e Pa rkin g Yes 4 At no rti h e nd o f pl ay ~rea
The weightage of the feasibility study heavily skews the results . Creekside Park and Jollyman Site A are
separated in the end by 93 points . The values attached to the weights are arbitrary to the point where significant
differences are not accounted for between parks. Though the staff report and grant application claim Creekside
Park is much noisier, it receives 60 points to Jollyman site A's 46 points , a better score. Despite having more
than double the number of parking stalls (total and accessible) Creekside Park receives 94 total points to
Jollyman Site A's 131 points . And the "Public Bus Stop near Park" criteria gives Jollyman 15 points to
Creekside's 25 points despite the feasibility study previously saying it is "too far to consider." By multiplying
the weightings in a manner that is not explained, despite the fact that Creekside Park receives better or even
scores in the vast majority of metrics, it loses out most of its points in two areas and is considered in the lowest
tier of all-inclusive playground priorities. Under "visibility" it receives 40 points--Jollyman Site A gets a
whopping 140 points . Under "Space Available for Playground Area," Creekside Park is arbitrarily assigned a
smaller area and receives 40 less points than that of Jollyman A.
6
I'm curious why the half basketball court and small patch of grass by the parking lot not considered. By
incorporating this, the Creekside site would be a full acre, greater than that of the Jollyman site and receive 100
points (it would also gain another 20 points in relation to Jollyman it loses for being too close to the Basketball
Court). Additionally, there is an area to the northeast portion of the park with a clear line of site to the street and
again, greater in size than the Jollyman site. Yes, it does not have the same degree of nearby parking, but
Jollyman Site A received a higher score (despite having 44 fewer parking slots and 4 fewer accessible slots) for
having "availability of existing parking."
What this really seems to be saying is that Creekside Park (with double the parking) sees much more
engagement from residents, and there's no quantifiable metric or evidence that Creekside Park cannot
accomodate "regular high use." Is it not better to have the all-inclusive playground in areas most attend? The
feasibility study adds that "The site is busy with soccer games and tournaments, Friday Farmers Market,
summercamps and other uses," which should not be seen as a bad thing. The Farmer's Market has changed
7
locations multiple times over years and was cited a s a key factor that adversely affected the Creekside Park site.
While there may be soccer games or events, the vast majority of time throughout the day will not have these
events. It ties back into having the all-inclusive playground in a cmmnunity setting where all can come and
interact with one another. The room at Creekside Park is mostly treated as a bad thing in that it limits sight, but
not given credit for the good aspects such as noise reduction, serving as a buffer between other regions of the
park, and the possibility of parents reserving the room birthday parties for their children at the all-inclusive park
and integration between this cmmnunity space and the all-inclusive playground site.
The feasibility study also mentions "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." But no points are allocated for this.
What is most telling is the end of the segment on Creekside Park "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."
"Already gets visited by multiple schools?" This is one of the strongest arguments for Creekside Park and the
language seems to imply that we need to bring people to parks without programs, students, or usage when it
should be the other way around. This is about the all-inclusive park. The feasibility study is the main supporting
argument utilized heavily in the grant application , staff reports, council meetings, and elsewhere. I want to be
optimistic about this , but it really feels like the study had an end result in mind. Despite the arbitrary weights
and end result, the feasibility study offers a compelling argument for the Creekside Park site. As shown above,
the feasibility study is incorrectly represented in the grant application but in a way that benefits Creekside Park.
I'm not a lawyer and not familiar with procedures , but the line "The program is governed by any existing or
future policies and procedures that may be approved or amended from time to time by the Board of
Supervisors" under the document titled ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND GRANT PROGRAM PROGRAM
TWO Procedural Guide bears relevance to the matter.
The County Grant Project Eligibility Criteria are better served by Creekside Park or apply in the same way
because it is located in the same city with the same policies.
