Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
DRAFT PARKS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
FOSTER CITY PARKS MASTER PLAN
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 3 System-Wide Results ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Access & Connectivity ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Comfort and Sense of Safety ............................................................................................................................. 9 Functionality ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Condition............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Combined Scores ............................................................................................................................................... 15 Park Specific Results .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A: Park Assessment Methodology Memo ...................................................................................... 20 Appendix B: Park Assessment Scoring Spreadsheet ............................................. (See Separate Document)
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
Foster City is a relatively small community with a dense park system. The parks are clean, well - maintained, and consist of lush plantings and water-front views of the San Francisco Bay and F oster City Lagoon. Generally, the parks are safe, quiet, and well-used – kids, adults, and seniors alike engage with the spaces. While typical amenities such as playgrounds, sports courts, and picnic areas are available, many City parks are uniquely located and designed to facilitate water-related activities such as kayaking, boating, and windsurfing.
As part of the of the Foster City Parks Master Plan, WRT assessed existing conditions of City parks to better understand how they are serving residents. This assessment, in addition to other analyses and engagement results, will be used to inform park recommendations that will be included in the Foster City Parks Master Plan.
Table 1 indicates the assessed parks by type and size. Park types are defined as follows:
• Community Parks are large parks (typically 10-30 acres) that provide a wide variety of active and passive recreational opportunities that serve a substantial portion of the City. • Neighborhood Parks are medium-sized parks (typically 2 to 10 acres) that provide a small range of amenities that meet the daily recreational needs for one or more neighborhoods. • Mini-Parks are small parks (typically less than 2 acres) that provide basic recreation amenities for nearby residents in a specific neighborhood or subdivision. • Special Use Parks are designed around a specialized use which serves a specifi c recreational need or population group (such as a dog- owners or windsurfers).
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Table 1: Assessed City of Foster City Parks
Park Name Park Type Park Acres
Boothbay Community 11.2
Edgewater Community 8.5
Leo J. Ryan Community 20.7
Sea Cloud Community 23.9
Catamaran Neighborhood 5.9
Erckenbrack Neighborhood 3.5
Farragut Neighborhood 3.8
Gull Neighborhood 3.1
Killdeer Neighborhood 2.4
Marlin Neighborhood 3.1
Port Royal Neighborhood 3.9
Shad Neighborhood 2.2
Shorebird Neighborhood 3.5
Sunfish Neighborhood 2.4
Arcturus Mini 0.8
Gateshead Mini 0.1
Ketch Mini 1.6
Leo Mini 0.02
Pompano Mini 0.6
Turnstone Mini 1.5
Baywinds Special Use 1.3
Boat Park* Special Use 1.6
Bridgeview Special Use 3.2
Dog Park* Special Use 1.6
* Boat Park and Dog Park are considered two separate Foster City Parks. However, since they are part of one cohesive site, they were assessed together in this analysis.
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Map 1: City of Foster City Parks & Recreation System
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Methodology
This assessment’s methodology has been tried and tested by WRT and has been tailored specifically to the unique conditions within Foster City. It should be noted that t his assessment is meant to be a tool to better understand the parks system and is not a prescriptive scoring mechanism. Since this is a qualitative assessment, the scores and weights contained in this report are based on the planning team’s perspectives and are inevitably subjective to a degree.
The assessment was conducted by WRT in August 2024. The project team assessed the parks according to a set of criteria that fall into the following four categories (see Appendix A for detailed assessment criteria):
• Access & Connectivity refers to the general accessibility of amenities for users of all abilities1.
This includes factors such as signage, internal/external path connectivity , safe pedestrian crossings, parking and more.
• Comfort & Sense of Safety refers to the presence or absence of comfort amenities such as seating, shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms. It also assesses criteria that affect the feeling of safety within a park, such as unobstructed sightlines, signs of vandalism, and lighting. • Functionality refers to how well the park functions for serving recreational needs. It includes criteria such as the presence and arrangement of amenities, appropriateness of vegetation, and compatibility with neighboring land uses .
• Condition refers to the physical condition of park assets and amenities and identifies signs of deferred maintenance2.
A rating scale of 1-10 was used for scoring each criterion. This scale was broken down as follows:
Poor (0 - 4.0)
Fair (4.1 - 6.0)
Good (6.1 – 8.0)
Great (8.1 – 10)
Additionally, criteria were weighted in accordance with their level of importance for achieving each category’s objective. For example, presence of amenities was highly weighted for the Functionality Category, while criteria such as erosion had a low weight. Criteria weights are indicated in Appendix A .
