HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14_2010 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Packet
City of Saratoga
Parks and Recreation Commission
AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, September 14, 2010
TIME: 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Saratoga City Hall
Warner Hutton House
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Call to Order
Roll Call
Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, this meeting was properly
posted on September 9, 2010.
Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2.
Oral & Written Communication: Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not
on the agenda for this meeting for up three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter,
but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda.
Approval of Draft Minutes: Draft Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Minutes for the following meetings:
‐ June 14, 2010
‐ June 23, 2010
‐ July 28, 2010
Old Business:
1. Advertorials of Saratoga Parks
Issue: Commissioner Wilson has been working with Saratoga High School Media Arts Program students
to produce advertorials of Saratoga Parks. The short videos are intended to inform residents
about City parks and their amenities.
Action: Watch the advertorials produced by Saratoga High School Media Arts Program students.
2. Nesting Box Project
Issue: At the July 28, 2010 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission met with a representative of
the Audubon Society to identify nesting box locations in the Saratoga Heights Open Space and
San Marcos Open Space. The group agreed to place a total of 11 boxes (including 1 owl box) in
the Saratoga Heights Open Space and 5 boxes in the San Marcos Open Space.
Action: Develop a plan for moving forward, including volunteer recruitment and placement of the
nesting boxes at approved locations.
3. Wildwood Cinema Movie Night Recap
Issue: During the June 2010 PRC meeting, the Commission agreed to move forward with plans to hold a
movie night in Wildwood Park. At the July 7, 2010 City Council Meeting, the City Council
allocated money to the event and authorized the Commission to seek funding and
organizational support from outside organizations. The Council indicated that the Commission
should establish a framework for the event so that it can be coordinated by a different
organization in the future.
Action: Review the event and document what worked well, areas for improvement, and critical event
details that can be conveyed to future Wildwood Cinema Movie Night coordinators or used to
help organize other events.
4. Liaison Relationship Protocols
Issue: The PRC discussed developing a liaison relationship with the Saratoga‐Monte Sereno Community
Foundation at the June 14, 2010 meeting and scheduled further discussion on the protocols of
establishing a liaison relationship at the September meeting.
Action: Discuss protocols and document process for establishing liaison relationships.
5. Tree Planting Recommendations
Issue: During the June 14, 2010 meeting, the PRC finalized its tree planting recommendations. At that
time, the Commission also decided to include the tree planting recommendations as a recurring
item on the agenda.
Action: Determine how often the PRC will review tree planting recommendations.
New Business:
6. Heritage Orchard Banner Policy
Issue: The City has recently received requests to place banners in the Heritage Orchard next to the
Saratoga Library sign at the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue. Consequently,
staff has been directed to draft a banner policy for the Heritage Orchard.
Action: Informational only, no action is necessary.
7. Cupertino Dog Park Hours
Issue: At the June 14, 2010 meeting, the PRC scheduled an informational report on the City of
Cupertino’s trial dog park hours for the September meeting.
Action: Informational only, no action is necessary.
Commissioner & Staff Reports (This includes committee updates and park reports. This section is informational
only; no actions will be taken.)
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
‐ November 9, 2010
Adjournment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability‐related
modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 408.868.1269 or
ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of
the meeting.
Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Note:
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Parks and
Recreation Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Manager at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made
available for public review at the office of the City Manager at the time they are distributed to the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 9, 2010 at the office of the City of
Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is
also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
City of Saratoga
Parks and Recreation Commission
MINUTES
DATE: Monday, June 14, 2010
TIME: 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Saratoga City Hall
Warner Hutton House
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Call to Order – 6:32 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Bruno, Goldberg, Johnson, Soukup, Wilson
Staff: Taylor, Powell
Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, this meeting was
properly posted on June 8, 2010.
Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2.
Oral & Written Communication: Any member of the public may address the Commission about any
matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up three minutes. Commissioners may not
comment on the matter, but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda.
‐ No comments from the public.
Approval of Draft Minutes: Draft Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Minutes for the May 11, 2010
meeting.
‐ Johnson requested a change on page 3 under Commissioner & Staff Reports regarding Johnson’s
report. He asked that the minutes read chain fence rather than chain link fence.
‐ BRUNO: MOVED TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS AMENDED
‐ GOLDBERG: SECOND
‐ APPROVED: 5‐0
Old Business:
1. Tree Planting
Issue: Since November 2009, the PRC has been developing of a list of potential locations to
plant trees on City of Saratoga owned property that could be recommended to the
Saratoga Public Works Director. At the May 2010 meeting, the PRC agreed to schedule
additional discussion on the item for the June meeting.
Action: Identify locations to plant trees on City of Saratoga owned property and make a
recommendation to the Public Works Director.
‐ The Commission discussed potential tree planting locations on a map of the City. Suggested
areas included:
o Fruitvale – between San Marcos & Via Vista on the college side of Fruitvale
o Joe’s Trail – from Saratoga‐Sunnyvale to Congress Springs
o Joe’s Trail – west of Saratoga‐Sunnyvale (cover up utility equipment)
o Congress Springs Park – along Glen Brae Drive; along the parking lot
o Saratoga Prospect Center – screening trees along the back of the parking lot
o Christa McAuliffe School Boundary – along the Prospect side
o Beauchamps Park – locations could be based on neighbor recommendations. There are
missing trees along the edge. The Commission wondered if the basketball/tennis courts
should be screened by trees.
o Azule Park – by the barbecues and kids’ playground
o Greenbrier Homeowners’ Association – done
o Highway 85 corridor – at intersections with surface streets; the Commission agreed that
they need to target locations better
o Tank Trail – on steep hillside
o Lawrence Expressway @ Quito – next to Prospect; along the side of Prospect/edge of
school (backs up to stadium); between Mattress Discounters and McDonald’s
o General – plant seedlings in open space – perhaps have as a High School service project
o Saratoga‐Sunnyvale – across from the Saratoga High School
‐ Goldberg volunteered to ask the Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee
and the Heritage Tree Society for additional locations.
‐ Johnson requested that the Commission schedule discussion on the tree planting locations at
every meeting to get reports on feasibility and/or priority setting.
2. MOVE‐IT Saratoga
Issue: At the City Council’s joint meeting with the PRC in March 2010, the Council authorized
the PRC to move forward with plans to challenge the public to walk/run a marathon or
bike a century in Saratoga between May and September 2010. Participants who
complete their miles will be recognized at the September 15, 2010 City Council Meeting.
Action: PRC will discuss MOVE‐IT Saratoga awards.