Item 2 "The playground must be accessible to the public on a non-discriminatory basis" The bus routes that
bring residents directly on-site ( as opposed to walking half a mile) and the greatly increased amount of parking
reflect this , not to mention the location of bathrooms on-site (not almost a thousand feet away at Jollyman Site
A) much better at Creekside Park than at Jollyman.
Item 5 "the project must be for a regionally serving playground ... " Sedgewick Elementary, Eaton Elementary,
Cupertino High School , and Hyde Middle School are within spitting distance and have programs with students
with developmental disabilities and far more people live in the area surrounding/actually use the park. The
feasibility study cited heavily by city staff both in reports and grant application states this clearly.
Item 6 "The Project must include a design that goes above and beyond minimum standards set by the
Americans with Disabilities Act, to ensure that seniors , children and parents with disabilities can truly make use
of the playground." Item 2 and Item 5 clearly fit Creekside Park when taking Item 6 into consideration.
Jollyman Park meets the bare minimum but does not go above and beyond.
Appendi x I, the Evaluation Factors of the Guide is worth looking at on page 23 . You will find that much of the
criteria is met simply by virtue of being a Magical Bridge Playground and any location specific criteria non-
unique to Jollyman but to the entire city. Within the subcriteria and what has been written in the grant
8
application, nearly every single instance of Jollyman Park is served equally or in many cases , better by the
Creekside Park site.
This is a 1.45 million dollar county grant with 1.2 million dollars coming from our city and what has been an
estimated 5 million dollars in total cost. It also includes maintenance costs for 20 years which the city will be
covering. It's highly likely that our city will never have an all-inclusive park at this scale again, and it's
important to take that into consideration when looking at where parks in Cupe1iino are located and what
opportunities exist for park expansions overall.
I'm writing because I believe that all residents of Cupertino must be well represented on all projects and
decisions, big and small . Both the cmTent Council and the previous Council have stressed the importance of
community engagement. Where was the community engagement in this process? The staff report cites the Parks
and Recreation Commission's Master Plan which itself many residents have felt lacked representative
community engagement and is a work in (much needed) progress. The staff report actually says "If the City
Council chooses to proceed with an all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park, a robust community involvement
process will occur. The intention is to involve the neighbors and the wider community in the design process and
to develop a play area that truly represents our community. 11 But only after the major decision has been made.
When touring the Magical Bridge Playground this March in Palo Alto, the Board Director told many Cupertino
residents that she had not heard of the possibility of any other sites for the all-inclusive playground than
Jollyman . Between the various inaccuracies and inherent bias or perhaps arbitrary weightage of the feasibility
study, the various contradictions in communication during Commission/Council/written documentation
provided, I find it hard to believe that this has been a fair process. This feels similar to how the previous
Council operated, that residents replaced. Whether the all-inclusive playground is at Creekside Park or
Jollyman, or any other location, the process has been deeply flawed . The only community engagement that went
into the site was a single Parks Commission meeting held during a time where residents were focusing on a
much larger matter. There are so many inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the documents shared by city
staff and I am appalled with the lack of transparency and accountability in this process.
I strongly urge you to direct staff to initiate discussions with the County staff and help begin a process of
community engagement that this community truly deserves. I spoke with nearly sixty residents around Hyde,
Eaton, Cupertino High, and Sedgwick and not one had heard about this or knew of it, and every one of them felt
that Creekside Park was a better location.
Creekside Park offers the best site for the all-inclusive playground as it fits the needs of the community and is
much more aligned with the spirit of what the ADA embodies; going above and beyond to bring accessibility
and independence to individuals with disabilities in an affirmative fashion. This best served in the place the staff
report, feasibility study, schools, parents, and residents agree is the most integrated setting with varied but
heavily engaged community involvement: Creekside Park.
Sincerely,
Rahul Vasanth
Representing myself only.
Total Control Panel
To: jw ill ey@cup erti no .org Remove this sender from my allow list
From: rahul vasa nth @ protonma il.co m
You received this message because th e sender is on your allow list.
9