Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15. Off-leash area for dogs
DEPARTMENT OF F'ARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 • FAX; (408) 777-3366 STAFF` REPORT Agenda Item No. J ~ MEETING DATE: July 21, 2009 SUBJECT Consider the following actions for a trial period for anoff--leash area for dogs: a. Adopt rules for use of an off-leash area for dogs in a City park h. Authorize a subcommittee from members of the Citizens Group to work with the City and County of Santa Clara Staff to conduct a study for a fenced dog park at Stevens Creek County Park c. After neighbor and park user support is obtained by the Citizens Group Committee, authorize asix-month trial for a fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park d. Continue the community discussion with. a smaller, appointed group of citizens for a trial period for an unfenced off-leash area at r/Iemorial Park and/or Jollyman Park BACKGROUND The City Council referred the issue of off-leash ~iog facilities to the Parks and Recreation Commission in Apri12008 because of community interest in such a facility. Between Apri12008 and April 2009, the Parks and Recreation Com~r~ission completed the following: •;• Visited neighboring cities dog parks and of€--leash areas • Researched best practices in other cities •;• Gathered information from the Californi~i Park and Recreation Society, The University of California -Davis Veterinary School • Conducted two facilitated community di:>cussions • A post card invitation was sent to all residents prior to the February 2009 community discussion Over 300 people have participated in the various; Commission meetings. Articles about the meetings and discussions have also been in the Cupertino Courier. 15-1 The recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to the City Council was to create a process for establishing asix-month trial period for anoff--leash facility. On April 7, 2009, City Council adopted the following actions for off-leash areas fox dogs in city parks: • A citizens group to work with City staff for usage plan and site identification for asix- month trial period of an off-leash dog area in a city park(s). This could be a fenced or unfenced area. •.+ Authorize City staff to discuss with the County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation the possibility of constructing a dog park at Stevens Creek County Park. •~• All items to come back before the City Council only, not the Parks and Recreation Commission, to reduce the amount of time and meetings associated with this project. DISCUSSION The initial meeting for the Council-approved Citizens Group was held April 16, 2009. The group has been meeting weekly for the last i4 weeks. There are over b8 members in the self- selected Citizens Group with new members joining each week. Between 20 and 40 members attend the weekly meetings. Staffs role with the Citizens Group was to facilitate weekly meetings and provide technical assistance. There have been questions about the flexible structure of the Citizens Group with 68 members and new members joining each week. Council was interested in having people who truly cared about this issue participating in the Citizens Group. It is important to staff that this not be a closed group because we wanted people who were willing to lead a volunteer group to assist with addressing dog and dog-owner behavior at an off-leash area. Group Outcomes The Citizens Group has come to agreement on the following outcomes: Outcome A) At the May 13 meeting, the Citizens Group agreed to meet the community-established criteria for safety of park users and dogs for anoff-leash area by incorporating the rules used by City of San Jose, City of Milpitas and City of Morgan Hill into the rules for Cupertino's off-leash area. The proposed rules are: o Only dogs, dog handlers, and those persons accompanying them are allowed in the off-leash area. o Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older. Any person under 16 years of age in the off- leash area must be accompanied by a person 18 years or older. o A dog handler, as defined herein, shall accompany his or her dogs at all times. o Dog handlers are responsible for picking up and properly disposing of all feces deposited by their dogs. o No more than two dogs per handler will be permitted in the off-leash area at one time. o Dogs in heat are not permitted in the off-leash area. o Puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted within the off-leash area. o Dogs must be vaccinated and free of communicable illness and disease. o Dogs must wear proof of current license. 