‐ Goldberg reported that she organized a hike and had 5 participants.
‐ Bruno indicated that personal outreach helps gain more participants.
‐ Emily Lo, attending as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Saratoga Monte Sereno
Foundation, said that the Chamber has an email list with 500 participants to whom information
about MOVE‐IT Saratoga could be sent. Lo was given a copy of the flyer for the program.
‐ Goldberg shared that she would be holding another walk on June 21.
‐ Commissioners brainstormed potential awards for participants. The ideas included:
o Commendations to be presented at a City Council Meeting
o EcoMetro coupon books donated to the Commission
o Pedometers
o Certificates of completion
o Donated prizes
3. Nesting Box Project
Issue: At the January 2010 meeting, the PRC received a presentation from a member of the
local chapter of the Audubon Society on bird nesting boxes. The Commission agreed to
work with the Audubon Society to place nesting boxes in Saratoga parks.
Action: Discuss status of the project and develop a plan for moving forward with placement of
boxes in the future.
‐ Johnson said that he spoke with Michael Azevedo, from the Santa Clara County chapter of the
Audubon Society. Azevedo is available to meet with the Commission the last three Wednesdays
of July. Johnson suggested the group meet on July 28, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
‐ The Commission consented and decided during the meeting the group would tour the San
Marcos and Saratoga Heights Open Space.
New Business:
4. Music in the Park
Issue: At the City Council’s joint meeting with the PRC in March 2010, the Council authorized
the PRC to move forward with plans to coordinate or support a music in the park type
event.
Action: PRC will discuss plans for a music in the park type event, which is in line with the
Commissions’ Council approved work plan.
‐ The Commission discussed possible options for holding a music in the park event and decided to
hold a movie night, rather than a music related event, in September.
‐ Wilson volunteered to work with staff to identify the parameters and logistics of holding a
movie night.
‐ Goldberg agreed to work on a subcommittee with Wilson to plan the event.
5. Saratoga‐Monte Sereno Community Foundation Liaison
Issue: PRC Chair Mark Johnson requested discussion on the possibility of creating a PRC liaison
to the Saratoga‐Monte Sereno Community Foundation (SMSCF).
Action: PRC will determine whether or not to proceed to establish a PRC liaison to the SMSCF,
including any necessary Council approvals.
‐ Johnson introduced the item, sharing that he added this item on the agenda to begin a dialogue
about opening up communication between the PRC and the SMSCF.
‐ Emily Lo, speaking as a member of the SMSCF, noted that at recent Foundation meetings the
members had discussed a desire to have liaisons from other organizations present at SMSCF
meetings. She also said that the SMSCF intends to meet once per month with the last
Wednesday of the month as a potential meeting day.
‐ Goldberg suggested that, if the Commission decided to have someone attend the SMSCF then
members could attend on a rotating basis.
‐ Goldberg recommended establishing a formal liaison relation with SMSCF.
‐ The Commission discussed reasons why it might want to seek Council approval to form a formal
liaison relationship with SMSCF.
‐ Johnson requested that discussion on the item be added to the next meeting and include
information on protocols for establishing a liaison relationship with an outside body, such as the
SMSCF. Johnson asked that information on the pros and cons of formal and informal
relationships are included in the report on the item.
6. Friends of Saratoga Parks
Issue: PRC Chair Mark Johnson agendized discussion on the development of a “Friends of
Saratoga Parks” organization.
Action: PRC will determine if it should initiate development of a friends organization for
Saratoga parks, including any necessary Council approvals.
‐ Johnson introduced the idea of establishing a non‐profit to raise funds for park improvements.
‐ Soukup said he felt that creating a non‐profit of this type is beyond the purview of the PRC.
‐ Discussion on the item was tabled by the Chair.
Commissioner & Staff Reports (This includes committee updates and park reports. This section is
informational only; no actions will be taken.)
‐ Wilson shared that he had secured three individuals to work on “advertorials” about the City’s
parks. Three students from Saratoga High School, who are part of the Media Arts Program, will
be producing the advertorials. Wilson requested 15 minutes on the September PRC agenda to
show one or more of the segments.
‐ Wilson asked for an informational report for the September meeting on Cupertino’s efforts to
establish Dog Park hours.
‐ Powell updated the Commission on the Azule Park petanque court, soccer net identification and
removal of soccer nets at El Quito Park, Councilmember Nagpal’s memorial garden, and the
balance of the City’s tree fund.
‐ Bruno reported that Foothill Park has brown spots, but added staff has plans to place mulch in
the brown patches. Bruno noted that Blaney Plaza looked great.
‐ Johnson shared that Bellgrove has some turf issues and that there might be a problem with
irrigation at the park. He also observed a dead tree. At El Quito, the main grate on the barbeque
in the park is broken, there are weeds in the back of the park, the front of the park appears to
need more water, and there is a dead tulip tree in the park. At Wildwood, there are tall weeds in
the back of the park, the chain fence noted at the last meeting is still broken, and there is a large
tree limb that came down in the park.
‐ Goldberg reported that there is a large oak tree on Shadow Lane that is dead and asked if it
slated for removal. Goldberg also shared that the PEBTAC has changed their meeting time to
5:00 p.m. She noted that the lower portion of the Tank Trail appears to be washed out and
needs to be regraded. She also shared the landscaping along the fence line at Kevin Moran Park
is beautiful.
‐ Johnson announced that at the July 7, 2010 City Council Meeting a proclamation recognizing
Parks and Recreation Month will be presented. He asked if there were any volunteers who
wanted to attend to accept the proclamation. Goldberg said that she may be able to attend and
Soukup said he would attend if Goldberg could not.
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
‐ Landscaping plan for Saratoga Prospect Center
‐ Establishing maximum numbers of memorial plaques in parks
‐ Nesting Box project
‐ Tree planting locations
‐ Movies in the park
‐ Protocols for liaison relationship with outside organizations
‐ Advertorials of Saratoga parks
‐ Report on Cupertino’s dog park hours
Adjournment – 8:53 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga – City Manager’s Office
City of Saratoga
Parks and Recreation Commission
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, June 23, 2010
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Saratoga City Hall
Administrative Conference Room
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Commissioner Lerry Wilson will be participating by phone from the following location:
12629 – 4050 Road
Paonia, CO 81428
Call to Order – 6:04pm
Roll Call
Present: Goldberg, Johnson, Soukup, Wilson
Absent: Bruno
Staff: Taylor
Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, this meeting was
properly posted on June 17, 2010.
Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2.
Oral & Written Communication: Any member of the public may address the Commission about any
matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up three minutes. Commissioners may not
comment on the matter, but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda.
‐ No oral or written communications.
Old Business:
1. Movie Night
Issue: At the June 14, 2010, the PRC decided to begin planning a movie night at Wildwood Park
during the month of September 2010.
Action: Determine if the PRC will go before the City Council to seek funding for the event from
the City or other sources, finalize the event date and time, define the scope of the
event, and authorize a commissioner or subcommittee to prepare a detailed budget,
description, and justification for the event that will be presented to the City Council, if
necessary.
‐ PRC members discussed the Movie Night Subcommittee report (Attachment A).
‐ Rather than try to undertake a full schedule of four events, the group agreed that a single
event would provide a good “test run” for consideration of a series of Movie Nights in the
future. After much discussion, the date of September 11th was selected with the activity to
begin at 7:30pm. Target audience is to be families with estimated attendance of 100 people.
‐ Potential issues and concerns were discussed with each Commissioner agreeing to
investigate specific aspects of the event and report back to the subcommittee.
‐ Commissioner Wilson agreed to research the need and cost of portable toilets and to
contact alternative vendors for competitive bid on a system larger than the current 8’ x 13’
screen proposed. Mr. Wilson also agreed to look at the costs of banners for the event.
‐ Commissioner Johnson accepted the task to work with Public Works/Parks about additional
lighting and electrical power needs at Wildwood.
‐ Commissioner Goldberg volunteered to solicit donations if the proposal is accepted by
Council.
‐ Commissioner Soukup offered to work with Commissioner Goldberg on possible movie
selections featuring a Saratoga connection. Suggestions included: actress Olivia deHavilland,
Lillian Fontaine, or producer Steven Spielberg.
‐ Commissioner Bruno will be assigned additional marketing and promotional duties if the
proposal moves forward.
‐ The Commissioners agreed to report back to the subcommittee by June 29th so a complete
budget and plan can be prepared and presented to Council
‐ GOLDBERG: MOVED TO AUTHORIZE COMMISSIONER SOUKUP TO ADDRESS COUNCIL AT THE
JULY 7TH MEETING TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO PURSUE A SINGLE “WILDWOOD CINEMA
MOVIE NIGHT’ AT WILDWOOD PARK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2010 TO BEGIN AT 7:30PM,
COSPONSORING THE EVENT BY WAIVING CITY FEES, AND ALLOWING THE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION TO SOLICIT DONATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE EVENT.
‐ SOUKUP: SECOND
‐ APPROVED: 4‐0
Commissioner & Staff Reports (This includes committee updates and park reports. This section is
informational only; no actions will be taken.)
‐ No reports given
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
‐ July 28, 2010 Special Meeting
‐ September 14, 2010
Adjournment – 7:16pm
Minutes submitted by:
Michael Taylor, Recreation and Facilities Director
City of Saratoga, CA
City of Saratoga
Parks and Recreation Commission
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, July 28, 2010
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Saratoga City Hall
Administrative Conference Room
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Site visits will be made to the following locations under agenda item 1:
1) San Marcos Open Space
Trailhead at 19244 Crisp Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
2) Saratoga Heights Open Space
Saratoga Heights Drive at Toll Gate Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
The Commission will return to City Hall for item 2. The estimated return time is between
7:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Call to Order ‐ 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Goldberg, Johnson, Soukup, Wilson
Absent: Bruno
Staff: Gardner, Morrow
Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, this meeting was
properly posted on July 22, 2010.
Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2.
Oral & Written Communication: Any member of the public may address the Commission about any
matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up three minutes. Commissioners may not
comment on the matter, but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda.
‐ No oral or written communications
Old Business:
1. Nesting Box Locations
Issue: At the January 2010 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) received a
presentation from a member of the local chapter of the Audubon Society on bird
nesting boxes and agreed to work with the Audubon Society to place nesting boxes in
Saratoga.
Action: Visit the San Marcos Open Space and Saratoga Heights Open Space to select nesting box
locations.
‐ The Commission visited the San Marcos Open Space and Saratoga Heights Open Space with
Michael Azevedo from the Santa Clara County Chapter of the Audubon Society.
‐ The Commission agreed to place ten nesting boxes in the Saratoga Heights Open Space and five
boxes in the San Marcos Open Space. All boxes would be attached to existing trees. Shawn
Gardiner, Parks Lead Worker, approved the proposed locations of the nesting boxes.
‐ The Commission also agreed to consider placing an owl box in Saratoga Heights Open Space.
‐ The Commission added the item to the September meeting agenda to develop a timeline for the
project.
2. Wildwood Cinema Movie Night
Issue: During the June 2010 PRC meeting, the Commission agreed to move forward with plans
to hold a movie night in Wildwood Park. At the July 7, 2010 City Council Meeting, the
City Council allocated $1300 to the event, extended park hours for Wildwood Cinema
Movie Night on September 11, 2010 to 10:00 p.m., and authorized the Commission to
seek funding and organizational support of outside organizations.
Action: Share progress on Wildwood Cinema Movie Night and take any necessary actions to
continue moving forward in the coordination of the event.
‐ The Wildwood Cinema Movie Night subcommittee shared a status report on the event, including
an update on outreach to outside organizations and plans for moving forward.
‐ Wilson indicated he would have a finalized list of event expenses by the end of the week to
share with event partners.
‐ Soukup shared results of the July 7, 2010 City Council meeting discussion on Wildwood Cinema
Movie Night and provided the Commission with a list of movies that featured actors, producers,
screenwriters, and animators from Saratoga.
‐ Wilson said he would check with Recreation & Facilities Director to see which movies are listed
in the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers catalog.
Commissioner & Staff Reports (This includes committee updates and park reports. This section is
informational only; no actions will be taken.)
‐ No reports
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
‐ September 14, 2010
Adjournment – 8:05 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga – City Manager’s Office
City of Saratoga
Memorandum
To: City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga
Date: September 14, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Subject: Nesting Box Project
At the July 28, 2010 Special Meeting, the Commission toured the Saratoga Heights Open Space
and San Marcos Open Space to identify locations for nesting boxes. Michael Azevedo attended
on behalf of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the Audubon Society to help the Commission
identify locations that would be appropriate for nesting boxes. Additionally, Shawn Gardiner
with the Public Works Department attended to approve proposed nesting box locations. The
group agreed to place 10 nesting boxes in the Saratoga Heights Open Space and five boxes in
the San Marcos Open Space. All of these boxes will be attached to existing trees. The
Commission also agreed to consider addition of an owl box in the Saratoga Heights Open Space.
