Hercules City Council
February 27, 2024

APPENDIX A
City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Inventory

APPENDIX B
Park Condition Assessment

APPENDIX C
Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary

APPENDIX D
Potential Improvements Costs

APPENDIX E
Prioritization Engagement Findings

APPENDIX F
Capital Improvement Plan

APPENDICES

PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX A
City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and
Recreation Facilities Inventory

Appendix A: City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and
Recreation Facilities Inventory
Overview
The City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Inventory includes two tables.

Table A-1 records all City parks by type, including Citywide Parks, Community Praks, Neighborhood Parks, Greenways and Trails, and Standalone Recreation Facilities. It also includes the facilities and amenities associated with each park site. Table A-1 also shows other resources such as schools with recreation resources and HOA parks.

Table A-2 depicts the Major Facilities Inventory, including recreation / community center, aquatic facilities, childcare centers, and other sites used for recreation programs.

Appendix A: City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Inventory | A-1 Table A-1. City of Hercules Parks, Trails and Recreation Facilities Inventory Name
Proposed Master Plan
Park Classification (2023) Acres1
Baseball or Softball Field
Soccer Field
Football Field
Basketball Court
Tennis Court
Volleyball Court
Bocce Court
Other Court
Track
Multi-use Sport Field
Exercise Equipment
Open Lawn Area
Community Garden
Formal Gardens
Playground 5-12
Playground 2-5
Picnic Area (Group)
Picnic Area (Single)
Dog Park
Gazebo
Horseshoe Pit
Recreation/ Community
Center
Senior Center
Swimming Pool
Amphitheater
Trail
Trail Head/Rest Stop
Walking/Jogging Path
Pond
Bridge
Wildlife Viewing
Art
2 Restroom (permanent)
Shelter or Pavilion
Barbeque Grills
Benches
Pet Waste Stations
Parking (off-street)
Rentable Facilities
Outdoor Programming
Passive Park Site
Joint-Use Agreement
Long-Term Lease
School Adjacencies

CITYWIDE PARKS
Refugio Valley Park and Tennis Courts Citywide 12.7 4 1 2 1 1 6 1 1 √ 1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2 9 √

COMMUNITY PARKS
Duck Pond Park Community 6.8 0.5 2 3 8 1 2 √ 1 √ √ √ √ √ 1 1 Foxboro Park3 Community 3.6 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 √ √ 5
Hanna Ranch Park Community 10.2 1 3 1 √ √ √ √ 2 1 √
Ohlone Park Community 8.2 1 2 4 1 1 √ √ √ √ √ 1 √
Shoreline Park Community 2.6 1 1 1 2 1 √ 1 √ √ √ √ √ 2 √ Woodfield Park Community 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 √ √ √ √ 4 √

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Bayside Park Neighborhood 0.7 1 2 √ √ √
Beechnut Park Neighborhood 4.7 1 √ √
Frog Pad Park Neighborhood 1 1 1 1 1 1 √ √ √ √
Railroad Park Neighborhood 0.6 1 1 √ √
Shasta Park Neighborhood 0.5 1 1 1 √ √ √ √ 1 √
Sierra Park Neighborhood 0.4 4 1 1 √ √ √ √ 1 √

GREENWAYS AND TRAILS
Bay Trail Greenways and Trails 16 √ √ √ √ √
Refugio Valley Trail Greenways and Trails 23 16 √ √ √ √ √ 4 √ Other Local Trails (paved) Greenways and Trails 1.3 √
Open Space Trails (unpaved) Greenways and Trails 0.6 √ √ Parks and Trails Subtotal 98.9 2 4 0 3.5 8 0 2 1 0 0 20 12 1 0 4 10 17 16 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 2 5 5 2 3 7 3 8 2 8 14 6 10 24 1 7 0 0 0

RECREATION FACILITIES
Foxboro Community Center3 Recreation Facility 1
Hercules Community Center & Swim Center Recreation Facility 8.69 1 1 1 2 1 2 Hercules Senior Center Recreation Facility 0.10 1 1 1
Ohlone Community Center Recreation Facility 0.35 1 1 1 √ Teen Center Recreation Facility 1.54 1 1 1
Recreation Facilities Subtotal 10.7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 CITY-OWNED TOTAL 109.6 2 4 0 # 8 1 2 1 0 0 20 12 1 0 4 10 17 16 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 5 5 2 3 7 3 8 2 8 14 6 14 29 1 7 0 0 1

OTHER RESOURCES OWNED BY THE CITY

SCHOOLS WITH RECREATION RESOURCES
Hanna Ranch Elementary School 2 √ 3 √ √
Lupine Hills Elementary School 2 2 √ √
Ohlone Elementary School 2 √ 2 √ √
Hercules Middle and High School 3 2 1 2 √ 1 √ √
School Resources Subtotal 3 2 1 8 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

HOA PARKS
Forest Park HOA Park 0.35 1 1 1 1 2 √ √
Unnamed HOA park near Foxboro Park HOA Park 0.6 3 1 2 √ √ Yosemite Park HOA Park 0.27 1 1 √ √ √ √
Victoria Park HOA Park 0.34 1 1 2 √ √
HOA Parks Subtotal 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 1 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Notes:

1. Acreage is compiled from earlier City inventories, Google Earth, parcel data, and/or info from the LLAD map.

2. Art includes plaques, murals, monuments, and sculptures.

3. The Foxboro Community Center is located within Foxboro Park. While the City counts the facility separately with other stand-alone recreation facilities, the acreage and associated outdoor amenities are counted as part of Foxboro Park.

OtherAthletic / Sports Outdoor Recreation Trails/ Natural Features Park AmenitiesMajor/Specialized Appendix A: City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Inventory | A-2 Table A-2. City of Hercules Major Facilities Inventory
Construction Renovation
Major Facilities Address Park or Location
Facility
Area
(Sq Ft)
Rented
Space**
Multi-purpose /
Community Room/Banquet
Facility
Meeting / Classroom
Weight Room
Computer Room
Dance Studio/Floor
Gymnasium
Fitness Room
Swimming Pool
Kitchen
Stage / Auditorium
PA System
Benches
Barbeque Pit
Open Lawn
Deck
Patio or Deck
Restroom
Tables and Chairs
Locker Room
Office Space
ParkingYear Built
Last Renovation
Date and Upgrades
Recreation / Community Centers
Foxboro Community Center 1025 Canterbury Foxboro Park 1200 √ √ √ √ Painted 2018 Hercules Community Center 2001 Refugio Valley Road not associated with a park 17000 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ *1991 Gym floor 10/22 New Roof 2018
Hercules Senior Center 111 Civic Drive not associated with a park 1500 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ *1989 Painted 2017 Ohlone Community Center 190 Turquoise Drive Ohlone Park 2050 √ √ √ √ √ √ *1984 Painted 2018 Teen Center 2007 Refugio Valley Road not associated with a park 2000 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 2007 New Video Equip/Built in
Aquatic Facilities
Hercules Swim Center 2001 Refugio Valley Road associated with Hercules Community Center 20000 √ √ √ √ √ *1991 Plaster 2017 Fence 2022-23
Childcare Centers (Recreation Afterschool Program Sites) Lupine Kidz Center at Lupine Hills Elementary
√ √ √ √ √ √ *1991 Plaster 2017
Fence 2022-23
Hanna Ranch Kidz Center at Hanna Ranch Park and Elementary √ √ √ √ √ Ohlone Kidz Center at Ohlone school √ √ √ √ √
Other Sites Used for Recreation Programs
Samarrah Terrace -- VanDomselaar Room across from City Hall √ √ √
Library -large and small conference room Library-- rented rooms for programs √ √ √ √ √ *This inventory include buildings and major outdoor facilties that support Parks & Recreation Department programs. These are considered major facilities because of their staffing and operations requirements. **While some facilities are City-owned, others are temporary space or rooms rented from another entitity.

Outdoor AmenitiesSpecialized
Appendix A: City of Hercules Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Inventory | A-3

APPENDIX B
Park Condition Assessment

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-1
Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment

Overview
The Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) included a condition assessment1 of existing parks and outdoor recreation facilities. The following findings are based on a park site tour conducted by City staff and MIG on November 20-21, 2022. Field assessments were recorded using Esri Fieldmaps, customized for the City of Hercules. This Esri tool allowed the Master Plan team to assess conditions in a way that was standardized and geographically accurate. While indoor recreation facilities were not included in the condition assessment, a brief tour of the Parks and Recreation Department’s major facilities was conducted on January 24, 2023 to assess facility needs for programming space. Those observations and needs will be summarized in the Park System Summary and Needs Assessment.

The City of Hercules owns more than 132
2 acres of public parkland, currently classified per
the Open Space Element (amended April 14, 2015) in the City’s General Plan as:
• Community Parks
• Neighborhood Parks
• Mini Parks
• Greenways and Trails
• Recreation Facilities3
Parks vary in size, from the smallest park (Sierra Park), which is 0.38 acre, to the largest (Refugio Valley Park), which is 13.3 acres. There are two City-owned and maintained trail corridors (Refugio Valley Trail and the Bay Trail), which function as linear parks.4 Recreation Facilities, as a type of park land, include stand-alone community assets such as the Hercules Community Center and Swim Center, as well as smaller sites such as the Hercules Senior Center.5

1 Condition assessment scores do not factor in ADA accessibility. A separate access analysis identified exterior barriers as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2 See Appendix A, Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory. 3 The City of Hercules recognizes its recreation facilities under ‘Parks’ in the Open Space Element (page V-6, 2015 amendment), however, little detail is provided beyond recognition of the Hercules Community Center.
4 The Bay Trail was excluded from this assessment. It is accounted for in Appendix A, Parks and Recreation Facilities Inventory.
5 The Master Plan does not include an architectural evaluation of the condition of major facilities, such as community centers, the senior center, and the swimming pool, including those in parks and at stand-alone sites. Major facility needs are defined separately.

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-2
Methodology
The park condition assessment involved the following steps:

1. Creating a list of relevant facility and park amenity asset types to assess. MIG created a list of facility and amenity asset types relevant to the local parks and recreation context. Examples of assets include basketball courts, playgrounds, benches, restrooms, sport fields, trails, and picnic areas.

2. C reating a cloud -based geodatabase. MIG developed a cloud-based geodatabase to host information on park facilities and amenity types. Developed using ESRI’s ArcGIS Online, this database allows both City and MIG staff to quickly access information and analysis on the park system’s inventory.

3. C
onfiguring map -based forms for in-field data collection. Using ESRI’s Field Maps mobile app, MIG customized data collection forms for use in the Hercules context.

Fieldwork data captured elements such as asset type, coordinate location, and asset condition, as well as photographs of each asset.

4. D
eveloping a standardized rating system for park asset condition analysis . To systematically evaluate assets throughout the city, it was important to set standard benchmarks for comparison. The condition of each facility or amenity in the inventory was rated on a five-point scale by MIG staff.

5. V
erifying data quality . To ensure consistency and completeness of field-collected data, MIG routinely reviewed the inventory, making adjustments and verifying information as needed.

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-3
Park Condition Assessment
During the park assessment, each individual park asset – whether it be play equipment, picnic area, sport court, open lawn area, etc. – was evaluated for its current condition and assigned a rating. A five-point system was used given the age range of Hercules’ parks and the need to account for a wide range of conditions since some parks are brand new, while many others date to the early 1980s.

Table B-1: Park Condition Asset Score Key (5-point scale) Excellent Good Fair Poor Not Functional
5 4 3 2 1

Scores were based on the following definitions:

Excellent (5 points): Asset appears new and is fully functional and in optimum working condition. Very few to no minor cosmetic defects may exist. Replacement will be required at the end of the asset’s anticipated lifecycle.

Good (4 points): Asset is currently fully functional and in good working condition.

Minor cosmetic defects may exist. A Good rating indicates that facilities and amenities are not in need of repair. Replacement will be required at the end of the asset’s anticipated lifecycle.

Fair (3 points): Asset is currently functional but is old, worn, or in need of repairs or renovation in the short term. Surfaces, equipment, fixtures and safety features are operational and allow play, although moderate damage is evident. The asset should be considered for future repair and/or future replacement (recommended within five years).

Poor (2 points): Asset has significant damage or has parts that are unusable. Major repairs or short-term replacement are needed to continue to be functional and/or safe (recommended within 1-2 years).

Not Functional (1 point): Asset is either missing or has so much damage it is unsafe or inoperable. Immediate replacement, removal, or providing something different at the location is warranted.