Leo J. Ryan Park was identified as a benchmark to help establish a baseline for which to measure other City parks. The park was selected for its overall success within all the assessed categories and overall popularity within the community. In addition to the score, descriptive field notes were added and photos were taken throughout to illustrate the findings.
1 Note: this is not a detailed ADA assessment. For such, refer to the City of Foster City’s 2022 Park Accessibility Reports 2 Note: this is a general qualitative analysis and not a detailed assessment of every park feature.
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
SYSTEM-WIDE RESULTS
This section provides further detail about the assessment’s key system-wide findings in the areas of Access & Connectivity, Comfort & Sense of Safety, Functionality, and Condition. For each category, park scores are presented followed by a list of key takeaways .
Access & Connectivity
Access & Connectivity refers to the general accessibility of park amenities for users of all abilities 3. This includes factors such as signage, internal/external path connectivity, safe pedestrian crossings, parking and more. Figure 1 illustrates the park scores for Access & Connectivity. In general, Foster City parks score highest in this category with an average score of 8.1. The highest scoring parks included Leo J.
Ryan, Shorebird, and Gateshead, which generally have great internal and external path connectivity.
Parks such as Pompano, Baywinds, Turnstone, Shad, and Edgewater scored lower in this category particularly due to their lack of internal pathways , signage and clear edge permeability.
Figure 1: Park Access & Connectivity Scores
3 Note: this is not a detailed ADA assessment. For such, refer to the City of Foster City’s 2022 Park Accessibility Reports
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Key Takeaways for Access & Connectivity:
1. Variable Path Connectivity
Pathways within parks are not always intuitive nor do they always connect to park amenities. Within some of the City’s larger parks, there is a need for secondary paths to connect amenities and provide a contiguous walking experience. In parks with many amenities ( i.e. Edgewater and Sea Cloud), the path network is less intuitive, hidden and divided by fencing.
2. Some Parks are Difficult to Find
Many Foster City parks have open boundaries and clearly define d entrances that can be seen immediately from the roads. Others, however, are located in the interior or residential neighborhoods at the end of long drives, which makes parks difficult to find and access.
3. Inconsistent Signage
Many Foster City parks have large, blue entrance signs, with a few of the interior-facing neighborhood parks having logos painted on the pavement to signify the entrance (Killdeer, Ketch). However, s ome parks have little to no signage save for small plaques that state regulations.
4. Well-Connected Bike/Pedestrian Network, but Lack of Supportive Amenities Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity rated high, especially for parks directly connected to the Bay Trail or thoughtfully integrated into pedestrian path networks (Leo J. Ryan, Boat/Dog). However, there is a general lack of bike amenities, especially bike racks.
5. Heavily-Used Parks Lack Off-Street Parking
Street parking for most parks seems sufficient. However, parks (Catamaran and Edgewater) where larger events are hosted, or containing many amenities may require additional parking.
Lack Path Connectivity in Edgewater Park Well-Connected Bike/Pedestrian Network in Leo J. Ryan
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Comfort and Sense of Safety
Comfort & Sense of Safety refers to the presence or absence of comfort amenities such as seating, shade, drinking fountains, and restrooms. It also assesses criteria that affect the feeling of safety within a park, such as unobstructed sightlines, signs of vandalism, and lighting. Figure 2 illustrates the park scores for Comfort & Sense of Safety. In general, Foster City parks scored well in this category though slightly lower than the other categories (average score 6.7). In general, the City’s Community and Neighborhood parks scored better in this category compared to the City’s mini and special use parks. The lowest rated parks (including Pompano, Bridgeview, Gateshead, and Baywinds ) generally lack adequate shade and/or comfort amenities.
Figure 2: Park Comfort & Sense of Safety Scores
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Key Takeaways for Comfort & Sense of Safety
1. More Shade
Though parks are generally well-shaded, more shade is needed around seating and active amenity areas. The selection of shade trees should take mature height and canopy foliage into consideration, to provide a comfortable experience.