The Commission decided to add discussion on the nesting box project to the September agenda
to finalize project plans, including volunteer recruitment and a project timeline.
City of Saratoga
Memorandum
To: City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga
Date: September 14, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Subject: Wildwood Cinema Movie Night Recap
During the June 2010 PRC meeting, the Commission agreed to move forward with plans to hold
a movie night in Wildwood Park. At the July 7, 2010 City Council Meeting, the City Council
allocated $1300 to the event, extended park hours for Wildwood Cinema Movie Night on
September 11, 2010 to 10:00 p.m., and authorized the Commission to seek funding and
organizational support of outside organizations.
During discussion at the meeting, the Council indicated that they liked the idea of an annual
movie night in Wildwood Park and wanted the PRC to create a framework for the event so that
a different organization would be able to easily coordinate the event in future years.
Consequently, this item has been added to the PRC agenda so that the Commission can review
the event and document what worked well, areas for improvement, and critical event details
that will help future Wildwood Cinema Movie Night coordinators or can be used as a reference
for organizing other events.
City of Saratoga
Memorandum
To: City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga
Date: September 14, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Subject: Liaison Relationship Protocols
At the June 14, 2010 meeting, the PRC discussed the possibility of developing a liaison
relationship with the Saratoga‐Monte Sereno Community Foundation. During the meeting, the
PRC decided to schedule additional discussion on the protocols for establishing liaison
relationships along with the pros and cons of formal and informal relationships.
Formal Relationship:
A Commissioner represents the Commission with the liaison organization and interacts with the
liaison organization on behalf of the Commission
- Council approval required
- Council authorization to form the liaison relationship can be done through a Council resolution
- Resolution should clearly establish ground rules for what the Commission liaison is authorized to
do and say on behalf of the Commission
Pros Cons
- Liaison has authority to act on behalf of the
Commission, which may be beneficial when
time is limited
- Council and PRC have a shared
understanding of the liaison’s role
- Obtaining Council approval may be a lengthy
process, including defining the liaison
relationship and scheduling a time to go
before the Council
- None of the City’s Commissions have formal
liaison relationships, so there will be no prior
examples to work from
- Council may reject request to form formal
relationship
- Approval process will need to be repeated
when forming new relationships or making
changes to existing relationships
Informal Relationship:
A Commissioner attends outside organization meetings, events, or functions in an individual capacity
and reports back to the Commission on the activities of this organization.
- No Council approval required
- Commissioner reporting on an outside organization has no authority to represent or act on behalf
of the PRC or the City
Pros Cons
- Relationships can be easily formed
- The PRC can flexibly determine which
organizations it wants to establish informal
relationships with based on the immediate
interests of the Commission
- The liaison does not have the authority to act
or speak on behalf of the Commission, which
may delay decision making processes between
the PRC and the outside organization
City of Saratoga
Memorandum
To: City of Saratoga Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II
City of Saratoga
Date: September 14, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Subject: Cupertino Dog Park
At the June 14, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, the Commission
requested that staff provide an information report on the City of Cupertino’s efforts to establish
a dog park. Below is a synopsis of the efforts to establish a dog park in Cupertino.
2008:
Cupertino began discussing development of a dog park in 2008, when the Council directed the
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission to review options for off‐leash opportunities for
dogs. The Commission began studying the topic and held a community study session in October
2008 to establish guidelines for off‐leash areas for dogs.
2009:
In 2009, the Commission facilitated a community discussion on off‐leash areas for dogs,
including both fenced and unfenced off‐leash areas, to generate feedback from the public. As a
result of the meeting, Cupertino began exploring opportunities to work with the Santa Clara
County Parks and Recreation Department to add a fenced dog park in Stevens Creek County
Park. Additionally, a group of residents volunteered to help identify potential locations in the
city for off‐leash areas.
Then in April 2009, the Cupertino Council directed staff to work with a citizens group to identify
locations in Cupertino parks for a six‐month trial of an off‐leash area for dogs (either fenced or
unfenced). The Council also authorized staff to begin discussions with Santa Clara County about
the possibility of adding a dog park to Stevens Creek County Park. Shortly thereafter, a citizens
group was established and met regularly to identify trial off‐leash locations. In July 2009, the
citizens group reported back to the City Council. At this time, the Council:
‐ Approved proposed rules for off‐leash areas developed by the citizens group
‐ Authorized the citizens group to work with Cupertino and County staff to study on the
proposal to add a dog park to Stevens Creek County Park
‐ Directed staff to conduct a survey of residents and park users within 1500 feet of
Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, Memorial Park, and the Library Field on proposals for
unfenced off‐leash areas
o Council required that before proceeding with trials, 50% of surveyed residents
would need to support the off‐leash area
‐ Directed staff to look into increasing code enforcement or County Sheriff services to trial
areas
‐ Directed staff to develop an educational program for neighbors and users of the trial
sites, including information on Cupertino’s public access channel and signage at the off‐
leash site
Then in December 2009, staff returned to Council with results of the neighborhood survey.
Residents and park users in all four of the proposed trial locations opposed an unfenced off‐
leash area for dogs. Cupertino staff also presented information about the process for planning
and implementing a dog park in coordination with the County Parks and Recreation
Department. At this time, the Cupertino Council directed staff to return with a report on fenced
off‐leash dog areas.
Conclusion:
In March 2010, Cupertino staff presented several different locations throughout the city for
trial fenced off‐leash dog areas. One of the locations included a section of land owned by
Cupertino on Mary Avenue. Council voted to conduct a 9‐month trial dog park at this location
and directed staff to return with additional information about the site and the cost of turning
the site into a dog park.
In June 2010, the Cupertino Council allocated funds in the city’s 2010/11 fiscal year budget to
carry out the trial dog park at the Mary Avenue location. The trial dog park will be a 19,000
square foot area with separate areas for large and small dogs. Plans include:
‐ Disabled access compliant parking stalls, signage, curb ramps, and walkway
‐ Double gated entry pad with wash down
‐ Waste and storm water retention features
‐ Site grading, cleanup, owner and pet hazard removal
‐ Waste receptacles and “Mutt Mitt” dispensers
If funding is available, after the basic plan elements have been accounted for, benches, a water
fountain, electric card access gate, and a pet fountain will also be installed. If electronic card
access gates are installed, access to the trial dog park will be limited to Cupertino residents that
have registered with the city.