The purpose of the park tour and condition assessment is to confirm the City’s inventory of park assets, document existing conditions, and identify potential opportunities for improvements. Results of the assessment are intended to build on existing knowledge and Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-4
identify recommendations in the Master Plan process. The park assessment provided a 1- to 5-point rating (see above) for each evaluated park asset. Using this rating system, average park condition asset scores were tabulated for each park site, park type, and the park system as a whole. Average scores for each asset type across the park system were also tabulated. Scores are not weighted, meaning that scores for features such as park benches and trash receptacles have similar impact to the overall park score as larger features such as playgrounds and sports fields do.

Tables 2 and 3 below summarize the average scores for all facilities by park site, noting how average scores are used to describe each park’s condition.

Table B-2: Park Site Average Score Key
Excellent Good Fair Poor Not Functional
> 4.6 3.6 - 4.5 2.6 - 3.5 1.6 - 2.5 < 1.6

Table B-3: Park Condition Asset Scores
Park or Trail Name Park Type Per
General Plan
Total
Assets
Average Park Condition Asset
Score (across all asset types)
Beechnut Mini Park Mini 6 2.7 Fair
Railroad Park Mini 13 2.8 Fair
Woodfield Park Neighborhood 27 2.9 Fair
Refugio Valley Trail Trails and Greenways 61 3.0 Fair
Frog Pad Park Neighborhood 19 3.2 Fair
Ohlone Park Neighborhood 35 3.2 Fair
Refugio Valley Park Community 108 3.4 Fair
Foxboro Park Neighborhood 37 3.5 Fair
Hanna Ranch Park Neighborhood 32 3.5 Fair
Shoreline Park Neighborhood 36 3.7 Good
Bayside Park Mini 21 4.1 Good
Duck Pond Park Neighborhood 41 4.1 Good

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-5
Shasta Park Mini 21 4.9 Excellent
Sierra Park Mini 29 4.9 Excellent
Community Parks 108 3.4 Fair
Neighborhood Parks 227 3.4 Fair
Mini Parks 90 3.9 Good
Trails & Greenways 61 3.0 Fair
Average Park System Score 486 3.6 Good

Parks, Trails and Greenways
A total of 486 park assets were evaluated for Hercules’ parks and trails and greenways inventory. The average condition assessment score for parks across the park system was 3.6 (Good), but notably, on the lowest end of the range for ‘Good’ scores (3.6-4.5). Looking at average scores by park type, parks in Hercules score on the high end of Fair, with Mini Parks pulling the average up for the overall park system score.

Forty-five asset types were assessed with average scores for each between 1.0 and

5.06 (see Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment Data, Asset Condition By Type).

This means that park assets in Hercules span a very wide condition range, from Non-functional to Excellent, reflective of the fact that there are many older parks and quite a few newer ones.

Findings below respond to key questions about the park system’s condition.

Which Parks are in Good to Excellent Condition?
The following parks received the best average scores across all evaluated categories of park assets, with a score of Good to Excellent (score of 3.6 to 4.9):
• Bayside Park
• Duck Pond Park
• Shasta Park
• Shoreline Park
• Sierra Park

6 Example of park assets scored 1.0 and 5.0: One kiosk in the park system was considered non - functional (1.0) because it lacked a surface to post information as it was designed. Four shelters of various sizes at Sierra and Shasta Parks are brand new, and all received E xcellent scores (5.0).

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-6
Many of the parks listed above are newer and/or have received relatively recent improvements, such as Duck Pond Park (park is approximately 12 years old, with new investment of half basketball court and restroom).

Which Parks are in Fair Condition?
The following parks received scores that indicate they are generally Fair condition (score of 2.6-3.5) and will need more immediate and major repairs throughout, ideally within the next five years. These parks are on both the lower end (Beechnut Park = 2.7) and high end (Hanna Ranch and Foxboro Parks = 3.5) for ‘Fair’ scores, meaning that within this score category itself, there is variation across one park to the next. Parks in Fair condition include:
• Beechnut Park
• Railroad Park
• Woodfield Park
• Refugio Valley Trail
• Frog Pad Park
• Ohlone Park
• Refugio Valley Park
• Foxboro Park
• Hanna Ranch Park
Are Quality Play Areas Provided for Youth?
All existing playgrounds include prefabricated equipment for ages 2-5 and 5-12, with more overall features provided for younger kids (aged 2-5). Some play structures appear dated, are not sited well, have accessibility issues or have excessive wear and tear (example: tot playground at Refugio Valley Park). The condition of the playground safety surfacing varies, as well, with the rubberized play surfacing at many of the parks similarly worn and in need of regular maintenance or replacement, especially at high impact areas (such as at the base of slides or entry/exit locations on a structure). A total of 8 parks received a Good or Excellent rating for their playgrounds, while 5 parks received a Poor or Fair score.

Do City Parks Support Sports and Active Recreation?
The lack of park space has limited the numbers and types of active use facilities offered. In addition, some types of facilities are only in Fair condition. Table 4 summarizes the inventory and average scores for active use facilities, with soccer fields and basketball courts receiving the lowest scores. Overall, the City does provide open spaces where organized and pick-up style sports can be played throughout town, but there were observed challenges at most including ground squirrel burrows, barren areas, uneven turf/ground, etc.

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-7
Table B-4: Parks That Support (or Potentially Support) Organized Sports Recreation Quantity
Park Name Basketball
Courts
Tennis
Courts
Baseball or
Softball Fields
Soccer
Fields
Open
Lawn
Refugio Valley Park 4 3
Duck Pond Park 1 3
Foxboro Park 1 2 1
Hanna Ranch Park 1 2*
Woodfield Park 2 2 1 2 1
Shoreline Park 1
Average Park Asset Score 3.0 (Fair) 3.9 (Good) 4.0 (Good) 2.8 (Fair) 4.2 (Good) *Soccer field space at Hanna Ranch can be split between 2 and 5 fields, including overlay at baseball field.

Do Parks Reflect Local Identity or Neighborhood Character? Parks represent local community needs through their design and programming.

Neighborhood identity can be represented by celebrating local history, art, cultures, and special themes. Some parks include a small gesture like a piece of artwork (Frog Pad Park, Woodfield Park) or themed play equipment (Shoreline Park), but these elements do not provide a clear understanding of the site’s history or neighborhood character. Some parks are named with a suggestion of their history or progeny (Railroad Park, Hanna Ranch Park), but there is nothing else that provides interpretation or understanding of their history. Others have potential for a stronger local identity, such as Ohlone Park, where a graceful oak tree stands at the center of the park, a unique asset in the park system. At all of Hercules’ park sites, there is potential to tease out more understanding of the site character and history.

Trails and Greenways
One trail was evaluated for the Master Plan, the Refugio Valley Trail. The Bay Trail, which spans the shoreline between Rodeo and Pinole, was inventoried but not assessed for its condition. Refugio Valley Trail is a 2.5-mile long separated and paved trail that begins downtown at Refugio Valley Park, parallels the south side of Refugio Valley Road, terminating at the intersection of Bonaire Avenue. At Bonaire Avenue, there is a gated soft surface fire trail, which leads further east to the Bay Area Ridge Trail (outside of the City boundary).

The overall asset condition score for Refugio Valley Trail is Fair, with a score of 3.0. Sixty- one trail and greenway assets were evaluated including exercise equipment stations, Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-8
several small parking lots, and limited amenities including benches, signage, and trash receptacles. Sixteen exercise equipment stations spread along the trail were overall in Poor condition with a 2.4 average score. Safety surfacing tiles below the equipment is missing, uneven, or damaged to the extent that it is difficult and even unsafe to use the equipment.

Given its age, the equipment may likely not meet industry standards for similar types of contemporary exercise equipment. Five angle-in parking lots located at intervals along the trail were in overall Good condition. The trail surface itself, comprised of paved asphalt and concrete sidewalks, was in Fair to Good condition, with some segments much improved from recent resurfacing. Considering the number of mature trees right along the trail, it is expected that root uplift will continue to affect surfacing and evenness even once repaired.

Park and Trails Experience Assessment
To augment the analysis, the MIG team used a qualitative scoring system (ranking 1 to 4, with 4 representing the highest score) to measure key attributes of the park experience using the following criteria:
7 • General Maintenance (Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor)
• Perception of Safety (Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor)
• Presence of Litter or Dumping (None-Minor-Moderate-Major) • Presence of Graffiti or Vandalism (None-Minor-Moderate-Major) • Tree Maintenance (Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor)
• Availability of Shade (Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor)
• Presence of Homeless Encampments (None-Minor-Moderate-Major) • Neighborhood Connectivity (Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor)
Table B-5: Park Experience Score Key (4-point scale)
Excellent/None Good/Minor Fair/Moderate Poor/Major
4 3 2 1

Table B-6: Park Experience Average Score
Excellent/None Good/Minor Fair/Moderate Poor/Major
>3.6 2.6 - 3.5 1.6 - 2.5 <1.6

7 The 4-point system used for the Park Experience score did not utilize the ‘not-functional’ category used in the 5-point system for Park Condition Asset score.

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-9
Table B-7: Park-wide Experience Scores
Park Name Average Park-wide Experience Score
Woodfield Park 2.8 Good/Minor
Railroad Park 2.9 Good/Minor
Ohlone Park 2.9 Good/Minor
Refugio Valley Park 3.0 Good/Minor
Refugio Valley Trail 3.1 Good/Minor
Frog Pad Park 3.2 Good/Minor
Beechnut Mini Park 3.3 Good/Minor
Shoreline Park 3.3 Good/Minor
Duck Pond Park 3.5 Good/Minor
Bayside Park 3.6 Good/Minor
Hanna Ranch Park 3.6 Good/Minor
Foxboro Park 3.7 Good/Minor
Shasta Park 3.9 Good/Minor
Sierra Park 3.9 Good/Minor
Hercules Park System Overall
Park Experience Score 3.3 Good/Minor

Park, Trails and Greenways Experience Takeaways
Overall, the experience of Hercules’ parks and trails is Good, with Minor presence of issues such as litter, graffiti, or vandalism. Similar experience scores mean that Hercules is providing a consistent level of staff time and maintenance across its park system, they are generally safe and welcoming, and introduced detractors are few. This finding suggests that identification, prioritization, and implementation of projects that both address the physical condition and improve the variety of park assets to address community needs will be an emphasis of the Master Plan.

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-10
General Maintenance
General maintenance is an indicator that a park or trail is regularly tended to, landscaping is maintained, trash and restrooms are consistently serviced, and facilities receive timely repairs to keep them in working order. Eleven of fourteen parks in Hercules received Good or Excellent general maintenance scores. Three parks had Fair scores for general maintenance (Railroad Park, Ohlone Park, and Woodfield Park). Park experience scores for general maintenance at these three parks are consistent with their park condition asset scores, also Fair.

Perception of Safety
Lack of perceived safety has been cited in studies by both adolescents, and in particular women, as a reason for not using parks or engaging in outdoor physical activity. 8 Safe
parks have vibrant, often-visited settings and their facilities are in good working order to support use of all visitors regardless of age, race, sex, or ability. All parks, except for Woodfield Park, received an Excellent or Good perception of safety score. Woodfield’s sightline constraints into and out of the park, lack of residential neighbors, surrounding topography, as well as limited path connectivity through the park itself, lends to a sense of isolation. It could be argued that Ohlone Park has similar challenges, but the fenced dog park and the loop path attract a higher turnover of visitors in and out of the park so it feels less closed off.

Presence of Litter or Dumping
Litter and dumping at parks and along trails is not only unsightly, but it can impact community pride and discourage visitation. Only minor litter was observed during the park assessment field work, and no dumping whatsoever. Park littering was generally observed around full trash receptacles. Overall, parks and trails appeared tidy and well cared for.

Presence of Vandalism or Graffiti
Vandalism and graffiti in parks can impact the park experience, especially if it suggests parks are not cared for or they aren’t regularly visited. Most parks (12 out of 14) had minor graffiti or vandalism present. Only Shoreline Park had moderate amounts. Most instances were observed on sides of buildings, on trash receptacles, picnic tables and other hard surfaces. Graffiti repairs on many surfaces were visible. Removing graffiti and repairing damaged park facilities is likely a regular task for park maintenance staff given it was observed at most parks. Parks with no signs of graffiti or vandalism included Shasta Park, one of Hercules’ newest parks. This park (and well as Sierra Park) has close neighbor proximity that may discourage vandalism or graffiti.