2. Additional Comfort Amenities
Generally, mini parks had less comfort amenities such benches, water fountains and trash receptacle available. In Foster City’s larger parks, comfort amenities tend to be consolidated in one area rather than consistently spread throughout the park. In both instances, additional facilities might be warranted. Additional bathrooms may also be warranted in some park to provide a more comfortable experience.
3. Noise Mitigation Design that can be Applied Elsewhere Noise mitigation methods such as berms, plantings and offset sidewalks were observed (particularly at Leo J. Ryan), which can be applied to other parks located next to busy roads ( such as Boat & Dog and Bridgeview). Many of the City’s smaller parks are quietly nested in residential areas and are not in need of noise mitigation.
4. Inconsistent Lighting
Though some parks have their main paths and amenities lit, lighting is inconsistent throughout the park system and could be further studied to increase sense of safety within parks at night.
Berms to Mitigate Noise at Leo J. Ryan Lack of Shade at Bridgeview Lack of Amenities at Pompano
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Functionality
Functionality refers to how well the park functions for serving recreational needs. It includes criteria such as the presence and arrangement of amenities, appropriateness of vegetation, and compatibility with neighboring land uses. Figure 3 illustrates the park scores for Functionality. In general, Foster City parks scored well in this category though slightly lower than the other categories (average score 6. 8). High scoring parks tend to have a variety of amenities (such as Port Royal, Sea Cloud, Leo J. Ryan, Catamaran, and Ketch). Parks with limited amenities scored lower, including Pompano, Leo, and Bridgeview Park.
Figure 3: Park Functionality Scores
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Key Takeaways
1. Variety of Amenities
Foster City parks offer a range of amenities , including extensive sports fields (Catamaran Park, Sea Cloud Park, and Edgewater Park), water/beach access (Leo J. Ryan, Gull Park, Erkenbrack Park, Marlin Park, and Boat/Dog). However, some of the City’s smaller parks significantly lack amenities, such as Pompano, Bridgeview, and Little Leo.
2. Functional Park Layouts
Most amenities are strategically located, with restrooms situated near sports fields and courts, in easily accessible areas, or at trail entrances. Sports fields/courts and play facilities are typically situated at a distance from residential neighborhoods which mitigates noise concerns.
3. Water-Loving Landscapes
Water-intensive trees such as Redwoods, Willows, and Agapanthus are consistently planted throughout the park system. Turf areas are generally ubiquitous across the park system with only a few of the parks having distinct planting areas (i.e. a rose garden, salvia-lined fencing, and shrub/grassy edges at Farragut Park and Killdeer). The planting at Shorebird P ark is noticeably different from other parks, as it incorporates a thoughtful selection of low-water, low-maintenance planting into its landscape.
4. Compatible with Neighbors
Parks are generally located within quiet residential areas ; fencing and vegetation screening provides additional privacy for nearby homes. Particularly, parks integrated with recreation facilities (Leo J.
Ryan) or school facilities (Killdeer) rated high in this category.
Variety of Amenities at Port Royal Fencing and Vegetation at Killdeer Vegetation at Shorebird
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Condition
Condition refers to the physical condition of park assets and amenities and identifies signs of deferred maintenance. Figure 4 illustrates the park scores for Condition. On average, City parks scored high in this category (average score of 7.4). Unlike the other categories, the City’s mini parks condition score was highest of all the park types. Variation in condition is minimal, showing that the City consistently delivers a high standard of maintenance.
Figure 4: Park Condition Scores
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Key Takeaways
1. Geese Impacts on Cleanliness
Many water-adjacent parks’ condition is heavily impacted by the presence of geese (Marlin, Erckenbrack, Boat/Dog, Gull). Droppings and feathers diminish the overall cleanliness of the site, and many geese seem to evade current mitigation methods – such as fencing.
2. Variable Amenity Condition
The sports fields and courts in Foster City are generally well -maintained – though some rubber surfaces could benefit from cleaning and maintenance due to stains or residue (Turnstone Park, Shad Park). The overall condition of playgrounds ranges from fair to good, with several in need of replacement. Likewise, the design of play facilities varies, with the most memorable defined by vibrant color and form (Killdeer, Arturus).
3. Inconsistent Furnishings
Park site furnishings are generally well-maintained, clean and in good condition, with only a few specific instances of damaged. Furnishing design and finishes varies from park to park. Establishing amenity standards would create a more consistent aesthetic or brand in City parks and would help streamline maintenance efforts.