Hours of operation for the trial dog park have not yet been established. However, Cupertino
staff expect that the trial dog park hours will be in line with the hours for all other Cupertino
parks—from sunrise to sunset.
Attachments:
‐ City of Cupertino Rules for Off‐leash Areas
‐ Criteria for Off‐leash Areas Established by Cupertino Community
‐ Cupertino Community Survey – Unfenced Off‐leash Trial Locations in Cupertino
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
City of Cupertino
Off-Leash Area for Dogs
Rules for Use
o Only dogs, dog handlers, and those persons accompanying them are allowed in the off-leash area.
o Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older. Any person under 16 years of age in the off-leash
area must be accompanied by a person 18 years or older.
o A dog handler, as defined herein, shall accompany his or her dogs at all times.
o Dog handlers are responsible for picking up and properly disposing of all feces deposited by their
dogs.
o No more than two dogs per handler will be permitted in the off-leash area at one time.
o Dogs in heat are not permitted in the off-leash area.
o Puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted within the off-leash area.
o Dogs must be vaccinated and free of communicable illness and disease.
o Dogs must wear proof of current license.
o Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the off-leash area.
o Dogs must be under voice control of their handler.
o Dogs displaying aggressive or anti-social behavior are not permitted in the off-leash area. Upon
signs of aggression or anti-social behavior, the dog will immediately be required to leave the off-
leash area.
o No smoking, food or alcohol allowed in the off-leash area.
o All other City of Cupertino park rules apply to use of the off-leash area.
o The off-leash area is subject to closure upon determination by the City that there is a reason
deemed to be in the public’s interest or safety.
o Users of the off-leash area do so at their own risk. The City of Cupertino shall not be liable for any
injury or damage caused by any dog in the off-leash area.
Adopted by Cupertino City Council on July 21, 2009
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
Community Established Off-Leash Area Guideline Criteria
Site: Unfenced or Fenced
1. Safety of park users and dogs
a) The park users must have their dog under voice
control
b) Children should always be closely supervised
by a responsible adult
c) Owners should carry their leash on them at all
times
d) One activity for a citizens group is to help
monitor interactions between dogs and other
dogs and between dogs and people
e) Overtly aggressive, overly assertive, overly
unruly, and under socialized dogs should be
discouraged from visiting the parks
f) Park users should be discouraged from bringing
young puppies or fearful dogs to parks, as they
may be made more fearful by highly assertive
dogs, highly interactive dogs, or rough play
g) Limit the number of dogs per adult allowed in
the park. U.C. Davis study suggest no more than
3 per adult user
Dogs should be under voice control at all times
All dogs in city should be licensed
A certified dog handler to evaluate if dog is eligible
to be off leash
2. Sanitation of park facilities
a) Plan and budget for an appropriate maintenance
and cleaning schedule, done by the City, with
assistance from the citizens group
b) Place signs stating the rules at the entrance(s) to
the park, as well as within the park, profiling the
rule that owners must pick up the feces of their
dogs. Be sure that the signs are well maintained.
Signs should be in English and Mandarin.
c) Provide adequate disposable bags, or other
means of removing feces, and refuse cans for
feces cleanup
d) The a citizens group should help monitor the
sanitation of the park
Investigate what would be the additional
maintenance cost to a park facility to have an off-
leash area.
Should be illegal for dog owners not to carry a
bag for picking up dog poop.
Better enforcement of dog sanitation laws
Dogs should not be allowed in playground areas
Designed dog areas should be located in a park
where it has adequate drainage
Park signs should be prominently displayed
3. Appropriately increased and positive usage
rates in parks
a) The size of the off-leash area should be as large
as feasible, but not too large to adequately
maintain.
b) Utilize alternate or nontraditional locations, if
needed, to help decrease the chance for conflict
with other community users
c) The requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) must be taken into
consideration
Excluded sports areas, playgrounds, picnic area,
environmentally sensitive areas.
Minimum buffer zone from residents
Review seasonal park usage
Determine amount of sites that would be adequate
for the community.
4. Respect to neighbors
a) Locate the off-leash area so that it is not directly
adjacent to residential property lines, to help
decrease the chance of actual and perceived
problems between park users and the neighbors
b) The off-leash area should be close enough to a
residential area that dog owners will take their
dogs to that area and not allow them off-leash
elsewhere
c) Enforce leash laws in areas surrounding the off-
leash area to decrease the number of dogs
illegally off-leash going to and from the park
Focus on actual problems between park users and
the neighbors and eliminate perceived problem
concept
Define what community support means
Investigate buffer zone
Program midway review process
User fee for off-leash area
5. Limited traffic impact
a) Provide adequate parking for the dog park
users, as most users (95%) drive to them
b) Locate the off-leash area as close to the parking
lot as possible to discourage owners letting their
dogs’ off-leash between the area and parking
Walkable distance from neighborhoods
Investigate what would be acceptable travel times
6. Protection of natural resources
a) Mitigate concerns about possible disturbance of
wildlife or native plants
Determine who would be qualified to identify an
environmentally sensitive area
7. Affordability of development and
maintenance
a) An active citizens group should participate in
the planning of a dog park
b) Encourage the citizens group to sponsor a
fundraiser with park users
c) A citizens group should advise the City as to the
needed resources to maintain the park, and to
help monitor its condition
Investigate incremental cost for maintenance of
space
Identify what the funds from the fundraiser would
be used for
8. Greater community education about dogs
a) Suggest that the dog park citizens group sponsor
an on-line and/or paper newsletter, and
potentially an email group
b) Park users should be educated in the signs that
dogs display when performing aggressive
behaviors
Issue to address with community when program is
implemented.
Investigate education courses for the community
City of Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department
Unfenced Off-leash Dog Trial Survey
December 2009
Survey Overview 3
Use of City Parks 4
City Parks Use -Resident Survey 5
Frequently Used City Parks -Resident Survey 7
City Parks Use -Park User Survey 9
Frequently Used City Parks -Park User Survey 11
Feedback on Unfenced Off-Leash Dog Exercise Areas 13
Program Description 14
Support for the Proposal -Resident Survey 15
Resident Support Profiles 16
Support for the Proposal -Park User Survey 17
Park User Support Profiles 18
Summary of Findings 19
Appendix A: Additional Respondent Information
Appendix B: Methodology
Appendix C: Topline Reports
Appendix D: Questionnaires
Appendix E: Crosstabulation Tables
Page 2
Table of Contents
Page 3
Survey Overview
Resident Survey Park User Survey
Data Collection Mail Survey Intercept Survey
Universe 5178 Households within 1500 feet
of the four selected City parks NA
Survey Dates September 24 through
October 16, 2006
October 12 through
November 13, 2009
Sample Size 1367 960
Margin of Error 2.3%NA
The City of Cupertino commissioned Godbe Research to gather residents’ and park users’ feedback on a
proposal for designating unfenced areas in Jollyman Park, Library Field, Linda Vista Park and Memorial Park for
off-leash dog exercise use during specific hours for a nine-month trial period. The following table outlines the
parameters used for the two surveys.