8 Sandra Lapham, Deborah Cohen, Bing Han, Phillip Ward, et al, “How important is perception of safety to park use?” Urban Studies 53, 12 (June 2015): 2. DOI: 10.1177/0042098015592822

Appendix B: Park Condition Assessment | B-11
Tree Maintenance
Healthy trees are generally considered a universal factor of a quality park experience. Tree maintenance is Good to Excellent at most parks with trees appearing healthy and few signs of damage or deferred maintenance. Only three parks had Fair scores, generally reflecting presence of overgrown eucalyptus (Refugio Valley Park and Ohlone Park) which create lots of leaf and bark litter, lending to a messy appearance.9 Trees at Beechnut Park also scored Fair as they appeared unkempt and scraggly as compared to trees in more urban locations.

Availability of Shade
The availability of shade was assessed because it reflects how comfortable a park experience can be, especially if the park is complex enough to warrant longer stays. Shade is often provided by park trees, shelter, awnings, or other sun shades. Availability of shade is Good to Excellent at most parks (11 out of 14). Locations where availability of shade was either Poor or Fair included Shasta Park, Railroad Park, and Shoreline Park. Shasta Park has immature shade trees, but shade is available at one small picnic shelter. Light may reflect and bounce onto the space from surrounding three-story residential homes on Shasta Park’s perimeter. Shoreline Park’s location along the bay is of a more open quality with trees provided at the developed area near the restrooms, play area, and along the trail perimeter. Given the windy conditions at this site, trees at Shoreline Park fail to thrive there and do not provide ample shade.

Presence of Encampments
No homeless encampments were observed during the field work.

Neighborhood Connectivity
Most parks in Hercules (11 out of 14) have Good to Excellent neighborhood connectivity given presence of sidewalks, bike lanes/routes, greenways, or other pedestrian paths that link to the park site. Mini parks scored the highest in terms of neighborhood connectivity.

Parks with connectivity challenges included Refugio Valley Park, located near Hercules’ civic center and along high traffic arterial roads. This park does have a primary connection to Refugio Valley Trail that brings pedestrians to the park who live in neighborhoods to the east. Woodfield Park is surrounded by steep hills which diminishes its neighborhood connectivity overall. The street frontage access point along Lupine Road is the only way park users can access the park from surrounding areas. Comparatively, nearby residents have better connectivity to surrounding undeveloped open space at the City’s perimeter than they do to Woodfield Park.

9 Eucalyptus trees are not a protected tree species per Contra Costa County’s Tree Protection and Preservation code (816-6) and are a non-native species to California.

APPENDIX C
Park Needs and Priorities Engagement
Summary

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-1 Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement
Summary

Overview
The Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) uses a four-phased approach to assess, evaluate, and make recommendations for Hercules’ parks and recreation system. The Master Plan effort intends to support fiscal sustainability through effective park and facility planning by identifying park improvements, facility enhancements, programming options, and other needs to create a prioritized park investment strategy. During the “Identify Needs and Opportunities” phase that took place between January and March 2023, the Plan engaged the community to think about the future of parks and programs over the next 10 years.

The goals of public engagement were to:
• Ensure the public has a solid understanding of the project scope, timeline, and opportunities and constraints of the Master Plan;
• Provide an opportunity for participants to provide input and ask questions; and • Gain a greater understanding of the community’s desires and collective vision for parks, trails, and recreation facilities.

Between January and March 2023, the Project Team conducted in-person and online activities for community members to identify park and program priorities. The community was asked about park use, desires, opportunities, and priorities to help identify needs in park services.

This document summarizes the feedback received during the “Identify Needs and Opportunities” phase, organized into two parts with supporting appendices:
• Part 1: Engagement Tools and Activities: Provides a summary of the different community activities, meetings, open house, pop-ups, and the online questionnaire.

The summary includes a description of each activity and tool used, how they were promoted, when they took place, and other performance metrics. • Part 2: Major Themes and Feedback: Provides a compilation of the major reoccurring themes and input reported back from the community.

The City of Hercules coordinated engagement activities and tools with the support of MIG, Inc. managing overall community engagement, Tripepi Smith managing communications and social media, and Zencity managing the project website and deployment of the questionnaire. Community feedback summarized in this document identifies needs and priorities for the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-2 Figure C-1. Plan process graphic with highlighted engagement phase

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-3 Part 1: Engagement Tools and Activities
The community engagement strategy aimed to reach a wide cross-section of the community interested in learning and providing feedback about the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The strategy included the coordination of public-facing activities and the creation of information-rich materials that describe the planning effort. The Project Team worked diligently to build plan awareness using social media and other outreach strategies and geographically dispersed in-person engagement activities across the city.

Activities included ten different ways for community members to participate and provide feedback both virtually and in-person. Each activity used similar project-branded materials.

The city used their existing social media channels to announce the various engagement opportunities to residents, including the project website, project sign-up email list, and social media outlets including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Staff from the City’s Parks and Recreation department planned, led, and facilitated many of the activities.

Table C-1: Engagement Tools and Activities
Activity Dates Approx. Participants

1. Project Website January 2023-ongoing ---

2. Online Park Use, Needs, and
Priorities Questionnaire
January 26, 2023 – March 19, 2023 671 (489
completed)1

3. Pop-up: Breakfast w/ a Badge
Senior Center
Tuesday, February 14, 2023,
8:00 am -10:00 am
70 4. Pop-up: Align Basketball
Community Center (Gym)
Wednesday, February 15, 2023,
5:00 pm – 6:30 pm
50 5. Open House at Community
Center (Gym)
Saturday, February 18, 2023,
10:00 am – 1:00 pm
30 6. Pop-up: Swim Teams
Community Center (Pool)
Thursday, February 23, 2023,
4:45 pm – 6:15 pm
40 7. Virtual Community Workshop:

Park Use, Needs, and Priorities
Wednesday, March 1, 2023,
6:00 pm – 7:30 pm
34 8. Pop-up: Spring into Wellness
Senior Fair
Tuesday, March 7, 2023,
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm
40 9. Pop-up: Booth at The
Exchange, Bayfront
Saturday, March 11, 2023,
10:00 am – 1:00 pm
6 10. Pop-up: Drop-In Foxboro Park Saturday, March 18, 2023, 10:00 pm – 1:00 pm
45 Total 986

1 Partial responses were included in the estimated participants.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-4 Project Website
The Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan website was set up as a resource for project updates and information. The website includes current project information, a project process graphic, and timeline, a sign-up for project notifications, project discussion questions, and contained links to access items such as online questionnaires and meeting registration sign-ups.

Figure C-2. The project website homepage

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-5 Online Questionnaire
The Project Team prepared an interactive online questionnaire hosted on the project website to collect input on community members’ recreation use, needs, concerns, and preferences. The questionnaire was available between January 26th and March 19th, 2023.

In total, 489 people completed the questionnaire until the end. An additional 182 participants completed some, but not all of the questions.

The questionnaire link was distributed and promoted through social media, press releases, posters, emails, flyers, and on QR codes used in pop-up event materials. The questionnaire was promoted with other planned engagement activities through e-blasts or by the activity facilitator. The city offered a $50 gift card raffle to incentivize participation.

The questionnaire contained 30 brief questions about parks, recreation facilities, equity and access, trails, programs and events, funding priorities, and demographics. The questionnaire results represent a self-selecting sample of respondents (rather than a randomized sample); this is by design, to maximize the availability of this engagement activity. The number of people that responded to each
question varies since respondents could skip questions.

Also, some questions allowed participants to select two or more answer choices, resulting in response totals
greater than the number of respondents and total
percentages greater than 100%.

The largest group of questionnaire participants were in the 35-44 age range (35%) and female (60%). The
ethnicity of respondents is reflective of the city’s
diversity, with 32% identifying as White, 26% as Asian, 16% as Latino, and 9% as African American. More than
half of the respondents stated that they have children
under the age of 18 living in their household (60%) and of the 433 respondents that reached that point of the
questionnaire, 74% live in Hercules.

Figure C-3. Instagram post for the questionnaire

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-6 Pop-Up Events
The Project Team coordinated and hosted six (6) community pop-up events (some in conjunction with other community activities) at selected locations. ‘Pop-ups’ are temporary events held at locations where people already gather, or in conjunction with other planned events. The goals of the pop-up events were to build awareness of the Master Plan and to gather feedback from the public in a consistent and informal way that does not strain staff resources.

At the first pop-up event, MIG staff attended and trained City staff on how to facilitate community interactions and track feedback. City staff hosted the remaining pop-up events based on availability and location. Participants could attend pop-up events freely and as many pop-up events as they liked. Pop-up event dates and locations were posted on the website and shared with the community on social media. The Team contacted those who had signed up for email notifications to attend and get the word out about the pop-up activities. Some events were rescheduled due to rainy weather.

Figure C-4. Social Media promotion for the Pop-Up Events

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-7 The pop-up events had similar layouts and materials and were conducted in the same manner to ensure participants had comparable experiences. There were four posters for participants to interact with:
• Poster 1: Project overview, schedule, upcoming events, link to the questionnaire, and timeline.
• Poster 2: Park and recreation facilities location map where people were asked to find and place a dot on their favorite park.
• Poster 3: Questions prompted participants to place dot stickers on their favorite park element examples and add other ideas.
• Poster 4: Questions asked participants to place dot stickers on how they would rate Hercules’ parks and add other ideas.

Discussions that took place during these events were both informal and informative. Staff would walk attendees through the posters and planning process. The staff passed out materials to participants including a flyer with QR codes for the website, a questionnaire link, and virtual event information. Some of the pop-ups had city swag and snack giveaways to incentivize visitation.

Staff encouraged community members to take the online questionnaire on personal devices or City-issued iPads and collected any verbal comments or feedback on sticky notes. Staff also encouraged people to attend the Community Open House (2/18) and Virtual Workshop (3/1) events to learn more about park needs and opportunities and have other ways to provide feedback. Figures 4 – 13 illustrate interactions with community members during various pop-up events.

At the close of each pop-up, staff would document the feedback provided on the posters.

Staff would share impressions about whom they talked to and approximately how many.

Pop-ups targeted specific neighborhoods and groups to ensure that the City reached a wide cross-section of community members. The team made sure to talk to students, seniors, park users, and recreation facilities users. Most people were receptive to supporting parks and recreation and voiced concerns about facility maintenance and additional programming.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-8 Figure C-5. The booth set up for the Pop-Up Event at the Exchange

Figure C-6. A Pop-Up Event at the Hercules Senior Center on Feb 14

Figure C-7. A Pop-Up Event at the Hercules Community Center on Feb 15

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-9 Figure C-8. A Pop-Up Event at the Hercules Community Center on Feb 23

Figure C-9. Dots depicting people’s self-reported favorite parks in Hercules

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-10 Community Open House
The project team hosted an open house event at the Hercules Community Center gymnasium on Saturday, February 18 between 10 am and 1 pm. The open house provided an opportunity to bring awareness and visibility of the Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan in a physical space dedicated to soliciting input on park needs, opportunities, and priorities. Approximately 30 people attended the open house in the allotted.

The open house date and the location were posted on the website and promoted to the community on social media. Members of the project’s Steering Committee and Councilmembers were also asked to attend and get the word out about the open house.

Upon arrival, participants were asked to register and provide their name and email if they were interested in receiving updates about the project. Each participant was offered city swag including a bag, snacks, a flyer about the plan, and dots and post-It notes that they could use to interact with the posters.

The open house used a similar layout to the pop-up events. Participants were able to roam around the room, respond to the interactive dot posters, jot comments, and ask questions to the various project team members. When the room reached a critical mass, the team recognized Councilmembers and City staff in the audience and then gave a brief overview presentation of the plan. Presentations concluded with a question-and-answer period.

Afterward, attendees continued to roam around the gallery to ask more questions as they completed the poster activities.

Questions and comments generally touched on the maintenance of facilities and programming for residents. There were Councilmembers present to listen to feedback firsthand. Youth, parents, seniors, and other adult residents contributed to the discussion.

Figures 14-19 show the interactions during the open house.

Figure C-9. Image of staff giving the open house presentation

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-11 Figure C-10. Post-It Note comments from the open house

Figure C-11. (left) Resident speaking with Vice Mayor Romero during the open house; (right) Parks and Recreation Director Christopher Roke in conversation with residents at the open house

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-12 Figure C-12. City Manager Dante Hall in conversation with Councilmember Chris Kelley during the open house

Figure C-13. City staff providing opening remarks during the open house

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-13 Virtual Community Workshop
The plan team hosted a virtual public workshop to solicit input regarding the community’s park and recreation needs on the evening of March 1 between 6:00-7:15 pm. The virtual workshop followed a similar format to the in-person open house to ensure a similar experience.