4. Variable Vegetative Condition
Foster City's parks are home to a variety of large, mature trees in variable condition, with several park trees struggling to thrive. Other vegetation, such as Lily of the Nile, Rose Laurel, Pride of Madeira, and Common Boxwood are frequently used to enhance entrances or line fences and are also generally in good condition. Some Lily of the Nile appear withered. Though the current vegetation at Bridgeview is in good condition, there is a general lack of plants as many were recently removed.
The native planting at Shorebird Park represents a promising initiative, although some boxwood plants have been removed due to poor performance. The selection of planting ma terial should be carefully considered to ensure species are well -suited for Foster City’s climatic and soil conditions.
Geese in Marlin Park Vegetation at Erckenbrack Park Quality Furniture at Bridgeview
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Combined Scores
Figure 5, Map 2, and Table 2 illustrate and compare the overall scores for each Foster City Park . The combined score indicates the average of the four categories and represents a complete assessment of each park. Highly rated parks include Leo J. Ryan, Port Royal, Catamaran, and Ketch. Bridgeview, Pompano, and Baywinds Parks were the lowest rat ed parks, indicating a need for improvement. Overall, the City’s Community and Neighborhood parks tended to score slightly higher than its Mini and Special Use parks.
Figure 5: Park Combined Assessment Scores
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Map 2: Park Combined Assessment Score
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Table 2: Assessment Score Summary
Park Name Park Type
Access +
Connectivity
Score
Comfort +
Sense of Safety
Functionality
Score
Condition
Score
Combined
Score
Boothbay Community 8.2 6.7 7.6 7.0 7.4
Edgewater Park Community 6.7 6.6 7.1 8.1 7.1
Leo J. Ryan Community 9.7 7.8 8.2 8.3 8.5
Sea Cloud Park Community 7.3 6.8 8.3 7.3 7.4
Catamaran Park Neighborhood 8.6 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.2
Erckenbrack Park Neighborhood 8.2 7.5 7.6 6.7 7.5
Farragut Park Neighborhood 8.4 7.2 7.0 7.0 7.4
Gull Park Neighborhood 8.3 7.2 7.4 6.7 7.4
Killdeer Park Neighborhood 8.1 6.6 7.5 7.3 7.4
Marlin Park Neighborhood 8.3 6.6 7.1 6.4 7.1
Port Royal Neighborhood 9.2 7.8 8.5 8.0 8.4
Shad Park Neighborhood 7.0 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.9
Shorebird Park Neighborhood 9.6 6.9 6.4 7.7 7.6
Sunfish Park Neighborhood 7.4 7.0 6.8 7.3 7.1
Arcturus Park Mini 7.9 6.2 6.1 6.6 6.7
Gateshead Mini 9.6 5.8 5.3 8.3 7.2
Ketch Park Mini 9.1 6.2 8.4 8.3 8.0
Leo Park Mini 8.3 6.9 4.6 8.8 7.1
Pompano Park Mini 5.1 4.4 3.7 8.0 5.3
Turnstone Park Mini 7.2 6.2 7.3 7.1 7.0
Baywinds Park Special Use 6.9 5.9 5.4 6.5 6.2
Boat/Dog Park Special Use 8.8 6.9 7.3 7.2 7.5
Bridgeview Park Special Use 8.1 5.6 3.9 7.4 6.2
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
PARK SPECIFIC RESULTS
Table 3 outlines specific takeaways from the Park Assessment for each individual park, highligh ting each’s key areas of strength and improvement. The recommendations in the master plan will capitalize on park strengths and strengthen areas where improvement is needed.