Use of City Parks
City Parks Use -Resident Survey
Page 5
With the first substantive question in the residents’ survey, the respondents were asked to indicate the Cupertino
City parks that they or members of their household had visited during the past 12 month. As shown below,
“Memorial Park” topped the list of responses, with 71 percent mentions. Following this, about half of them had
visited “Library Field” and 46 percent had visited “Jollyman Park” during the past 12 months. Otherwise,
approximately 1 out of every 5 respondents had visited Linda Vista Park and Blackberry Farm. Please note that
the respondents were allowed to make multiple selections in this question, and, as a result, the response
percentages sum to more than 100.
n = 1367
City Parks Use -Resident Survey
By Neighborhood
Page 6
December 2009
Residence Neighborhood
Jollyman
Park
Library
Field
Linda Vista
Park
Memorial
Park
Sample Size (n)361 482 233 291
Memorial Park 62%68%61%98%
Library Field 30%83%28%33%
Jollyman Park 95%23%36%32%
Linda Vista Park 22%10%92%13%
The following table shows the use of City parks across the households in different Cupertino neighborhoods.
Overall, the survey findings confirm that a majority of the households visit the City park located in their
neighborhood. More specifically, 95 percent of the respondents who live within 1,500 feet of Jollyman Park had
visited that park during the past 12 months. Similarly, 83 percent of the respondents who live near Library Field,
92 percent of those living near Linda Vista Park, and 98 percent of those living near Memorial Park reported that
they or members of their household had visited their neighborhood parks during the past 12 months. Across the
board, more than 60 percent of the respondents living in different Cupertino neighborhoods had visited Memorial
Park during the past year.
Page 6
Frequently Used City Parks -Resident Survey
Page 7
Further, the respondents in the resident survey were asked to indicate the park that they or members of their
household visit most frequently. Again, Memorial Park topped the list, followed closely by Jollyman Park, with 30
and 26 percent mentions, respectively. Otherwise, 19 and 15 percent of the respondents reported “Library Field”
and “Linda Vista Park,” respectively, as the ones that they or members of their household visit most frequently.
n = 807
Frequently Used City Parks -Resident Survey
By Neighborhood
Page 8
December 2009
Residence Neighborhood
Jollyman
Park
Library
Field
Linda Vista
Park
Memorial
Park
Sample Size (n)223 245 146 193
Memorial Park 4%14%8%96%
Jollyman Park 91%2%3%1%
Library Field 0%63%0%0%
Linda Vista Park 1%0%83%0%
The survey reveals that Cupertino residents most frequently visit the park located within their neighborhood. In
particular, 91 percent of the respondents living within 1,500 feet of Jollyman Park reported that they or members
of their household visit that park most frequently. Likewise, 63 percent of those living near Library Field, 83
percent of those living near Linda Vista Park, and 96 percent of those living near Memorial Park reported that they
or the members of their household visit the parks located in their respective neighborhoods most frequently.
Page 8
City Parks Use -Park User Survey
Page 9
Similar to the resident survey, the respondents in the park users’ survey were asked to indicate the Cupertino City
parks that they or members of their household have visited during the past 12 months. In response, 57 percent
cited “Memorial Park” and 45 percent cited “Jollyman Park.” Furthermore, almost one-third of the respondents
had visited Linda Vista Park and Library Field. Some of the less prominent responses included the following:
Blackberry Farm, Monta Vista Park, McClellan Ranch Park and Creekside Park.
n = 954
City Parks Use -Park User Survey
By Interview Location
Page 10
Interview Location
Jollyman
Park
Library
Field
Linda Vista
Park
Memorial
Park
Sample Size (n)281 190 237 246
Memorial Park 37%46%49%95%
Jollyman Park 98%24%29%19%
Linda Vista Park 10%16%97%11%
Library Field 18%83%24%19%
The following table illustrates the difference in responses given by the individuals who were interviewed at
different park locations. Consistent with the findings from the mail survey, almost 2 out of every 5 users of
different Cupertino parks have visited Memorial Park within the past 12 months.
Frequently Used City Parks -Park User Survey
Page 11
When the intercept survey respondents were asked to indicate the parks that they or members of their household
visit most frequently, “Memorial Park” (29%) emerged as the top response followed closely by “Jollyman Park”
(27%). To a lesser extent, 22 and 14 percent of the park users reported most frequent visits to “Linda Vista Park”
and “Library Field,” respectively.
n = 954
Frequently Used City Parks -Park User Survey
By Interview Location
Page 12
The table below confirms that the respondents interviewed at the different locations were frequent visitors of that
particular City park. Specifically, 82 percent of the individuals interviewed in Jollyman Park reported that they or
members of their household visit that park most frequently. Further, 65 percent of the Library Field users, 82
percent of the Linda Vista Park users and 92 percent of the Memorial Park users mentioned that they visited the
respective City parks most frequently.
Interview Location
Jollyman
Park
Library
Field
Linda Vista
Park
Memorial
Park
Sample Size (n)281 190 237 246
Memorial Park 7%11%4%92%
Jollyman Park 82%5%3%2%
Linda Vista Park 1%5%82%1%
Library Field 2%65%2%1%
Feedback on Unfenced Off-Leash
Dog Exercise Areas
Program Description
Page 14
In the next section, respondents to the mail as well as the intercept survey were given a brief description of the
City’s proposal of setting aside unfenced off-leash dog exercise areas in selected City parks, including the
proposed hours and the exact location of the trial area.