The team publicized the virtual meeting via social media channels and the email sign-up list. The meeting information and registration were posted to the website three weeks before the virtual workshop. There were 71 registrants; 34 people signed in and participated in the workshop.

The City opened the meeting with remarks from Mayor Alex Walker-Griffin, City Manager Dante Hall, and Parks and Recreation Director Christopher Roke. The consultant team then guided the group through the plan overview and details of the park planning process. The meeting facilitator posed a series of polling questions similar to the questions posed in the questionnaire and open house activity, including:
• What is your age?
• How often do you visit parks in Hercules?
• What is your favorite outdoor recreation activity and where do you do it? • What would you do to improve existing parks, trails, and recreation facilities that you already use?
There was a lively, frank, and open discussion period after the poll. People were able to provide non-verbal feedback through reactions or chat throughout the presentation and gave verbal feedback during the open discussion period. Questions from the community were verbalized or typed into the chat box, and they were fielded by both MIG and City staff.

A variety of different people were present at the virtual workshop. There was a majority of participants who visit parks regularly; out of the 24 people that responded to the poll, eight responded that they visit once a week, and five said that they visit daily, or almost daily.

People shared ideas and opportunities for recreation programming for seniors and youth (pickleball, volleyball, tennis, etc.), facilities
maintenance (tree and trash), and needed
facilities updates (bathrooms, courts, etc.).

“Our goal is to really identify
needs for the future of our
park system.”
-Dante Hall, City Manager

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-14 Figure C-14. Screenshot of Mayor Alex Walker-Griffin providing opening remarks for the virtual event

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-15 Part 2- Major Themes and Feedback
Part 2 summarizes the major themes, feedback, and location-specific information provided by the community during all the engagement events. This includes comments made during the pop-up, open house, online questionnaire, and virtual workshop event. Themes are organized under major headings including:
• Parks
• Trails
• Equity and Access
• Recreation Facilities
• Programs and Events
• Funding and Policy Direction

Parks
Parks Are Frequently Used And Show Signs Of Overuse
Hercules parks are popular amongst the people who participated in the engagement process. Most people that participated go to parks on a daily or weekly basis and report that there is noticeable wear and tear. In the online questionnaire, 68% of people reported that they visit parks on a daily or weekly basis. Most people who attended the virtual workshop reported they go to parks every week.

Unmet Need for Additional Recreation Programming at Parks Many comments throughout the engagement activities articulated a need for a better variety of recreational programs. There were requests for a more diverse type of programming for minors in the summer to play to different interests including a variety of sports, arts, and work opportunities for teens. There were requests from seniors for more programming to gather socially and get active. Most everyone wanted an opportunity to have outdoor programming.

Specialized Park Facilities Need More Maintenance
The community reported back that Hercules’ parks are frequently and thoroughly used.

There were many comments about parks and facilities’ maintenance of trees and bathrooms. There were requests for more frequent cleaning of tree debris after storms and strong winds. There were many comments about needing to dredge the pond at Refugio Valley Park because of the smell. Some called out that connecting sidewalks, restrooms, and sports courts should be updated.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-16 Additional Features Can Enrich and Expand the Park Experience There were many comments about adding features to existing facilities. There were suggestions such as benches and signage around trails and paths. Requests for additional trails or more variety in recreational space including sports courts and unique play opportunities. There were ideas shared about a larger recreational space around Shoreline Park and the Bayfront trail area.

Parks, Recreation, And Trails Are Important to The Community Many were involved in the engagement process that acknowledged the importance of parks. Understanding the favorability of the parks helps project staff the rationale for the ideas and opportunities shared by residents. When asked about “How important are parks, recreation, and trails to making Hercules a great place to live, work, or play?” in the online questionnaire, 93% of people who responded to the questions claimed it is “extremely important.” See Figure 21. People who attended the Open House and Virtual Workshop shared that parks are important for getting kids out of the house, getting active, and socializing.

Figure C-15. Question 1: "How important are parks, recreation, and trails to making Hercules a great place to live, work, or play?”

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-17 Address Active Recreation, Youth, and Teens, and Expand Programming There were a variety of ideas to improve parks in Hercules. The most popular items that were selected were updates and improvements to park facilities, an increase in opportunities for programming, and more frequent cleaning.

In the online questionnaire of the people that responded, the top actions identified to improve parks were “Added or improved facilities to support sports, fitness, or active play areas” (65%), “Added or improved comfort amenities (restrooms, drinking fountains, benches)” (60%) and “A greater variety of things to do” (49%). Ninety-seven respondents (25% of the respondents to this question) wrote in “Other” answers. These included specific mentions of improving existing facilities such as restrooms, sidewalks, multi-use courts (basketball, pickleball, tennis, volleyball, soccer, baseball, skate, pump track, and bocce), play structures, adding lights, benches, trash cans, and shade, and adding programs for youth and teens. There were many mentions to take advantage of the waterfront area.

Figure C-16. Question 3: "Thinking of the parks you visit, what would make them even better for you and your family?”

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-18 In the Virtual Workshop people were asked “What would you do to improve existing parks, trails, and recreation facilities that you already use?” People responded with requests for updates to benches, sidewalks, existing courts, and play structures, as well as for more frequent maintenance and cleaning of the park grounds. There were also ideas to extend hours of operation for more opportunities for activity.

At the open house and pop-up events, there were a wide variety of ideas for park improvements. There were many mentions of more programs for accessible programming for youth, teenagers, and seniors as a chance to socialize and learn new things. There were requests for upgraded or more sports courts for basketball, baseball, bocce, pickleball, soccer, tennis, and volleyball. There were also requests for more accessible play equipment and structures for people of all ages and abilities.

Figure C-17. Pop-up park rating poster with feedback

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-19 Parks Are Positively Viewed, But There Is Room for Improvement People generally spoke positively about Hercules Parks and Recreation, but throughout the process many people thought that the parks could be even better.

In the online questionnaire, participants were asked to use a sliding scale to rate park safety, accessibility (for people’s range of physical and mental capacities), availability (for people’s age range), physical condition, and the character and beauty of city parks. Most people classified parks as “good” for all categories; 62% in park safety, 50% in accessibility (for people’s range of physical and mental capacities), 42% for availability (for people’s age range), 42% in the physical condition and 51% in character and beauty of city parks. In the pop-ups and the open house, most people selected good (44%).

Figure C-18. Question 4: “How would you rate Hercules on each of the following items?”

Refugio Valley Park Is the City’s Most Popular Park
Throughout the engagement activities, people were asked what parks they frequent most or what was their favorite park to get an idea of what parks are well-used and suited for additional programs. Overall, Refugio Valley Park was the most talked about throughout the engagement period. Refugio Valley Park (31%), Hanna Ranch Park (23%), and Duck Pond Park (11%) were the top three most popular parks reported from the questionnaire responses. See Figure 25. In the pop-up and open house, the top three parks were Refugio Valley Park (20%, Hanna Ranch Park (12%), and Frog Pad Park (11%).

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-20 In a follow-up question in the questionnaire, people were asked about how they go to the park they selected and 58% got to their park by driving, followed by walking (36%).

Understanding that many drive to parks, the availability, size, and condition of parking facilities will be an important consideration for the master plan.

Figure C-19. Question 5: "Which park do you visit most frequently in Hercules (list one)?"

More Sports Fields, Courts, and Unique Play Experiences Are Desired The community expressed interest in adding and improving recreational sports courts and fields, as well as unique play opportunities, suggesting people want to get active. Question 8 asked the community, “What features or recreation facilities would you like to see improved or added in Hercules’ parks?”, the top three responses were sports fields (example: softball, soccer, cricket, lacrosse, kickball) (36%), sports courts (example:
pickleball, tennis, shuffleboard, futsal, basketball) (31%), and unique play features (example: nature play, water play, destination play) (28%). Thirty-seven respondents (10% of the respondents to this question) wrote in “Other” answers with specific descriptions to update or add facilities for recreation (tennis, pickleball, volleyball, play structures, and skate park), and add lighting at some courts for year-round activity.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-21 In pop-ups and the open house, people were asked to “Put a sticker on your three favorite elements you could envision being a part of Hercules’ park system.” While the choices provided in this activity do not reflect the universe of new park elements possible, the top three elements’ people put dots on were updated exercise equipment (13%), multi-use sports courts (13%), and other custom sand or water elements (13%).

Figure C-20. Pop-up poster response to: “Put a sticker on your three favorite elements you could envision being a part of Hercules’ Park System.”

Additional Financial Investment is Needed
People were supportive of investing funds and time to improve facilities and parks. In response to Question 17: "Should the City Change how much it invests in parks, recreation facilities, and trails to reflect their value in the community,’ eighty-three percent of respondents (83%) indicated that the City should spend more.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-22 Equity and Access
Range of Barriers Impede Fuller Use of Parks in Hercules There are a variety of different reasons people reported why they limit their use of parks.

Question 9 asked respondents, “What prevents you from using your local park(s) more frequently?” The top four most popular responses were lack of restrooms (39%), lack of interesting things to do (35%), there are no barriers (30%), and poor condition or maintenance of parks (27%). People in the open house and the virtual workshop shared concerns about cleaning up tree debris, replacing equipment, and maintenance of facilities.

Noticeable Accessibility Issues
Question 10 asked respondents, “Does Hercules have parks that serve everyone in the community?” most people selected that parks are accessible (54%). There were mentions about needing to update play structures to be sensitive to youth with special physical and cognitive abilities. In discussions with community members at pop-ups, open house, and virtual workshop, some shared that they would like to see the sidewalks or paths repaved and repaired to help people maneuver safely, as well as more benches for people to rest.

Figure C-21. Open House Post-It Note activity

Expand Opportunities on the West Side of Town
There were many requests to take advantage of the Hercules waterfront by adding facilities for more recreation opportunities. Question 11 asked respondents, “What area(s) or neighborhood(s) need a greater variety or better recreation opportunities?” The top three locations were the Waterfront (38%), Hercules by the Bay (22%), and Victoria by the Bay (15%). See Figure 30. In discussions with people at pop-ups, open house, and virtual

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-23 workshop, some shared a desire for a future recreation facility on the west side of the freeway. During the virtual workshop, there was a discussion about future development at Hercules Point for additional park space.

Figure C-22. Question 11: "What area needs a greater variety or better recreation opportunities?”

Youth, Teens, and Young Adults are Underserved
There is a community desire to provide younger people in Hercules with more recreation opportunities. The questionnaire asked, “In your opinion, do any of following groups in the community need a greater variety or better recreation opportunities?” The top three groups that polled the highest were teens (ages 13-17) (21%), children (ages 6-12) (19%), and young adults (ages 18-24) (13%). During the open house, there were comments about providing a variety of programs for teens and youth to help them get out of the house, be active, and have opportunities to socialize. At the pop-ups and virtual workshop, there were other comments about programs and amenities that would allow kids and seniors to socialize.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-24 Trails
The Community Regularly Uses and Values Its Paved Trails Overwhelmingly, the community responded that they use the Bay Trail and the Refugio Valley Trail. In the questionnaire, 79% of people responded that they use trails in Hercules (see Figure 31), and the Bay Trail was the most popular trail (65%). In the pop-ups and open house, the Bay Trail was also the most popular (14%).

Figure C-23. Question 13: "Do you use any of the trails in Hercules?"

New Trail Connections Are Needed
There was a desire to provide more trails in Hercules. In the questionnaire, people were asked if more trails and pathways are needed, and 57% replied yes. The top three most popular types of trails and pathways that people reported in the questionnaire were most needed were paved trails for walking, bicycling, skateboarding, etc. (44%), connections to the regional trail system (32%), and unpaved trails for recreation/exercise (walking, jogging, walking dogs, etc.) (31%).

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-25 Recreation Facilities
Community Center/Swim Center is the Centralized
Hub for Recreation Services and Programming
Questions 6 and 7 asked respondents, “Which
recreation centers, buildings, and pools provided
by the City of Hercules have you or your family
members visited in the last year?” and “What
improvements would you like to see to the City’s
indoor recreation and community facilities?” The
Hercules Community Center and the Swim Center
were identified as the top answers for both
prompts (and are located in the same complex).

This facility is the most visited and used and is
recognized by the community as needing the most
improvements.