Table 3: Park-Specific Strengths and Areas of Improvement Park Name Park Type Overall
Score Key Strengths Key Areas of Improvement
Boothbay Community 7.4 a variety of amenities available, site is well- connected
Additional shade, updated amenities,
lighting
Edgewater Community 7.1 Many amenities available in good condition Better path connectivity and amenity
placement, better use of underutilized
open lawn areas
Leo J. Ryan Community 8.5
Water access; well connected to
neighborhoods; a variety of unique amenities;
great condition, event spaces
Additional signage and benches, external
path connectivity, lighting
Sea Cloud Community 7.4 Many types of sports amenities; adjacent to Bay Trail
Additional signage, improve layout and
path system, lighting
Catamaran Neighborhood 8.2 Well-connected to surroundings; variety in amenities Additional shade
Erckenbrack Neighborhood 7.5 Lagoon beach access; diverse plantings, good visibility from street
Life-cycle replacement of paving and
comfort amenities
Farragut Neighborhood 7.4 Mature trees and diverse planting, well- connected to neighborhood
Additional recreation and comfort
amenities
Gull Neighborhood 7.4 Lagoon beach access; good visibility from street
Better internal path connectivity; life-cycle
amenity replacement
Killdeer Neighborhood 7.4 Connectivity to adjacent school, good entry signage, well-shaded seating areas
Better use of underutilized lawn areas,
additional comfort amenities
Marlin Neighborhood 7.1 Lagoon beach access; good visibility from street
Additional shade and recreational/comfort
amenities
Port Royal Neighborhood 8.4 Well-connected to Bay Trail; good layout with shaded play area Additional shade
Shad Neighborhood 6.9 Quiet location; shaded by large redwoods; major amenities located near entry
Life-cycle amenity replacement; additional
signage and seating; lacks a bathroom
Shorebird Neighborhood 7.6 Thoughtful low-water use plantings; adjacent to Bay Trail; educational signage throughout
Additional recreation and comfort
amenities
Sunfish Neighborhood 7.1 Well-connected to neighborhood; quiet location
Additional signage, shade, and comfort
amenities; better use of underutilized
open lawn areas
Arcturus Mini 6.7 Connects to nearby Edgewater Park; well- shaded by mature trees
Additional signage, improve entrance
visibility, additional recreation and comfort
amenities
Gateshead Mini 7.2 Well-connected to the Bay Trail; intuitive path network; great condition
Lacks signage, comfort amenities, and
recreational amenities
Ketch Mini 8.0 Good entry signage on paving; quiet located, planting variety
Life-cycle amenity replacement, better
distribution of comfort amenities
Leo Mini 7.1 Open and quiet Need for basic amenities and identifying features and signage
Pompano Mini 5.3 Open and quiet Needs internal circulation, shade, amenities, and signage.
Turnstone Mini 7.0 Quiet location, diverse planting Need signage/identifying entry features, and comfort and recreation amenities
Baywinds Special Use 6.2 Located next to the Bay Trail; serves windsurfers, dogwalkers, walkers, bikers
Improved visibility and signage from street,
additional amenities; layout is divided by
parking lot
Boat/Dog Special Use 7.5 Accessible boat launch; shaded and fenced dog area Traffic noise mitigation
Bridgeview Special Use 6.2 Trailhead to the Bay Trail Additional trees/shade; additional amenities
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Foster City Parks Assessment offers a thorough evaluation of the city's parks, highlighting both their strengths and areas for improvement. Overall, the assessment underscores that Foster City has a high-quality park system, but targeted enhancements are needed to better meet community needs.
One key takeaway is that access and connectivity within the park system are generally strong, particularly in parks like Leo J. Ryan and Shorebird, which have well -integrated pathways. However, parks like Edgewater and Baywinds have challenges within this category and need some accessibility and navigation improvements, such as additional signage and improved visibility or path connectivity.
A second major insight regards comfort and safety within City of Foster City parks. While many of the parks are comfortable and provide a sense of security, inconsistent lighting and the need for additional shade, seating, and restrooms are noted as recurring issues. Expanding these amenities will enhance user comfort and make the parks more welcoming for all visitors.
The City’s parks generally have good functionality, though some areas need improvement. Parks like Leo J. Ryan and Port Royal offer a diverse range of amenities and well -placed features that meet various recreational needs. However, smaller parks like Pompano and Bridgeview lack sufficient amenities, limiting their overall function. Additionally, many parks rely on water -intensive vegetation. Enhancing amenities and adopting more sustainable landsc aping would improve the overall functionality of the park system.
Lastly, the condition of the parks is notable, with many parks offering well-maintained amenities and landscapes. However, challenges such as geese impacts on water -adjacent parks and variability in the condition of playgrounds and sports fields were observed. Addressing these issues through enhanced maintenance strategies and vegetation management will ensure that the parks continue to serve the community effectively.
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
APPENDIX A:
PARK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY MEMO
FOSTER CITY PARKS MASTER PLAN
The following methodology indicates the criteria for how the Park Assessment will be conducted in Foster City.