Jollyman Park Library Field Linda Vista Park Memorial Park
Summer
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Winter
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TRIAL
AREA
TRIAL
AREATRIAL
AREA
TRIAL
AREA
Jollyman Park Library Field
Linda Vista Park Memorial Park
Support for the Proposal -Resident Survey
Page 15
Findings from the mail survey revealed that the residents within 1,500 feet of the selected four City parks do not
support the proposal to set aside unfenced off-leash dog exercise areas during specific hours for a nine-month
trial period. Overall, only 28 percent of the respondents reported their support for this proposal, whereas
approximately 3 out of 4 were opposed to this idea. The response from the residents of different Cupertino
neighborhoods was comparable. In particular, 30 percent of those living near Jollyman Park, 31 percent of those
living near Library Field, 24 percent of those living near Linda Vista Park, and 26 percent of those living near
Memorial Park reported their support for this proposal. By contrast, between 69 and 76 percent of the
respondents were opposed to the dog exercise areas in their neighborhood City park.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Memorial Park (n = 291)
Linda Vista Park (n = 233)
Library Field (n = 482)
Jollyman Park (n = 361)
Overall (n = 1367)
26%
24%
31%
30%
28%
74%
76%
69%
70%
72%
Support
Oppose
Page 16
Resident Support Profiles
Support Oppose Support Oppose
Gender
Male 41.0%48.7%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 62.3%40.1%
Female 59.0%51.3%Asian 34.6%56.9%
Other 3.1%2.9%
Age
Under 35 5.4%5.1%
35 to 44 15.9%29.2%Children in the
Household
Yes 32.2%53.0%
45 to 54 33.6%28.6%No 67.8%47.0%
55 to 64 19.6%17.5%
65 and over 25.5%19.5%Dogs in the
Household
Yes 44.3%13.3%
No 55.7%86.7%
The table below shows the demographic characteristics of the supporters and opponents of the unfenced off-
leash dog trial program. Overall, the supporters of this proposal were mostly women, those ages 65 and over,
Caucasians, and those with dogs in the household. Conversely, the opponents of this proposal had a
proportionately higher representation of the residents ages 35 to 44, Asians, and those who have children in the
household.
Note: Significant differences at the 95% confidence level between subgroups on any given survey item are denoted by colors: a blue mean score or
percentage figure is statistically higher than a red number between comparative groups, e.g., male vs. female, etc.
Support for the Proposal -Park User Survey
Page 17
As opposed to the findings of the mail survey, users of the four City parks were divided about their opinion on this
City’s proposal. Specifically, 49 percent of the park users supported the off -leash dog trial, whereas 51 percent
were opposed to it. A similar pattern of responses was observed across the four City parks under consideration,
with support ranging between 48 and 50 percent, whereas the remaining half being opposed to the off-leash dog
exercise areas.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Memorial Park (n = 250)
Linda Vista Park (n = 239)
Library Field (n = 190)
Jollyman Park (n = 281)
Overall (n = 960)
49%
48%
50%
50%
49%
51%
52%
50%
50%
51%
Support
Oppose
Page 18
Park User Support Profiles
Support Oppose Support Oppose
Gender
Male 49.0%48.9%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 47.4%30.5%
Female 51.0%51.1%Asian 35.1%53.6%
Hispanic 6.6%4.5%
Age
Under 35 32.9%20.8%Other 10.9%11.4%
35 to 44 19.6%27.2%
45 to 54 25.3%20.4%Children in the
Household
Yes 46.2%53.4%
55 to 64 15.1%19.2%No 53.8%46.6%
65 and over 7.1%12.4%
Dogs in the
Household
Yes 59.0%20.1%
No 41.0%79.9%
The table below shows a profile of support versus opposition for the off-leash dog exercise areas among park
users with different demographic characteristics. The supporters of the proposal were mostly younger than 35,
Caucasian, and those with dogs in the household. Conversely, the opponents had a higher proportionate
represnetation of the park users ages 35 to 44, 65 and over, Asians, and those who have children in the
household. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the opinions of male and female park users.
Note: Significant differences at the 95% confidence level between subgroups on any given survey item are denoted by colors: a blue mean score or
percentage figure is statistically higher than a red number between comparative groups, e.g., male vs. female, etc.
The resident survey findings revealed that a majority of the Cupertino residents visit the City park
located within their neighborhood.
Further, the residents who live within 1,500 feet of the four City Parks were opposed to the
proposal of having unfenced areas for off-leash dog exercise.
Overall, 72 percent of the respondents to the mail survey were opposed to the proposal, and
this level of opposition was comparable across the four neighborhoods surveyed.
Support was significantly higher among the women, residents ages 65 and over, Caucasians,
and the dog-owners.
Conversely, opposition was significantly higher among the men, residents ages 35 to 44,
Asians, and those who have children in the household.
Findings from the intercept survey show that users of the four City parks were divided on their
opinion about unfenced off-leash dog exercise areas for specific hours in these parks.
Approximately 49 percent of the intercept survey respondents supported this idea, whereas
51 percent were opposed to it. A similar pattern was observed in each of the four City parks
included in the survey.
In this case, support for the proposal was higher among the park users younger than 35
years, Caucasians, and those with dogs in the household.
On the other hand, opposition was higher among the park users ages 35 to 44, 65 and over,
Asians and those with children in the household.
Page 19
Summary of Findings
Appendix A: Additional Respondent
Information
Gender
Page 21
What is your gender?
Age
Page 22
What is your age?
Ethnicity
Page 23
What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to?
Children in the Household
Page 24
Do you have any children under age 18 living in your household?
Number of Children in the Household
Page 25
December 2009
Resident Survey Park Users Survey
Sample Size (n)589 453
One 34%38%
Two 47%40%
Three or more 8%15%
No response 11%6%
Adults in the Household
Page 26
Please indicate how many adults age 18 and over live in your household (including yourself).
Dogs in the Household
Page 27
Do you have any dogs in your household?
Number of Dogs in the Household
Page 28
December 2009
Resident Survey Park Users Survey
Sample Size (n)279 366
One 77%66%
Two 17%25%
Three or more 1%4%
No response 5%5%
Survey Language
Page 29
Appendix B: Methodology
Survey Methodology
Resident Survey Parameters
Data collection was conducted via a mail survey, which consisted of 8 questions. There were four different versions of
the survey based on the City parks selected for the trial period. Questionnaires along with a cover letter and a pre -paid
self-addressed return envelope were mailed to a total of 5,178 households located within 1,500 feet of the four City parks
in Cupertino on September 24, 2009. Every household received the survey and the cover letter in English and Mandarin.
Overall, 1367 residents returned their completed survey by October 16, 2009. These study parameters resulted in a
margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent. However, some respondents refused to disclose their demographic
information and some did not complete the entire survey. This attrition of respondents is typical for mail surveys, and
respondent counts for each question are provided in this report.