Improvements identified for the Community Center included more opportunities for a variety of programs (such as cooking, gardening, exercise, etc.) for youth and adults, as well as general updates to the entire facility (floors, lighting, restrooms, etc.). Improvements identified for the Swim Center included updates to lighting, pool heater, shade, seating, and other amenities for community use year-round. There were multiple requests for extended hours for open swimming, more opportunities for swimming programs and activities, and an indoor facility for the winter.

In the pop-ups and open house, there were similar requests for general improvements to facilities including restrooms, additional hours for open swimming and recreation at the community center and swim center, and more flexible indoor recreational space. There were also mentions of adding a larger recreation facility along the waterfront. Respondents identified a range of improvements needed at the two facilities that are also most visited/used.

“I'd love to see more activities
and classes available for
littles! My son has been
wanting to do basketball for
months, but there's nothing
available until he's six!”
-Online Questionnaire
Participant response to “What
improvements would you like
to see to the City’s indoor
recreation and community
facilities?”

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-26 Figure C-24. Question 6: "Which recreation centers, buildings, and pools provided by the City of Hercules have you or your family members visited in the last year?”

Figure C-25. Question 7: "What improvements would you like to see to the City’s indoor recreation and community facilities?"

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-27 Programs and Events
Promote Community Gathering and Sports/Fitness-Focused Programs and Events Question 16 asked respondents, “What types of programs and events should be added or expanded in Hercules?” The top three event types that people selected were special events (i.e., music and movies in the park, holiday tree lighting, etc.) (53%), youth sports and fitness (43%), and adult sports and fitness (36%). Sports and fitness events might include things like foot races, relays, and team tournaments (Volleyball, Soccer, Pickleball, etc.).

Throughout the pop-ups and open house, people shared that they want diverse programs for seniors and youth. Some shared that there needs to be better communication around what programs are available and how many spaces are available.

Figure C-26. Question 16: “What types of programs and events should be added or expanded in Hercules?”

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-28 Funding and Policy Direction
Invest in Sports Fields, Courts, and Features that Add Diversity to the Park Experience There was support for future investment in the City’s parks and recreation facilities. From the questionnaire, 83% of people that responded ‘yes’ that the City should spend more to invest in parks, recreation facilities, and trails to reflect their value in the community.

The top three funding priorities were to improve or build more sports fields and courts (45%), repair or replace park amenities (43%), and add a greater variety of recreation features in parks throughout the city (34%). See Figure 33.

In the open responses, there were many mentions of investing in sports courts for pickleball, volleyball, soccer, and tennis as well as investments to park cleanliness.

Questionnaire results lined up with the conversations with residents at the other engagement events where people were most interested in improvements to the existing facilities and adding programs.

Expand Community Stewardship Opportunities
During the open house and virtual workshop, there was a discussion about community stewardship, volunteering, and employment opportunities for teens as well as adults.

There was interest from the community to make parks better through time and work. A volunteer group currently provides stewardship for the natural areas at Duck Pond Park and there is an opportunity for others to get involved. An individual from this group provided the project team with additional information about ideas and specific work needed for vegetation and other natural features at Duck Pond. 2 Focus Investment on Existing Parks and Facilities
The community provided their opinion about four broad approaches to focusing investment in park and recreation facilities. Question 19 asked people to rank the following approaches to reflect their priority:
• Renovate or improve existing parks and facilities (1st - 44%) • Add a greater variety of recreation features (2nd - 31%) • Provide more events, sports, and recreation programs (3rd – 23%) • Expand the trail network (4th – 38%)

2 Wilgus, Valerie. Input for Hercules’ Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. March 2023.

Appendix C: Park Needs and Priorities Engagement Summary | C-29 Figure C-27. Question 18, “Which of the following funding priorities and policy directions are most important to you and your family?”

Figure C-28. Question 19: "What are the highest priority projects from the following list? (Rank your priorities from 1 to 4, with 1 being the highest priority)”

APPENDIX D
Potential Improvement Costs

Appendix D: Potential Improvements Costs | D-1
Appendix D: Potential Improvements Costs

Overview
As Hercules plans for specific site improvements, planning-level costs for park and recreation features and facilities are useful for estimation and prioritization. Table D-1 shows a menu of features/actions that are relevant to Hercules’ parks system. Some of the costs are per site (such as Master Planning, Design, and Development of Raw Land), some are per each item (such as a baseball field, disc golf course, and picnic shelter), some are per mile (for trails), some are an allowance per site (such as public art or a wall mural), and some are per acre (such as maintenance of developed or undeveloped land) For each feature/action, there are:
• Fully-loaded costs per unit, which refer to the raw cost, mobilization, design fees, and contingency (35%). All costs may vary pending California’s construction industry.

These costs do not include taxes.
• Minor repair costs per unit, which reflect 25% of the fully-loaded costs. • Major repair costs per unit, which reflect 40% of the fully-loaded costs.

In all cases, prices will fluctuate and should only be considered as early data for discussing priority improvements and financial feasibility. In many cases, park development and improvements are not done in isolation but are a series of improvements that rely on each other. In this way, the construction of a new trail may also trigger wayfinding, maintenance, picnic tables, etc. This tendency to link related construction project should also be factored into project prioritization and cost estimation.

Table D-1. Features Menu
Minor Repair
Cost Per Unit
Major Repair
Cost Per Unit
25% of Fully-
Loaded Cost
40% of Fully-
Loaded Cost
Master Planning Per site 125,000$
Includes site with more complicated design needs, triggering permitting. Note that one combined master plan will be created for the riverfront sites.

Design Per site 125,000$ Development of a new site concept to enhance an existing site.

Development of Raw Land Per acre 1,250,000$ Site grading, circulation, and utilities. Further features are aded individually.

Art / Mural Allowance Per Site 35,000$ 8,750$ 14,000$ Wayfinding Per Site 15,000$ 3,750$ 6,000$ Includes identification, regulatory and wayfinding signage.

Baseball/Softball Field - Grass Per Each 1,300,000$ 325,000$ 520,000$ Regulation size field with natural turf, outfield fencing, backstop and foul-line fencing.

Baseball/Softball Field - Artificial Turf Per Each 2,000,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ Regulation size field with artificial turf, outfield fencing, backstop and foul-line fencing.

Basketball Court - Full Per Each 140,000$ 35,000$ 56,000$ One new full court Basketball Court - Half Per Each 80,000$ 20,000$ 32,000$ One new half court Bike Rack Per Each 3,500$ 875$ 1,400$ Two courts Bocce Court (2) Per Pair 65,000$ 16,250$ 26,000$ Two courts Drinking Fountain Per Each 5,000$ 1,250$ 2,000$ One fountain Climbing Wall / Challenge Feature Per Each 50,000$ 12,500$ 20,000$ One medium size feature Fitness Equipment (5 stations) Per Site 260,000$ 65,000$ 104,000$ Five stations of high quality fitness equipment, which can be placed in one location or spread along a path.

Soccer Field - Grass Per Each 700,000$ 175,000$ 280,000$ Natural grass field with basic drainage/prep and features.

Soccer Field - Artificial Turf Per Each 3,250,000$ 812,500$ 1,300,000$ Field with artificial turf and lights Tennis (2) / Pickleball Court (4) Per Each 450,000$ 112,500$ 180,000$ Pair of tennis courts or four pickleball courts with striping and netting, no lights Disc Golf Course Per Each 80,000$ 20,000$ 32,000$ 9-hole disc golf course with tees, baskets, signage and other necessary equipment Dog Park Per Each 275,000$ 68,750$ 110,000$ Fenced area with turf or hardier surface. Assumes this is a feature within a larger park taking advantage of other seating and existing utilities for water.

Grass Play Area Per Each 230,000$ 57,500$ 92,000$ 1 acre irrigation and drainage improvements, for unstructured play.

Picnic Table ADA Per Each 3,500$ 875$ 1,400$ 1 table Picnic Shelter Per Each 275,000$ 68,750$ 110,000$ 4 - 8' tables with BBQ and no utilities Ping Pong Table Per Each 10,000$ 2,500$ 4,000$ 1 table Play Structure (Neighborhood) Per Each 650,000$ 162,500$ 260,000$ Each, includes areas for tots and school age play. Higher end represents addition of accessible safety surfacing.

Play Structure (Destination) Per Each 1,500,000$ 375,000$ 600,000$ Large scale play structure with universal/inclusive and thematic elements.

Play Equipment (Freestanding) Per Each 25,000$ 6,250$ 10,000$ Individual play, balance, or spinning feature Skate Park Per Each 1,250,000$ 312,500$ 500,000$ Skate park renovation to accommodate spectators, safety and enhanced access.

Trails (Hard Surfaced) Per mile 2,000,000$ 500,000$ 800,000$ Regional trail: This cost assumes a 10ft-wide asphalt paved trail with 2' gravel shoulders on each side, signage assumed every 1/4 mile both directions and continuous buffer vegetation. Improvements required may include curb and gutter, curb ramps, drainage infrastructure adjustments and installations and minimal power pole relocation.

Trails (Soft Surfaced) Per mile 325,000$ 81,250$ 130,000$ Local foot trail: This cost assumes a 3ft-wide soft surfaced trail, signage assumed every 1/4 mile both directions.

Water Play Per Each 300,000$ 75,000$ 120,000$ Small, child-controlled water play element. Flows through.

Spray Park Per Each 1,850,000$ 462,500$ 740,000$ Recirculating spray park with mechanical building Fishing Access Per Each 275,000$ 68,750$ 110,000$ Parking (Off-Street) Per Site 300,000$ 75,000$ 120,000$ 10 total spaces including 2 accessible spaces Restroom (Permanent) Per Each 500,000$ 125,000$ 200,000$ 2 unit single-occupant Shade Structure Per Each 40,000$ 10,000$ 16,000$ Fabric-roofed elements that cool off hot play areas/spray parks etc.

Standard Maintenance Per Developed Acre 12,000$ Approximately 100% of current gross cost/acre Enhanced Maintenance Per Developed Acre 15,000$ Recognizing more intensive features and use at major facilities Natural Resource Maintenance
Per Undeveloped
Acre
3,000$ Based on a stabilizing level of maintenance, MIG research.

Notes:
*Fully-loaded costs refer to raw cost, mobilization, design fees, and contingency (35%) which may vary given California's construction climate. Does not include taxes.

Action/Features Unit Fully-Loaded
Cost Per Unit* Notes and Assumptions
Appendix D: Potential Improvements Costs | D-2

APPENDIX E
Prioritization Engagement Findings

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-1
Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings

Overview
The Hercules Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (Master Plan) uses a four-phased approach to assess, evaluate, and make recommendations for Hercules’ parks and recreation system. When completed, the Master Plan will support fiscal sustainability by creating an investment strategy for priority park improvements, facility enhancements, and other new park development.

During the “Recommendations and Prioritization” phase, two prioritization activities were held to collect community feedback on overarching project priorities. This information will be used to create a phased action plan, which acts as the road map for future improvements over the next decade and beyond.

This document summarizes the feedback received related to prioritization. • Part 1: Prioritization Activities describes the online prioritization activity and the in-person companion activity hosted as part of Steering Committee Meeting #3 on August 15, 2023.
• Part 2: Summary of Priorities provides a compilation of responses from the community survey and highlights of discussion from Steering Committee Meeting #3.

The City of Hercules coordinated engagement activities and tools with the support of MIG, Inc. (who designed and facilitated the community engagement), Tripepi Smith (who managed communications and social media), and ZenCity (who updated the project website). Community feedback summarized in this document identifies overarching priorities to be considered as part of the action plan of the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-2
Figure E-1: Plan process graphic calling out the "Recommendations and Prioritization” phase

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-3
Part 1: Prioritization Activities

Prioritization Survey
In early August, the Project Team deployed an online activity to identify community priorities for park projects to complete over the next 10 years. The survey asked respondents to weigh in on the most desired project types, preferred geographical distribution of future improvements, and the projects that are important to initiate in the short term. Questions were not mandatory, so the number of respondents for each question varied.

The Mentimeter survey was hosted online between August 1 and August 18, 2023. The survey link was posted on the project website, advertised on social media, and included on the City’s website.