0 Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the off-leash area. o Dogs must be under voice control of their handler. o Dogs displaying aggressive or anti-social behavior are not permitted in the off-leash area. Upon signs of aggression or anti-social behavior, the dog will immediately be required to leave the off-leash area. 15-2 o No smoking, food or alcohol allowed in the off-leash area. o All other City of Cupertino park rules apply to use of the off-leash area. o The off-leash area is subject to closure upor- determination by the City that there is a reason deemed to be in the public's interest or safety. o Users of the off-leash area do so at their own risk. The City of Cupertino shall not be liable for any injury or damage caused by any dog in the off-leash area. Outcome B} The Citizens Group agreed to form a subcommittee from members of their group to work with City and County Staff to conduct a study for a fenced dog park at Stevens Creek County Park. Three members of the group volunteered to serve on this subcommittee. Subgroups Proposals The participants of the Citizens Group subcommittee became equally divided into two factions: one subgroup supporting fenced and unfenced off-le~~sh areas and the other subgroup supporting only fenced off leash areas. Each subgroup has submitted their own proposal for a trial period for off leash area for dogs in a city park. Attachment A is the complete proposal from the subgroup called "Cupertino Citizen Group on OLD (off-leash doh Areas ". This is the subgroup supporting fenced and unfenced off-leash areas. Attachment B is the complete proposal from the: subgroup called "Cupertino Off-Leash Dog Trial Citizens' Committee ". This is the subgroup supporting only fenced off-leash areas. Here is a brief synopsis of these two proposals: SUBGROUP Site for Six Month Trial Pro osal Criteria for Site Selection Timeline for Start of Trial Period Cupertino Citizen Fenced: Linda Vista (~ommunity- In August, Survey Park Group on OLD Park -North West }?stablished OffLeash Users and Neighbors to Areas Lower Area Guideline Criteria - be conducted before Attachment C trial begins Unfenced (Time • Allotted Use): September 28 Start 6- Memorial Park - month trial North East Area behind Quinlan Center, Library Field - Entire Park, Jollyman Park -East side running East to West Cupertino Off- Fenced: Memorial ltesidential Setback of 30-day Pre-Trial Leash Dog Trial Park, Linda Vista Park 1.50 feet, Exclusion of Notice to Neighbors Citizens' certain areas, Buffer and Park Users for Committee Unfenced: None Zones of 75 feet, comment prior to rninimum-size 8000 sq. setting trial start date fl. 15-3 The Citizens Group also reviewed the following documents to assist them with this process: Morgan Hill Dog Park Rules City of Milpitas and San Jose Dog Park Rules American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizens Program City of Boulder Voice and Sight Dog Tag Program City of San Francisco Recreation and Parks Dog Policy Township of Lower Merion, PA Proposed Off Leash Dc American Kennel Club Establishing a Dog Park Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment A ~g Program Attachment I Attachment J Citizens Group Common Ground At the July 15, 2009 Citizens Group meeting, the subgroups discussed what common ground elements were in both proposals. The Citizens Group came to consensus on requesting a trial period in the lower area at Linda Vista Park with the following caveats: • The existing picnic tables in the lower area would remain in the off-leash area. When canvassing the neighbors and park users of Linda Vista about supporting a trial period for an off-leash area, ask them if they would like to maintain the same number of picnic tables outside of the off-leash area and locate the tables in another section of the park. • To facilitate a safety buffer zone along the pathway from the parking lot to the off leash area at Linda Vista Park, fencing would be needed along the path next to the playground and par course. Also, signs would need to be installed showing this is the access path to the off-leash area. Since the Citizens Group found common ground regarding asix-month trial for a fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park, staff is supportive of this concept. Neighborhood and park-user support must be obtained by the Citizens Group prior