Park Users Survey Parameters
Data collection for the park users’ survey was conducted via intercept interviewing, which consisted of 11 questions.
Groups of two De Anza students were assigned to interview park users in Jollyman Park, Library Field, Linda Vista Park
and Memorial Park between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in the morning and between 4:00 p.m. and 6 p.m. in the evening.
The data collection took place from October 12 to November 13, 2009.
Overall, 960 unique park users completed the survey. However, some respondents refused to disclose their
demographic information and some did not complete the entire survey. This attrition of respondents is typical for
intercept surveys, and respondent counts for each question are provided in this report.
Page 31
Margin of Error I
Because a survey typically involves a limited number of people who are part of a larger population group, by mere
chance alone there will almost always be some differences between a sample and the population from which it was
drawn. These differences are known as “sampling error” and they are expected to occur regardless of how scientifically
the sample has been selected. The advantage of a scientific sample is that we are able to calculate the sampling error.
Sampling error is determined by four factors: the population size, the sample size, a confidence level, and the dispersion
of responses.
The following table shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percent result reported from a probability type
sample. Because the sample of 1367 respondents for the resident survey was drawn from the total number of 5178
households located within 1500 hundred feet of each of the four City parks, one can be 95 percent confident that the
margin of error due to sampling will not vary, plus or minus, by more than the indicated number of percent points from
the result that would have been obtained if the interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe. As the
table on the following page indicates, the margin of error for all aggregate responses is between 1.4 and 2.3 percent for
the survey.
This means that, for a given question with dichotomous response options (e.g., Yes/No) answered by all 1367
respondents, one can be 95 percent confident that the difference between the percent breakdowns of the sample and
those of the total population is no greater than 2.3 percent. The percent margin of error applies to both sides of the
answer, so that for a question in which 50 percent of respondents said yes, one can be 95 percent confident that the
actual percent of the population that would say yes is between 48 (50 minus 2.3) percent and 52 (50 plus 2.3) percent.
The margin of error for a given question also depends on the distribution of responses to the question. The 2.3 percent
refers to dichotomous questions where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50 percent of respondents saying yes
and 50 percent saying no. If that same question were to receive a response in which 10 percent of the respondents say
yes and 90 percent say no, then the margin of error would be no greater than plus or minus 1.3 percent. As the number
of respondents in a particular subgroup (e.g., age) is smaller than the number of total respondents, the margin of error
associated with estimating a given subgroup’s response will be higher. Due to the high margin of error, Godbe Research
cautions against generalizing the results for subgroups that are comprised of 25 or fewer respondents.Page 32
Margin of Error II
Page 33
n
Distribution of Responses
90% / 10%80% / 20%70% / 30%60% / 40%50% / 50%
1367 1.4%1.8%2.1%2.2%2.3%
1000 1.7%2.2%2.6%2.7%2.8%
900 1.8%2.4%2.7%2.9%3.0%
800 1.9%2.5%2.9%3.1%3.2%
700 2.1%2.8%3.2%3.4%3.4%
600 2.3%3.0%3.4%3.7%3.8%
500 2.5%3.3%3.8%4.1%4.2%
400 2.8%3.8%4.3%4.6%4.7%
300 3.3%4.4%5.0%5.4%5.5%
200 4.1%5.4%6.2%6.7%6.8%
Reading Crosstabulation
The questions discussed and analyzed in this report comprise a
subset of various cross-tabulation tables available for each
question. Only those subgroups that are of particular interest or
that illustrate particular insights are included in the discussion.
Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups
for a given question, the complete breakdowns appear in
Appendix E. These crosstabulation tables provide detailed
information on the responses to each question by demographic
and behavioral groups that were assessed in the survey. A
typical crosstabulation table is shown here.
A short description of the item appears on the left-hand side of
the table. The item sample size (n = 1133 in this case) is
presented in the first column of data under “Total.”
The results to each possible answer choice of all respondents
are presented in the first column of data under “Total.” The
aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is
presented as a whole number, and the percent of the entire
sample that this number represents is just below the whole
number. In this example, among the total respondents, 354
residents supported the proposal, and this number of
respondents equals 31 percent of the total sample size of 1133.
Next to the “Total” column are the other columns representing
responses from the men and the women. The data from these
columns are read in exactly the same fashion as the data in the
“Total” column, although each group makes up a smaller
percent of the entire sample.
Page 34
Gender
Total Male Female
2. Do you support or
oppose having an
unfenced off-leash dog
exercise area for a
nine-month trial period
during specific hours
in the park?
Total 1133 524 609
Support
354 145 209
31.2%27.7%34.3%
Oppose
779 379 400
68.8%72.3%65.7%
Subgroup Comparisons
To test whether or not the differences found in percent results among
subgroups are likely due to actual differences in opinions or behaviors –
rather than the results of chance due to the random nature of the sampling
design –a “z-test” was performed. In the headings of each column are
labels, “A,” “B,” “C,” etc. along with a description of the variable. The “z-
test” is performed by comparing the percent in each cell with all other cells
in the same row within a given variable (within Gender in the pictured
table, for example).
The results from the “z-test” are displayed in a separate table below the
crosstabulation table. If the percent in one cell is statistically different from
the percent in another, the column label will be displayed in the cell from
which it varies significantly. For instance, in the adjacent table, a
significantly higher percent of the women (34%) support the proposal than
the percent of the men (27%). Hence, the letter “A,” which stands for male
respondents, appears under Column “B,” which stands for female
respondents. The letters in the table indicate the differences where one
can be 95 percent confident that the results are due to actual differences
in opinions or behaviors reported by subgroups of respondents.
It is important to note that the percent difference among subgroups is just
one piece in the equation to determine whether or not two percentage
figures are significantly different from each other. The variance associated
with each data point is integral to determining significance. Therefore, two
calculations may be different from each other, yet the difference may not
be statistically significant according to the “z” statistic.
Page 35
Gender
Total Male Female
2. Do you
support or
oppose having
an unfenced off-
leash dog
exercise area for
a nine-month
trial period
during specific
hours in the
park?
Total 1133 524 609
Support 354 145 209
31.2%27.7%34.3%
Oppose 779 379 400
68.8%72.3%65.7%
Gender
Male Female
(A)(B)
2. Do you support or
oppose having an
unfenced off-leash
dog exercise area
for a nine-month
trial period during
specific hours in the
park?
Support A
Oppose B
City of Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department
Unfenced Off-leash Dog Trial Survey
December 2009