Figure E-2: Social media posts on Facebook during the month of August 2023 to promote the prioritization survey

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-4
Steering Committee Meeting #3
In addition to the online survey, a second prioritization activity was promoted to those who prefer to communicate their ideas and thoughts in-person. A facilitated in-person activity for the public took place during the third project Steering Committee meeting on August 15, 2023, between 7:00-8:30 PM at Hercules Council Chambers at City Hall. A brief project update and presentation on the context for prioritization was provided by MIG, followed by a facilitated discussion of questions from the online survey, with additional opportunities for sharing details and insights. Participants and Steering Committee members also saw a preview of survey results so far. (The survey remained open for 3 additional days following the 8/15 meeting). A total of five members from the public attended. Given the number of participants, the Steering Committee and City staff joined participants in a lively and efficient discussion between all attendees.

Table E-1: Prioritization Activities
Activity Dates Number of
participants

1. Prioritization Survey – Preview to
Steering Committee Members
July 25 - July 31, 2023 8

2. Prioritization Survey – Open to the
public
August 1 - August 18, 2023 200

3. Prioritization Activity – Facilitated
SC and public discussion
August 15, 2023, 700-830 PM 5
Total 213

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-5
Part 2: Summary of Priorities
Part 2 summarizes responses from the online survey and provides highlights from discussion at Steering Committee Meeting #3.

Priority Project Types
Respondents think that 57% of available funding should go towards improving what the city already has or expanding what is offered at existing parks to add capacity; 33% of funding should go towards new trails and parks. The remaining 10% of funding should go towards new or enhanced indoor recreation facilities and childcare spaces.

Figure E-3: Survey Response to “Money is tight; How much would you give to each of the following project types? You have $100 to spend.

Steering Committee Input
• There is support for renovating existing parks or facilities and adding new recreation elements to them, where appropriate.
• Many existing facilities are past their useful life and need to be replaced. There may be repairs, but it’s primarily about replacements.
• The public is not using parks because facilities are not functional, or their original use is outdated.
• New enhancements should be placed in ways that are strategic and build capacity. • Trail connections are key. There are so many disconnected trails that limit access. • Underutilized areas of existing parks can and should be enhanced. Ex: Bocce at Duck Pond Park very underutilized. This area could be a unique, shaded picnic area capable of hosting a large group, or it could be four bocce courts that would attract teams/groups if they are well-designed and constructed.

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-6
Preferred Geographical Distribution of Future Improvements An overwhelming majority of respondents (75%) prefer to concentrate investment in a few larger parks.

Figure E-4: Survey Response to “What is more important? Concentrate on a few projects in major parks or concentrate on smaller projects in more locations?”

Steering Committee Input
• There is support for a few larger projects in major park sites – it is important for these improvements to be visible and big enough to show the city is doing something bold and is making an impact, but in a fiscally responsible way. • The major sites include Hanna Ranch, Refugio Valley Park and Tennis Courts, Woodfield, Foxboro, and potentially Shoreline, Duck Pond, and Ohlone. • The plan should also consider projects at smaller sites that could make a real difference, on a case-by-case basis: Beechnut, etc.
• The plan should provide improvements that will benefit the most people versus adding/replacing a very specific feature that benefits a smaller, select group. Ex:

Bathrooms benefit everyone.
• Recommendations that respond to nationwide trends should be viewed with some degree of caution. We did that 10 years ago and have new features that never got much use because the trend moved on to something else.

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-7
Priority Activities
Outdoor active recreation type activities (challenges, courts, sports fields, trails, play) were identified as the most needing immediate support.

Figure E-5: Survey Response to “What activities need the most immediate support? (choose up to 4)”

Steering Committee Input
• There is a need to upgrade the soccer fields. There are 1,000 youth players in Hercules this fall (700 recreational and 300 competitive). WCCYSL would prefer an artificial turf field if the City is not able to maintain a grass field. Grass fields are better but very difficult to perfectly maintain.
• The rainy season is hard on the highly utilized grass fields. • The dog park doesn’t fit in this question’s categories, but there is interest in the community for a second one.

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-8
Desired Improvements
The question, “Are there specific improvements you think the City should prioritize? What is the name or location of your idea?”” was provided to the community so there would be an opportunity for respondents to weigh in on a specific project or site they care about. The following improvement ideas and sites were mentioned:
• Hanna Ranch – Artificial turf conversion; grass soccer field improvements; lights for fields, more picnic areas; softball/baseball improvements • Beechnut Park – New play structure; tot lot; water spray or cool down feature • Duck Pond Park – Full court basketball
• Foxboro Park – Provide new safety surfacing; provide air conditioning at community center
• Refugio Valley Park – Shade and more trees; replace/expand central playground; path resurfacing/widening; lake dredging; restroom; skatepark; add basketball • Shoreline Park – Update kids’ playground as it’s falling apart • Woodfield Park – Fix/renovate tennis courts and basketball courts; add pickleball courts
• Hercules Point – Active recreation and trails focus
• Other
o Plant more trees for people to sit outside and enjoy nature with natural shade or shade coverings
o Beautify parks in general
o Add a sky bridge from City Hall to (future) Transit Center o Update older parks to serve teens and older kids
o Add a bike path that leads through all of Hercules that is safe from traffic o Revamp bathrooms in all parks

Steering Committee Input
• The plan should provide pickleball opportunities.

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-9
Demographic Questions
A series of demographic questions were included to help better understand if respondents reflect the overall demographic breakdown of the City of Hercules. Similar questions were asked during the Needs and Priorities survey in March 2023. Note: no question on the survey was mandatory, so the number of respondents for each varies.

Figure E-6: Survey Response to “What is your relationship with the City of Hercules? (check all that apply) (n=207)”

The below question provides information about the geographic distribution of survey respondents. Respondents are spread evenly across the City with most neighborhoods showing representation on the map. Residents of Pinole, Rodeo and other communities were also represented. This finding confirms that priorities resulting from this survey do come from the community itself. Dots with no numbers reflect a single respondent’s location.

Figure E-7: Survey Response to “What part of Hercules do you live in? (n=129)”

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-10
The below results suggest that parents or guardians of school age children are well represented as survey respondents, and that seniors may have participated at lower levels.

The median age of Hercules residents is 42.7 years (US Census 2021 ACS 5-Year Survey).

Figure E-8: Survey Response to “Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your home?”

Figure E-9: Survey Response to “How do you describe your race or ethnicity? (n=141)” • Caucasian (not Hispanic) 39
• Asian American 26
• Hispanic/Latino 22
• Prefer not to say 14
• African American / Black 10
• Pacific Islander 6
• Asian American / Caucasian 4
• African American / Asian American 2
• African American / Caucasian 2
• Asian American / Pacific Islander 1
• Asian American / Hispanic Latino 1
• Prefer not to say 3
• Did not report 11

Figure E-10: Survey Response to “What is your identified gender? (n=134)” • Female 71
• Male 56
• Prefer not to say 5
• Female/Male 2

Appendix E: Prioritization Engagement Findings | E-11
Figure E-11: Survey Response to “What is your age? (n=141)” • Less than 18 4
• 18-24 1
• 25-34 13
• 35-44 43
• 45-54 35
• 55-64 9
• 65 and over 8
• Prefer not to say 3
• Did not report 25

Figure E-12: Survey Response to “What is the primary language spoken at home (n=141)” • English 88
• Spanish 4
• Chinese 2
• Cantonese 1
• Did not report 46

Figure E-13: Survey Response to “What other languages are spoken at home? (n=23)” • Spanish 12
• Tagalog 2
• Portuguese 2
• Swahili 1
• Malayalam 1
• Nepali 1
• Vietnamese 1
• Patois 1
• Mandarin 1
• Burmese 1

APPENDIX F
Capital Improvement Plan

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-1
Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan

Overview
Capital Cost provides an indication of the magnitude of capital cost to implement the project, shown by dollar signs as follows:
$ (<$100,000)
$$ (>$100,000 to $300,000)
$$$ (>$300,000 to $1,000,000)
$$$$ (>$1,000,000 to $3,000,000)
$$$$$ (>$3,000,000)
Annual Operating Cost estimates the added annual operating cost once the project is in place, also indicated by dollar signs as follows:
$ (<$5,000)
$$ ($100,000 to $25,000)
$$$ (>$25,000 to $75,000)
$$$$ (>$75,000)
Time Frame indicates whether project activity will occur in the near, mid, or long term. All the following projects identified as priorities will require attention in the near term, although some are major projects and will not be completed for years. Some projects can be both planned and constructed in the same year, while others will take years longer to complete. Additionally, some projects will require different actions throughout the life of the project.
• Near-Term (0-5 years): The City’s CIP includes capital projects planned for a five- year period.
• Mid-Term (6-10 years): In the mid-term, more of the new ideas generated in this plan will be cycled into the CIP process, and preliminary work will advance the larger capital projects.
• Long-Term (11-20+ years): The long-term timeline includes projects that require significant up-front work and planning, represent long-term, ongoing investments or demand extraordinary funding strategies.

Urgency indicates the level of need. All projects within this Master Plan have a demonstrated need, but the level of urgency varies based on the availability of a particular amenity or program as compared to the demand. Urgency can also be a consideration of time sensitivity. For example, if a project will influence or guide future operations, such as development of open space conservation plans, that project would have a high level of urgency. A project could also be considered highly urgent if failure to act results in a missed opportunity, such as purchase of an available open parcel that could be dedicated as parkland.

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-2
Table F- 1. Parks and Facilities Capital Improvement Plan

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Existing Parks
Bayside Park Sitewide
Renovate planters where vegetation is dead or missing.

Consider removing manicured shrubs in high traffic areas. $ $ Long-Term Low Bayside Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Consolidate the two separate small
tot play areas in one expanded area of the park. As part of this process, replace tot play equipment and safety
surfacing. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Bayside Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Add a small shade structure with
picnic tables across from restrooms. $$ $ Long-Term Low Bayside Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Add 1-2 all-ages play elements
(balance, spinning, rocking elements, etc.) to provide teens, adults, and seniors something to do. $ $ Long-Term Low
Bayside Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Repair the out-of-service restroom
and repaint both restroom buildings. $ $ Mid-Term Medium Bayside Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Replace message kiosk between
restrooms with a small neighborhood library (little free library). $ $ Mid-Term Medium
Beechnut Park Sitewide
Add drought tolerant pollinator vegetation around
developed park areas. $ $ Near-Term High
Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Update park entry and access from
driveway curb cut. Add standard park sign. $ $ Near-Term High Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Repurpose paved lot into active area for youth. Add a tricycle loop or small skate spot and a half - basketball court and appropriate screening vegetation from neighbors. $ $ Near-Term High
Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Remove extraneous asphalt at paved
lot. $ $ Near-Term High
Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Add a small shade feature with
seating near the tricycle loop. $ $ Long-Term Low

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-3

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Replace swings with 2 adult swings or group swing. Add balance, spinning or other features that can serve all-ages. $$ $ Long-Term Low
Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #6. Add a small neighborhood library
kiosk in a high visibility area (little free library) $ $ Long-Term Low Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. Remove dead or dying trees and select woody vegetation to improve visibility across the park. $ $ Mid-Term Low Beechnut Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #8. Provide a soft surface pump track,
challenge or bike skills course on upper slopes of park. $$$ $ Long-Term Low Duck Pond Park Sitewide
Dedicate one of the park hillside meadow areas to butterfly habitat. $ $ Mid-Term Low
Duck Pond Park Sitewide
Renovate empty planters throughout developed areas of
park with drought tolerant pollinators like Russian sage, Mexican bush sage, California lilac, etc. Consider removing manicured shrubs. $ $ Mid-Term Low
Duck Pond Park Sitewide
Add mulch to planter areas to meet elevation of paved
walkways. Current walkways are 4” above grade and
present a fall/trip hazard. $ $ Mid-Term Low
Duck Pond Park Sitewide
Improve park’s natural features to enhance habitat, site aesthetics, and reduce fire risk. Remove dead or dying trees near pond. Remove felled tree debris, dead brush, and
eucalyptus litter. Leave horizontal limbs that provide
perching habitat within pond. Refrain from mowing the
west slope of pond until late June to encourage pollinator establishment and lifecycle. $ $$ Mid-Term Medium
Duck Pond Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Replace horseshoe courts with 2
additional bocce courts (if sponsored by area bocce league), or other similar footprint element like ping pong tables, futsal court, etc. $ $ Mid-Term Medium
Duck Pond Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Remove trees lining bocce courts to
minimize leaf litter. Replace them with other drought
tolerant landscaping or evergreen trees with no or very $ $ Mid-Term Medium Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-4

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
limited leaf litter (ex: fruitless olive) – or – add a small shade feature or shelter for each group of courts.