Score Categories
1. Access & Connectivity
2. Comfort + Sense of Safety
3. Condition
4. Functionality
Scoring Instructions
All items should be scored on a 1 to 10 scale
• Poor (0 - 4.0)
• Fair (4.1 - 6.0)
• Good (6.1 – 8.0)
• Great (8.1 – 10)
Access + Connectivity
Edge Permeability
Weight: 2
Visibility of the park from the street. Considers the design of edges and entrances and how they distinguish the park from its surroundings.
1. Entrances/Access obscured and entrances are difficult to find
5. Entrances/Access defined and can be identified from at least 300 feet away
10. Entrances/Access clearly defined - able to be distinguished from 300 feet away and has multiple entrances not inhibiting access; park activities are visible from the street
Signage, Maps, and City Branding
Weight: 3
Presence of wayfinding signs with information regarding park name, park hours, allowed uses (including pet related), maps with trail information if applicable, non- English languages where relevant, and location of signage for high visibility.
1. No park signage
5. Entrance sign and minimal secondary signs, limited information
10.Well-designed signage system – unobtrusive, understandable
Accessibility
Weight: 3
General observations for accessible features that accommodate users of various abilities.
Features to consider includes accessible surfacing, gradual slopes, presence of all -abilities amenities (accessible playgrounds, picnic tables, loop paths, etc.).
1. Poor accessible circulation and does not include any all -ability amenities
5. Limited accessible circulation and amenities
10.Park has generally accessible circulation and includes amenities for all -abilities.
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Internal Path Connectivity
Weight: 5
Presence of continuous pathways connecting all activities in the park.
1. Pathways circuitous/confusing, missing connections
5. Pathways adequate
10. Destinations clearly connected and intuitive - circulation very easy to understand
Pedestrian Connectivity
Weight: 4
Presence of trails or sidewalks in good condition connecting the park to the surrounding community. Safe crosswalks at intersections near the park (n/a when park entrance is located along a small, low -traffic street)
1. No trails or sidewalks connect the park to the surrounding community.
5. Trails or sidewalks exist in the vicinity but are not well -integrated with the park or have limited connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods.
10.Trails or sidewalks are integrated into and enhance park circulation and connect to the broader community and activity areas.
Safe Pedestrian Crossings
Weight: 2
Presence of clearly marked crosswalks at intersections near the park, especially on high traffic streets. (n/a when park entrance is located along a small, low -traffic street)
1. Unsafe crossing relative to street width/traffic volume
5. Standard crossing treatment present
10. Crossing treatment prioritizes pedestrian and/or is directly integrated into park circulation
Bicycle Connectivity
Weight: 1
Availability of dedicated/clearly marked bike lanes/paths leading to the park (unless parks are located on quiet residential streets),, and availability of bike parking/bike- racks either on the street or in the park. Bike parking quantity per size of park and appropriatel y located.
1. No marked bike route connecting near park (within 100 yards), no bike parking observed on site
5. Adequate bike route connects directly to park (Class II, III, or IV), bike parking observed / but not conveniently located or adequate
10. Safe, low-stress bike route connects directly to park (Class I , IV/ Fully Separated), ample bike parking for park and neighboring areas
Parking
Weight: 1
Adequate on-site parking or on-street parking for park’s size/function. Parking has good connectivity with park elements.
1. Insufficient parking, very poor connectivity
5. Adequate parking, adequate connectivity
10. Sufficient parking and connectivity
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Comfort + Sense of Safety
Availability of Shade
Weight: 5
Presence of shaded areas which provide relief from the sun.
1. No available structures or trees which provide shade
5. Some amenities are shaded
10. Large trees or structures are present throughout park, especially at noon
Availability of comfort amenities (seating, water fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) Weight: 5
Ample places to rest, access drinking water, and dispose of waste.
1. Limited comfort amenities available
5. A few available comfort amenities in select locations
10. Comfort amenities available at consistent intervals in park
Availability of restrooms (if applicable)
Weight: 4
Public restrooms are open for public use and easily accessible.
1. No available restrooms
5. Restrooms available, but limited in number or hours
10. Adequate number of restrooms that serve the park
Mitigation of Views / Noise from Surrounding Land Uses
Weight: 1
Effective mitigation of unappealing surrounding land uses, such as industrial facilities, derelict structures, etc. (n/a if no such adjacent uses)
1.Park does not mitigate unappealing surrounding land uses or noise
5.Park has some screening of unappealing surrounding land uses or noise
10. Park completely screens unappealing surrounding land uses, unappealing surroundings or noise imperceptible
No Signs of Unauthorized Activity
Weight: 2
Presence of intentionally damaged features such as broken furniture or graffiti.