to staff fully recommending this plan for asix-month trial. Jollyman Park Petition . A resident group named Cupertino4Dogs started a petition drive on June 11, 2009 to request Council to approve Jollyman Park as a leash-free, time-limited, unfenced area for asix-month trial period. The times requested are every day, 7:30 pm to 8:30 pm and Monday thru Friday, 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm. This group collected 85% of the signatures at Jollyman Park and 15% were collected in the immediate neighborhood. Attachment K is their petition and signatures. Cupertino4Dogs provided the following statistics regarding their petition drive collected through July 13, 2009: Total Contacted for Joll man Park Petition 174 Approved and Signed by Do Owners 100 57% Approved and Signed by Non-Do Owners 46 26% Not supported or refrained from commentin 28 16% 15-4 The petition signatures show that 131 out of the 146 people approving of the petition are Cupertino residents and 95% of all signatures live under aone-mile radzus of Jollyman Park. The core team of Cupertino4Dogs has volunteered to be the citizens group who is willing to be accountable for monitoring the trial period of the unfenced off-leash area at Jollyman Park. Because of the request for asix-month trial period for an unfenced off-leash area at Memorial Park by one of the Citizens' Group subgroups and the request by the Jollyman Park petition, staff is recommending that Council consider continuing the community discussion with a smaller, appointed group of citizens. Staff thinks it is important to continue the discussion on an unfenced off-leash area because of the following reasons: • The Citizens Group did not complete the discussion on options for an unfenced area nor did it have an opportunity to tour unfenced off-leash areas in adjacent communities • Less wear and tear on a park #hat has atime-limited dog area •3 Fewer claims from an unfenced area than fenced area (City of Foster City experience) • Community support {62%) established in the Godbe Research Survey from November 2008 for "designated areas in existing City parks for off-leash dogs during certain hours and days each week" The smaller, appointed group of citizens would tie made up of six members from the Citizens Group Subcommittee representing each subgroup: three from Cupertino Citizens Group on OLD Areas and three from Cupertino Off-Leash Dog 'Trial Citizens' Committee. Each subgroup would select their own representatives, and staff would continue to facilitate the discussion. The smaller group would report back to Council on their progress regarding asix-month trial period for an unfenced off-leash area at Memorial Park and/or Jollyman Parkin three months. Monitoring of Trial Period San Jose Animal Care and Services has agreed to partner with the City to assist in monitoring the off-leash area trial period. San Jose Animal Care and Services will put together a community educational program, train volunteers to monitor off-leash area, work with the City on enforcement in off-leash areas and other parks, and will work with the City on getting more dogs licensed. The Interim City Attorney is working on developing an administrative hearing process that will allow Cupertino Code Enforcement and San Jose Animal Care and Services staff to cite violators of animal ordinances and dog licenses. Currently, ~~nly Sheriff's deputies can cite these violators. This administrative hearing process should be coming; to Council to review in the next couple of months. FISCAL IMPACTS During the process for adoption of the FY 2009-2010 Budget, the Council allocated $40,000 for community education and enforcement, $40,000 for six-month trial period, and up to $500,000 for a permanent facility if the trial proves successful. Of the $40,000 allocated for the six-month trial, a modest amount will be used for additional education for dog owners and non-dog owners, <<dditional enforcement of Cupertino's off-leash ordinances, and the installation of arent-a-fence:, signa.ge, and poop bag dispensers in the trial site for a fenced off-leash area. 15-5 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending the adoption of rules for use of an off-leash area for dogs in a City park. 2. Staff recommends the formation of a subcommittee from members of the Citizen- Group to work with City and County of Santa Clara Staff to conduct a study for a fenced dog park at Stevens Creek County Park. 3. Authorize asix-month trial for a fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park. The staff would set a date to begin the trial period after the Citizens Group demonstrates it has neighborhood and park user support. 