Duck Pond Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Provide a 0.75-acre fenced dog park
on grass slope surrounding developed park to provide a dog park on the west side of I-80. Consider partitioning separate areas for more active/less active dogs and include rules sign, agility features, fountain, waste receptacles, dog bag
stations, shaded seating, etc. $ $ Long-Term Low
Duck Pond Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Add a paved trail connection from the southwest corner of park to Athena Road. $ $ Long-Term Low Foxboro Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Improve the Foxboro Community
Center to support indoor/outdoor uses. Main improvements include adding central air conditioning and enlarging
storage room doorway. (See Recommendations for Major
Recreation Facilities for more details.) $$ $ Long-Term Low Foxboro Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Replace aging playground equipment
and safety surfacing. $$$ $ Near-Term High
Foxboro Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Renovate tennis court surfacing and
striping. Reuse existing nets. $$ $ Mid-Term Medium
Foxboro Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Renovate basketball court surfacing
and striping. Reposition hoops and posts they meet
standards. $$ $ Near-Term Medium
Foxboro Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Renovate planting area at seat wall
and add drought tolerant pollinator species. $ $ Long-Term Low Frog Pad Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Replace the playground and safety
surfacing in the next 5 years. Remove the concrete step up to the new play feature to provide direct access for those with mobility issues. $$ $ Mid-Term Medium
Frog Pad Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Repair and refinish gazebo shade
structure. $ $ Near-Term Medium
Frog Pad Park Sitewide
Recommendation #3. Renovate planting beds throughout
park with drought tolerant pollinator species. $ $ Mid-Term Medium

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-5

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Hannah Ranch Park Sitewide
Partner with community-based organizations, such as youth sports leagues, to improve fields. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Hannah Ranch Park Sitewide
Explore options to partner with the School District to fund and add other recreation uses at the park, including sports courts or a climbing wall. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Hannah Ranch Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Take existing upper field and renovate as 1 full-size regulation field, with option for 2 micro fields for children’s soccer. $$$ $$ Mid-Term Medium
Hannah Ranch Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Upgrade upper grass fields into
artificial turf fields through funding and partnership
agreement with youth sports organizations. $$$$ $$ Long-Term Medium Hannah Ranch Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Consider the addition of sports field lighting at upper field in coordination with neighbors. $$$ $ Long-Term Low Hannah Ranch Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Consider adding bleachers (ideally
shaded) along the accessible route to the upper field. $ $ Mid-Term Low Hannah Ranch Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Upgrade lower field to be an artificial turf multiuse field to support a range of sports such as lacrosse, soccer, baseball, softball, etc. $$$$ $$ Long-Term Medium Ohlone Park Sitewide
Initiate a site master plan or park design development
process prior to addressing long-term projects identified for Ohlone Park. Consider including a parallel public
engagement process. $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Sitewide
Provide an accessible loop connecting all major park
elements and key amenities (parking, dog park, community garden, proposed all ages play area). As part of this work, resurface paved asphalt path throughout park, providing minor reroutes as necessary (remove divots, cracks, shifts, tree root damage). $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Sitewide
Add signage identifying park, features, and trail connections to adjacent open space (See Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan – Proposed Trail Segment 7) and adjacent
neighborhoods. $ $ Long-Term Low
Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-6

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Replace fence at dog park. Provide
accessible gates into dog park and accessible features inside dog park. $ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Connect all concrete picnic pads to
asphalt path near dog park. $ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Remove eucalyptus trees at the dog
park; add a shade structure at dog park. $ $ Long-Term Low Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Removed patterned concrete paver
section in dog park and replace with asphalt path or
reinforced concrete path. $ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Provide a challenge/adventure type
facility for teens and young adults, such as a skate spot, climbing wall or net, in a location with good visibility and regular foot traffic. $$$$ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #6. Protect heritage oak tree on slope
during any kind of construction activity. Do not place any development within the critical root zone and dripline of tree crown given sensitivity of oak root systems.

Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. Add an all ages play feature that
works with the site’s natural topography – such as an
embankment slide and related elements. $$$$ $ Long-Term Low Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #8. Add a group picnic area/group
seating/hang out space near the all ages play feature;
consider an “art wall” installed in conjunction with youth artists. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #9. Expand community garden to address
waitlist backlog working with Hercules Community
Gardening Program. $ $ Mid-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #10. Provide a soft surface path entrance into the park from Turquoise Drive (between Opal Court and Cinnabar Way). $$ $ Long-Term Low
Ohlone Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #11. In the long term, re-establish the
natural amphitheater on slope beyond oak dripline. $$$$ $ Long-Term Low

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-7

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Railroad Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Replace playground elements and
safety surfacing and use space more efficiently to provide more opportunities. Provide equipment consistent with the park’s “railroad” name. Swings appear to be in good
condition for reuse. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Railroad Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Add an all-ages play elements (e.g., balance, spinning, rocking elements, etc.) to provide teens, adults and seniors something to do. $ $ Long-Term Low
Railroad Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Provide a half basketball court, by
relocating picnic tables/benches and adding appropriate screening vegetation from neighbors. $$ $ Long-Term Low Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Design
Initiate a site master plan or design development process with a qualified consultant team (landscape architecture- civil-hydrology) for the identified near-term projects. Near- term design should consider the needs and space
requirements of other mid- and long- term projects
identified in this Master Plan. A public engagement process for this high-profile site may be considered. $$ n/a Near-Term High Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Sitewide Provide new electrical hookups to better support events. $ $ Long-Term Low Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Improve sightlines around restroom – remove ficus (creeping fig) from restroom exterior wall and refinish restroom exterior – OR – replace restroom outright with prefabricated restroom (4 unisex stalls). The former is preferred as existing circular restroom is a feature of the park’s overall design aesthetic (circles and curvilinear lines exist in park throughout). $$$ $ Mid-Term Low
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Remove the existing tot lot and
concrete foundation along pond edge; naturalize the area in conjunction with pond rehabilitation. $$$ $ Near-Term High Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Remove existing play hill stairs feature at pond’s east edge. Add a new 6,000 - 8,000 SF accessible flexible space for concerts, community performances and $$$$ $ Long-Term Low Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-8

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
gatherings. This space can function as a group picnic area when performances aren’t planned.

Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Improve the central grass lawn by
regrading, adding subsurface drainage and irrigation system, and reseeding lawn with shade tolerant grass seed mix. $$$ $$ Long-Term Low Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Remove eucalyptus trees
recommended by certified arborist. Grind down stumps and remove surface roots. $ $ Completed n/a
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #6. Provide shade structures near group
picnicking areas where trees have been removed. Locate
shade structures along an accessible route from the parking lot. Replant trees that were removed with species selected to provide shade and meet other City maintenance needs. $$$$ $ Near-Term High Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. Renovate and expand the older
children’s playground (currently 2,800 SF) to a universally accessible 8,000 - 10,000 SF destination play space suitable for ages 2 to 5 and 5 to 12 years. Incorporate accessible swing into the future playground design. $$$ $ Long-Term Low Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #8. Add another parking lot along Refugio Valley Road. Design lot to support function of the Refugio Valley Trail – see Trails. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #9. Renovate connecting circulation
system between parking lot, practice wall, group picnic area, tennis courts, and Turquoise Avenue. $$ $ Near-Term High Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #10. Provide a marked accessible parking spot and accessible route to tennis courts and gathering areas. $ $ Near-Term High
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #11. Replace wood railroad tie stairs,
steps and other connecting features with concrete
throughout. Wood steps throughout are trip hazards with uneven surfaces, rotted areas, gaps, and cracked risers. $ $ Near-Term High

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-9

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #12. Revegetate bald slopes along
Turquoise Avenue, between tennis courts, and at parking lot. $ $ Mid-Term Low
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #13. Remove trees at Tennis Center
including tree stumps and replant using species with
characteristics compatible with tennis and maintenance
needs. $ $ Near-Term High
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #14. Initiate permits needed to dredge
the pond. Select a qualified contractor to dredge and semi- annually maintain the pond. $$$ $ Near-Term High
Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #15. Naturalize pond edge with a 10’-20’ buffer of native pond plantings; replenish existing edges; limit public access around pond edge. $$$ $ Near-Term High Refugio Valley Park & Tennis Courts Location-Specific
Recommendation #16. Replace decking of wood bridge over Refugio Creek. $ $ Mid-Term Medium
Sierra Park Sitewide
This park is new and in excellent condition with no
immediate improvements needed. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sierra Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Consider the addition of a small (300 SF) nature play node along curvilinear walkway to provide something for children to do here. $ $ Long-Term Low
Shasta Park Sitewide
This park is new and in excellent condition with no
immediate improvements needed. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shoreline Park Sitewide
Add mulch to planter areas to meet elevation of adjacent paved walkways. Repair bald spots in turf lawn. Renovate empty planters throughout developed areas of park with
salt-spray tolerant plants and drought tolerant pollinators. $ $ Long-Term Low Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Renovate overlook seating at Bay
edge of park to enhance views, accommodate groups, add
signage and art. $ $ Long-Term Low
Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Add another developed node on
northeast corner of park and provide passive/not noisy
element(s) for teens, adults, and seniors. Ideas include $$$ $ Long-Term Low Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-10

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
adult-scaled swings, group swing, group study space/
community table/hangout space, shade sail, etc.

Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Add paved, accessible companion
seating areas at two benches spots along park paved loop. $ $ Mid-Term Medium Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Add mulch to planter areas to meet
elevation of adjacent paved walkways. Current walkways
near playground and restroom are 4” above planter grade and present a fall/trip hazard. $ $ Mid-Term Medium
Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Add additional soft surface access
point into park from sidewalks. $ $ Long-Term Low
Shoreline Park Location-Specific Recommendation #6. Add Shoreline Park identification sign. $ $ Near-Term Medium Shoreline Park Location-Specific Recommendation #7. Replace drinking fountain. $ $ Near-Term Medium Shoreline Park Location-Specific Recommendation #8. Repaint restroom. $ $ Mid-Term Medium Shoreline Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #9. Improve access to picnic spots along Bay Trail. Remove vegetation growing within pavement; add paved access path to second picnic spot. $ $ Mid-Term Medium Woodfield Park Design
Initiate a site master plan or design development process for the identified near-term projects of Woodfield Park.

Near-term design should account for the needs and space requirements of mid- and long- term projects to be
addressed in the future. Consider including a parallel public engagement process. Incorporate a sound study at this
stage (or later during schematic design) to inform design as it relates to noise generating uses. $ n/a Near-Term High Woodfield Park Sitewide
Explore Joint Use Agreement to provide public access to school parking during non-school hours. n/a n/a n/a n/a Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Renovate 2 existing basketball courts, including court resurfacing, restriping, new posts,
backboards, hoops, etc. $$ $ Near-Term High
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Renovate tennis courts to support
tennis courts and/or pickleball courts, including court resurfacing, restriping, new nets, perimeter shaded seating, and storage. Provide wind guard system on court fencing. $$ $ Near-Term High

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-11

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Replace the current restroom. Select prefabricated restroom with two individual unisex stalls.

Provide water fountain at restroom. $$ $ Near-Term High Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Renovate grass fields, add drainage
system, and add overlay to baseball field for a multi-use rectangular turf grass field for youth sports. Replace
dugouts. $$ $ Long-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Add group picnic spot near restroom
and grass fields. $ $ Long-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #6. Provide an accessible route between
the restroom, fields, courts, playground, picnic areas, and street parking. Reorient and enhance park entry and
location of restroom as needed. $$$ $ Near-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. Add off-street parking stalls across the street on City-owned land. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #8. Given the wide range of ages the
renovated park will attract, all-ages play features should be incorporated. Replace aging younger children’s playground with 2-3 freestanding, all-ages elements such as spinner bowls and sticks, seesaw, balance equipment, etc. As part of this, consider siting these elements near the new restroom to provide more circulation space and open areas around courts. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #9. Work with local artists to renovate
wood totem pole art. Add interpretive information about the art piece. Consider relocating the piece within the park so its visibility is prominent and complements other park elements. $ $ Long-Term Low
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #10. Remove pines surrounding courts as
they uplift and damage pavement and create other
maintenance issues for court use. Remove any other
hazardous trees. $ $ Near-Term High
Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-12

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #11. Selectively prune other park trees to improve visibility into park’s active areas. $ $ Mid-Term Low Woodfield Park Location-Specific
Recommendation #12. Vegetate slopes along the asphalt
path with new plantings and temporary irrigation. Select low growing vegetation to ensure visibility across the park. $ $ Mid-Term Low Planned Parks
Neighborhood Park (Block B) Sitewide
The WDMP recommends developing Bayfront Creekside
Park as a 0.6-acre neighborhood park that features views to Mt. Tamalpais with shade and casual along with active,
passive and unstructured recreation. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block B) Sitewide Create a site master plan. $ n/a Long-Term Low Neighborhood Park (Block B) Sitewide
Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access.

Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association. n/a n/a n/a n/a Neighborhood Park (Block B) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Provide play elements and features to expand use to all ages. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block B) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Incorporate active recreation for
teens, adults, and older adults such as exercise equipment. TBD TBD TBD TBD Neighborhood Park (Block B) Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Provide safe access routes and
protected spaces (fencing or other barriers from roads). TBD TBD TBD TBD Neighborhood Park (Block B) Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Connect to the adjacent Bay
Trail/Promenade. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Plaza (Block D&E) Sitewide
The WDMP recommends developing this neighborhood as a

0.40-acre plaza space with commercial and civic activity, including gathering, resting and casual dining, food kiosks or carts, with a connection to the Bay Trail. TBD TBD TBD TBD Plaza (Block D&E) Sitewide
Determine whether the site will be managed and
maintained by the City or LLAD. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Plaza (Block D&E) Sitewide
The WDMP recommends developing this neighborhood as a

0.40-acre plaza space with commercial and civic activity, including gathering, resting and casual dining, food kiosks or carts, with a connection to the Bay Trail. TBD TBD TBD TBD

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-13

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Plaza (Block D&E) Sitewide
Determine whether the site will be managed and
maintained by the City or LLAD. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Plaza (Block D&E) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Provide walkable connections
eastward along Bayfront Boulevard towards Refugio Creek, the Creekside Trail, and to the Civic Plaza site. TBD TBD TBD TBD Plaza (Block D&E) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Provide visual connections such as
street trees, other landscaping, or lighting cues to create a coherency and sense of place to define the waterfront
district. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Civic Plaza (Block G) Sitewide
The WDMP recommends developing this site as a 0.5-acre
community plaza space with a large open area for
gatherings, commercial activity, unstructured recreation and other passive uses. Shaded seating, landscaping, and a civic anchor element such as a fountain or kiosks can also be provided. This future civic plaza will have a relationship to a multimodal transit station envisioned to be constructed nearby as part of The Hub. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Civic Plaza (Block G) Sitewide
Determine whether the site will be managed and
maintained by the City or LLAD. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Civic Plaza (Block G) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Provide rest zones and additional
shaded seating given the likelihood of higher visitor traffic, adjacency to the Bay Trail/Promenade, and planned
multimodal transit station. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Civic Plaza (Block G) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Provide active fitness programming
such as morning yoga or evening dance/exercise classes at this site in lieu of fixed exercise equipment or other active recreation elements that take up fixed space. TBD TBD TBD TBD Civic Plaza (Block G) Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Provide well-designed connections to transit stops/stations, bicycle parking, drop off areas, on- street parking, and access to the Bay Trail given the site TBD TBD TBD TBD Civic Plaza (Block G) Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Provide interactive public art for
placemaking purposes in lieu of fountains that may be costly to maintain. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-14

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Sitewide
The Waterfront District Master Plan (WDMP) recommends
developing Bayfront Creekside Park as a 0.35-acre passive, open space park with seating, civic elements, and plantings along Refugio Creek. In addition, develop Bayfront
Creekside Park (Block K) to meet neighborhood needs,
protect riparian greenspace, and support community
aesthetics. TBD TBD Long-Term Low
Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Sitewide
Create a site master plan with a “natural” design theme to provide continuity between these two sites, to highlight Refugio Creek as a key feature, and to enhance views to San Pablo Bay. $ n/a Long-Term Low
Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Sitewide
Landscape the sites with trees, shrubs and plantings that include native riparian species and natural forms but may include lawn to support other park functions. n/a n/a Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Sitewide
Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access.

Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association. n/a n/a Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Provide an artistic painted crosswalk across Bayfront Boulevard to ensure safe pedestrian
crossing and visually link these sites. TBD TBD Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Create an intimate, shaded play space for ages 2-5 that incorporates nature play options and
adjacent shaded seating for families. TBD TBD Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Provide more challenging climbers
and features for ages 5-12 or all ages. TBD TBD Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Incorporate themed or interactive art, potentially as part of the play space. TBD TBD Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. Provide unique group seating
arrangements (in lieu of individual park benches) that
maximize creek and bay views. Include covered tables and seating under a pergola or other unique shade shelter. TBD TBD Long-Term Low Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific Recommendation #6. Ensure access to the Creekside Trail. TBD TBD Long-Term Low

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-15

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Bayfront/Creekside Park (Block K) Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. Avoid elements such as traditional
fountains that would detract from the natural beauty of the park and be costly to maintain. TBD TBD Long-Term Low
Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Sitewide
The WDMP recommends developing this site as a 0.6-acre
neighborhood park with formal character and terraces/
levels that support events and group gatherings, with
viewpoints that face outwards to the bay, a fenced
playground, interactive art/fountains, and shaded casual seating. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Sitewide
Coordinate with the developer to ensure public access.

Determine whether the site will be maintained by the City (potentially through an LLAD) or a Homeowners Association. n/a n/a n/a n/a Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. Add connections to the Bay
Trail/Promenade TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. Provide active recreation spaces for teens, adults, and older adults, including exercise
equipment or challenge features. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. Connect this park to the adjacent
neighborhood square and activate it with residential and commercial uses. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Neighborhood Park (Block L&M) Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. Consider adding a small outdoor
amphitheater. TBD TBD TBD TBD
Proposed Park
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Sitewide
Identify an open space site suitable for one 2–4-acre Nature Park. Taking into account land availability, access,
topography, and development potential, consider a site on City-owned open space in the Birds/Gem Stones
neighborhoods. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Sitewide
Consider objectives (Objective 1 and Objective 6) and
related policies in the City’s Open Space Element regarding presence of threatened or endangered species such as the Alameda whipsnake, California red legged frog, and Contra Costa goldfields (plant). n/a n/a n/a n/a
Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-16

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Sitewide
Provide ADA accessibility to extent feasible given the
surrounding steep topography. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Sitewide
Provide a self-guided nature trail with interpretive signage.

Consider options to create an app with additional
information about local natural features. $ $ Long-Term Low Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #1. (Support Access for Neighbors)
Provide multiple pedestrian and bike access points. $ $ Long-Term Low Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #2. (Support Access for Neighbors)
Provide adequate visitor parking that does not excessively impact surrounding residential properties. $ $ Long-Term Low Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #3. (Support Access for Neighbors)
Integrate public transit accessibility when siting the new park. There are existing bus stops (Bus #10) along Pheasant Drive and Turquoise Drive. $ $ Long-Term Low
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #4. (Support Access for Neighbors)
Connect the Nature Park to existing and/or proposed trail networks. $ $ Long-Term Low
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #5. (Develop Site as a Nature Park)
Provide nature-themed playground or nature play with
shaded seating. $$ $ Long-Term Low
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #6. (Develop Site as a Nature Park) Add
par course features along a trail or a fitness zone to support active uses and fitness. $ $ Long-Term Low
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #7. (Develop Site as a Nature Park)
Provide a 9- or 18-hole disc golf course with pads, baskets, golf signage, as well as site signage to eliminate user safety conflicts. Work with EBRPD for potential partnership. $ $ Long-Term Low Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #8. (Develop Site as a Nature Park)
Consider additional education/interpretation space, such as kiosks or an outdoor classroom shelter. $ $ Long-Term Low Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #9. (Develop Site as a Nature Park)
Provide a trailhead that includes shaded picnic tables, $ $ Long-Term Low

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-17

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
benches, and wayfinding signage. If feasible, provide a restroom and drinking fountain. Do not provide barbecues.

Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #10. (Develop Site as a Nature Park)
Activate and program the site with nature-themed events such as stargazing, educational events, trail hiking, and scouts’ camp use. $ $ Long-Term Low
Gems Nature Park (Proposed Site) Location-Specific
Recommendation #11. (Develop Site as a Nature Park) If a utility corridor is present (such as the sites along Pheasant Drive), consider only suitable recreational activities to be coordinated with impacted utilities or districts n/a n/a Long-Term Low Greenways and Trails
Greenways and Trail System Sitewide
Add paved multiuse trail connections to improve east/west access for pedestrians and bicyclists through Hercules and along San Pablo Bay. $$ $ Long-Term Low
Greenways and Trail System Sitewide
Add connections between unconnected open space trail
segments (See Proposed Trail Connectivity Plan). Coordinate with utilities and HOAs as necessary. $$ $ Long-Term Low Greenways and Trail System Sitewide
Provide a range of compatible amenities along soft surface open space trails such as wayfinding, rules signage at
trailheads, trash receptacles, viewpoints, seating, or par course/outdoor fitness stations along trail. $$ $ Long-Term Low Greenways and Trail System Sitewide
Utilize fire roads as trails with wayfinding/signage and connections. n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bay Trail Location-Specific Crack and seal existing Bay Trail. $$ $ Near-Term Medium Bay Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 1120’ lineal feet (LF) (0.21 mi) multiuse trail as part of completion of the Bay Trail. Match existing trail cross section dimensions. Include space for future crosswalks to reach planned multimodal transit station (The Hub) and
civic plaza. $$$$ $ Mid-Term Medium
Bay Trail Location-Specific Install promenade in vicinity of The Hub. $$ $ Mid-Term Medium Birds Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 2400’ LF soft surface trail connection through Birds neighborhood open space and existing trail that links $$ $ Long-Term Low Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-18

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
to Refugio Valley Road. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width.

Coordinate with affected HOAs.

Flowers Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 3925’ LF soft surface trail connection between Woodfield Park and Shephard Street. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width. Coordinate with affected HOAs. $$ $ Long-Term Low Gem Stones Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 1600’ LF soft surface trail connection
underneath an overhead voltage corridor to connect Bay
Area Ridge to Gem Stones neighborhood open space. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width. Coordinate with affected utilities. $ $ Long-Term Low John Muir Parkway Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 960’ LF (0.18 mi) multiuse trail along south side John Muir Parkway between Sierra Park and San Pablo
Avenue. Match existing pathway width on John Muir
Parkway. Use concrete to match existing paved trail. $$ $ Mid-Term Low Ohlone Creek Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 7550’ LF soft surface trail connection between Ohlone Park and Gems and Birds neighborhoods open
space. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width. 825’ LF through HOA-owned open space dependent on use agreement
between HOA and City. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Pinole Creek Connection Location-Specific
Construct an 820’ LF asphalt trail connection along the existing maintenance road between San Pablo Ave and the east side of Pinole Creek Trail. Use a 6’ paved trail width.

Coordinate with City of Pinole and obtain easements from adjacent landowners. $$$ $ Long-Term Low
Refugio Creek Loop Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 5515’ LF soft surface trail connection between Hercules Community Center and Lavender Place and
Redwood Road. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width. Coordinate with affected HOAs. $$ $ Long-Term Low
Refugio Valley Trail Location-Specific
Replace aging exercise equipment along Refugio Valley Trail.

Cluster equipment together in groups near parking lots to improve access to and visibility around equipment.

Equipment should be accessible from the side of the trail and include safety surfacing. Install equipment out of drip lines of mature trees. $$$ $ Long-Term Low

Appendix F: Capital Improvement Plan | F-19

Park Name
Recommendation
Type Recommendation
Order-of-
Magnitude
Capital
Cost
Order-of-
Magnitude
Maintenance
Cost Timeframe Urgency
Refugio Valley Trail Location-Specific Repair the pathway and add new surfacing where needed. $ $ Mid-Term Medium Sycamore Ave Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 2800’ LF (0.53 mi) multiuse trail along south side John Muir Parkway between Sierra Park and San Pablo
Avenue. Use a 10’ paved trail width. This multiuse trail connection will provide critical east-west pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to below I-80 and over railroad tracks.

Project will require working with CALTRANS and impacted railroad to identify. appropriate design standards, details, materials, and safety requirements. $$$$ $ Near-Term High Trestle Cove Connection Location-Specific
Construct a 1200’ LF asphalt trail connection between
Trestle Cove and Victoria Crescent West. Use a 6’ paved trail width. Coordinate with Bio-Rad and adjacent HOAs. $$$ $ Long-Term Low Upper Watershed Loop Trail Location-Specific
Construct a 3700’ LF soft surface trail connection between Refugio Valley Road and Armstrong Street through
Beechnut Park and adjacent HOA open space. Use a 3’ soft surface trail width. Coordinate with affected HOAs.

Completion of this segment will complete the Upper
Watershed Loop Trail (segment south of Refugio Valley
Road already exists) $$ $ Long-Term Low