1. Significant signs of unauthorized activity
5. Some signs of unauthorized activity
10. No signs of unauthorized activity
Line of Sight + Openness
Weight: 1
Evaluation will only apply to use zones of park (i.e., parks next to open spaces or creeks will not be negatively scored by the presence of taller/un- maintained vegetation)
1. Overgrown vegetation within 3’-8’, or hidden areas present near use zones
5. Some overgrown vegetation but generally open near use zones within 3’ -8’
10. No overgrown vegetation inhibiting clear sightlines throughout park
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Lighting
Weight: 3
Visual inspection to occur during the day, light levels will not be evaluated
1. No light fixtures at major amenity area(s) or major pathways
5. Light fixtures present but not at all major amenity area(s) or major pathways
10. All major amenity areas and major pathways appear to have appropriate quantity of light fixtures
Functionality
Presence and/or Diversity of Activities / Amenities
Weight: 5
Variety of amenities serving different user types (characterized by interests, age, passive/active activities) that is appropriate for the park’s size
1. Few amenities and programming available for users.
5. Standard programming, such as playground, seating, area, and lawn are available.
10. Diversity of passive/active activities, serving people of different ages, and different interests.
Appropriate Amenity Adjacencies
Weight: 3
Are amenities placed in a logical and balanced way to minimize any disruption
1. Amenities are not logically placed
5. Amenities are somewhat logically placed
10. All amenity areas are placed in the most logical place on site
Diversity + Appropriateness of Vegetation
Weight: 2
Variety of tree, shrub, and groundcover vegetation that is functionally and climatically appropriate. Turf areas have recreational value and purpose.
1. Limited vegetation variety, less than 50% of turf areas are purposeful.
5. Some vegetation variety, at least 50% of turf areas are purposeful
10. Significant variety of vegetation, at least 75% of turf areas are purposeful
Absence of Visible Drainage Issues or Erosion
Weight: 1
Visual inspection of puddling, flooding issues, or areas that are being eroded
1. There is significant signs of flooding or erosions throughout the park
5. There are some areas with flooding or erosion issues
10. There is no presence of flooding or erosion issues
Compatibility with Neighbors
Weight: 1
The adjacent residential, commercial, or educational uses benefit or do not disturb park users; vice ver sa.
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
1. Adjacent uses are not appropriate
5. Adjacent uses could raise concerns
10.Adjacent uses are appropriate
Condition
Paving Condition
Weight: 3
Potholes / cracks, looser pavers, deterioration, overall attractiveness, and relevance.
1. Poor condition, tripping concerns, not in appropriate locations
5. Fair condition, in appropriate locations
10. Excellent condition and in appropriate locations
Vegetation Condition
Weight: 3
No overgrown grass or dirt patches, overall maintenance of planted areas, appropriate pruning, presence of weeds.
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Tree Condition
Weight: 3
Ample amount of distribution throughout site and overall attractiveness
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Playground Condition
Weight: 3
Equipment condition (broken/protruding parts, rust), mulch, rubber, etc. Relevance of play equipment, variety of play equipment.
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Sport Field Condition
Weight: 3
Weeds, low spots, lighting, equipment condition.
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Sport Court Condition
Weight: 3
Parks Assessment Summary Report
Foster City Parks Master plan
November 13, 2024 DRAFT
Cracks, weeds, lighting, equipment condition.
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Restroom Facilities Condition
Weight: 3
Only parks with a restroom / building will be evaluated. Usable (not locked), sufficient provision for scale of the park, reasonably maintained (no severe maintenance issues)
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Comfort Amenities Condition (Benches, Tables, Water Fountains, Trash Receptacles) Weight: 3
Fixture condition (broken/protruding parts, rust, cracking, graffiti/vandalism)
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Beaches Condition
Weight: 3
Beach condition (vegetation growth, presence of rocks, quality and depth of sand)
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition
Lighting Condition
Weight: 3
Fixture condition (broken/protruding parts, rust, cracking, graffiti/vandalism)
1. Poor condition
5. Fair condition
10. Excellent condition