4. Regarding the request for asix-month trial period for an unfenced off-leash area at Memorial Park and/or Jollyman Park, staff is recommending that Council considers continuing the community discussion with a smaller, appointed group of citizens: • Six (6) members total for smaller group • Each subgroup would selected their three (3) members • Staff would facilitate these discussions • The smaller group would report back to Council in three months on a six-month trial period for an unfenced off-leash area at Memorial Park and/or Jollyman Park PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED BY: ~~ Julia Lamy, Senior Recr tion Supervisor ar Linder, irector of Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager attachments 15-6 A hmen~ A Cupertino City Parks Trial Program Recommendation for Fenced &Unfenced Off-Leash Dog Areas Prepared by the following members of the Cupertino Citizen Group on OLD Areas; Jim Black, Barbara Black, Debi Chessen, Judy Colloton, Helene Davis, Leah Davis, Betsy Dougherty, Ruby Elborge, Sally Erickson, Mandy Fu, Hari Guleria, Gauri Guleria, Shiela Martin, Carol Miller, Kumika Nishiura, Susan Peters, Don Rosenbaum, Eric Wilson, Rose Ann Woolpert, Kim Worrall, Alex Vayner. ~ ~-1 Goa1• Create a plan for a six month trial program to test the feasibility of Cupertino park(s) to be used for off-leash dog exercise as directed by City Council. Assumptions: 1. Cupertino public parks are multi-use facilities and should accommodate as many users as is practical for the benefit of the citizens of Cupertino. 2. Most citizens want to follow -the rules and regulations and abide by the codes and laws. Criteria Used: Community Established Off-Leash Guideline Criteria ~,z Definition of Fenced Off-leash Dog Area • An area located within the city park with boundaries established by a fence. • Off-leash usage will be during park operations hours as posted for that park R~~ Definition of Unfenced Off-leash Dog Area 0 An area located within boundaries established walkways, fencing, vegetation, &/or addition of demarcation boundary lines. window(s) and compatible with other park Off-leash hours will be specific time users the city park with by existing park a-~ y Rules for Off-leash Area Use RULES FOR OFF-LEASH DOGS DOGS MUST: •Always be on-leash outside designated off-leash boundaries •Off-leash dogs must stay within designated off-leash boundaries •Display tags showing current license & rabies vaccination • Demonstrate appropriate social interaction. Aggressive behavior toward people or other dogs requires immediate leashing and removal from area DOG HAivDLERS MUST: • Pick up & dispose of dog's waste •Carry a leash for each dog in your care •Remain in off-leash area with dogs, keeping dog within view & underverbal control at all times •Accept responsibility for any damage &/or injury caused by your dog to people, other dogs & property •Limit is 2 dogs per handler Adhere to all other posted park regulations ~ -~ UNFENCED OFF-LEASH HOURS SUNDAY through SATURDAY: N SUMMER HOURS: Apri! 1 through September 30: MORNING 6:00 AM until 8:00 AM EVENING 8:00 PM until Dusk WINTER HOURS: October 1 through March 31: MORNING 7:00 AM until 9:00 AM EVENING 4:00 PM until Dusk Time periods not specified above require dogs to be on-leash and you must comply with all city ordinances and codes for on-leash Note: Recommended times may be adjusted based upon each park(s) usage ~r Community & Park Users Surveys Fenced &Unfenced Surveys will be conducted: ^ Before the trial begins ^ Three ~3) months into the trial period ^ After the trial period is completed Survey of Area Residents: ^ Citizens group members will conduct surveys in nearby neighborhoods ^ -T-11e same survey form wiii be used for ali surveys taken Survey of Park Users: ^ Survey forms & collection boxes will be posted at each off- Leash dog area ^ Citizens group will help solicit surveys from park- users Survey data will be assimilated and become part of the final report upon completion of the trial w ~~7 ~_ A Parks Considered for Off-Leash Dog Area Fenced &Unfenced o Linda Vista o Hoover o Jollyman o Varian o Memorial o Portal o Library Field o Monta Vista o Wilson o Three Oaks ~~ c, PARKS SELECTED for SIX MONTH TRIAL PERIOD t ~ ~. ~.x~.A. f °~ ~°i~~~ e e ~'" DDy t8 'y~ly~~ ~,rut,p/'~y~ a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ r~ Linda Vista Park fenced Suggested locations for off leash fenced area: North 1A/est lower area Considerations were; ^ Area is at lower Level away from main picnic area, playgrounds, and trails ^ Natural boundaries of hills • Area is flat with trees on perimeter for some shade • Adjacent golf course has fence along northern perimeter • Access from parking area is away from play grounds & picnic areas ~, ~~~ ~ ?~,'- ~/lemorial Park Unfenced Suggested locations for unfenced off leash area: North East area (Behind Quinlan Center) Considerations were; ^ Area is next to large parking lot • Area is flat with trees on perimeter for some shade • Located away from playgrounds, picnic areas, tennis courts, and Ovate r a rea s • Essentially no neighbor impact ~_ V ~ -ll library Field Unfenced Suggested locations for unfenced off leash area: Entire park which is located south of Library Considerations were; ^ Area is surrounded by two streets, a parking lot and a fenced creek • Area is flat with trees on perimeter for some shade • There are no playgrounds, picnic areas, tennis courts • Essentially no neighborhood impact ~~rz y .,w Jollyman Park Suggested locations for unfenced off leash area: East side running East to West Considerations: - Area is away from playgrounds, basketball court, and picnic tables. - Adjacent homes backyards are isolated some by large trees and a small knoll. - Large trees offer shade for dogs and owners. -- Proposed area is large which allows larger dogs to run. ~'~ JOLLYMAN PETITION for OFF-LEASH DOG AREA ~ttt~~c~hn~ent #~1 Petition ~ ~~~:~ ~~~itior~ t~~~t h~~s~~~~~ d~ ~~~~ ~i~ wed Attachment #~ [_eash-Free ~i~;~~~~ture fist ~~.~~ i-i~~~~~~ ~id~ ~~~~:~~t~d At~~achment ~3 Frequency ai Di~fiributian I~`i~~ ~~~r~~vi~~ di~~~i~~~i~~ ~~~ ~i~~~~t~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~i~~it~~r~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~titi~r~ ~n~~~ d~~elc~~ed ~~d d~~a ~~~I~~t~d ~~; ~~ ~ ~~i~ ~~~~^i ~~ie~i~ .I~d~~ Ca~~~t~~~ :~~.~~ ~et~r~ 0 ,¢-/~ JOLLYMAN PARK ATTACHMENT #1 Prti~~~rrfw'teus~'ijl'irrTrruJF~rrx+Jcrl.lv~lyeuu-rPr~rJ4, Cu,~er.dnu 9 CI:INT ~" ETITP.C1If*I F4R i+idPiKiiki~ .i£}LL1P[~Ar~kl~l PAItlIt`AS Ai++l `~FFLE,~kSH TFi~.L A~#iIEA t=~]'FC L1~65". Peticgart za: ~i,~y Sta~fr: :mr tw't~rt~~pe t ]~ ~cn~~~ P`~ar hs artr~~ Re~ara~:livtr q~u~et I.Ur i~largc I..i{rU~a Cif Cc~~n~it NlnrriF~~crs~: M~~ar i~ I`,~ail~ua~tti~~„ ~ra~ ~,hranc~, t:igllESrrt t,N~nu~~, :Ma!I~rK 4at~1"t~rt~~ 1 hntt~r S~rr€lr~~at L~!'c, th•c resdcnt~ of Gu~owrtinar end tascrs of Jmlt~rrran '~rI'{, rcgttl~~t tFt~ f'oll~avuin~: ... .f. .. - Iw.v ..~.. -____i .,L L___..__.7__ ~~1'.L7.. ... .J. L. ... :t. YY'-C"p Zri}IC SE~T1::14~1.1EtL':~ ~~'4i~lidii:7Af7kL'flil ,G~ irR.:n~:+il~~ru~dr ~u'~~u~.ttr~r uea: all'rocatinnt+cr=~ata~n -~f a Q~,R~ Le:aslh fr+e=e seetiivn :at .l~o{<I~rrr-iarti nark ~. It is .alr-e~d}- e: prcrven safe ~re~ fvr dais. l"h~ Ie~sh free ar~e~ is nQt nearr+~=ny wv~adl~.©r p+ati'i and has been ~as~e~dlfe~rrtyarny~y~rvarsib~y dta~~n~ners.af+~~:p=e=rritrr~. ~. .At€1 5igr~ataric~ ~r~ r=c:~iid~n~ a~ i~w~crtir~o, nmd requc~ th:~ ccrasi~n m~kcrl tc~ 6~alar~ce the 'K~u~aluty of Life aspecgs of e#e~g ~~nrm+ers~ .as I~ pre~v~a~Ien~ in r,~arty citifies ~act~r53 the U a aEtc! Pa=raifie:+Go~l: as prt=3~e=ti=.led t~~ tl~rre Di'rre~ltar :t:~f P°ark5 ari.tf R~e~:reat.i~rFr irr tsars iasr rrty+ rnr.tr~erl M9P~Ptld1~. 4. `1t1d~e are r~trl t~ettrar.rtlirug. ll•r,e uvtrta+Ie ~i~e:, i..t=.: ~rareyLr4Eec~ le~sti: 0're:~ Qlrr:~.e fc~t nr.rr ~~+n~S, ia~t.It rP[}E1QStsn~ ~ ftXPCI "E tI1`tiP F-Pr11CP' l~J'I'r6Sn Pursr~httr~yr tiwitl knnua Yi1,'~T; ~rCB~~ wuil6 b~ lush fine at s~~r:if''ted times. ~. WiP ~,~rr?p ~,rs bhp ragt~r~~t~ of t~~ ~~n~+lp~ w11n cica ncat ~wa~t dn~~ x~ h~ nff I~asF~ and prcavide them .22 ha+u~rs +~.t tq~p. dailyr p~i~ a~rnd >req~u~t ~ortly~ 2. h_ rn. ~ur~ vvf~t?n vnr~? ~, can teke n>,r cgs ter tote psrie es s+ gr<e3up. Tirr~e: ,a+Il. days: frarrr ~':~13~m ta+ ~::~Opm. >ornday t~ Friday 1p~ tai fpm. f. 1N~ ~slcthc ~Cupcrkino Caurrcilt4 ~p.~rove thcloll~r_rn~n lharlE as a `Lea~hfrcc' Te~.t area fr~,r G m.~iaatl"is triad pzri~d a~e~r ~~h~i~h tt~~ =cc~n~il can: decide t© rizak~e it ~JGt tEEidLrr`I! ~. ~~.~, A-rS JOLLYMAN PARK ATTACHMENT #1 N N Petivon for 2eosh fate TrraJ Perrad at lo~J}~man aufk, Cupeaina :4ttarhhrerrt 1 Section oft:spar^krecarnrnerrded for the 'Ofj"leash dogllr~a' ?rme Requested:.4ti days: 7:30P~1I to 3:34P_41; 1llorrda~? to .F'r-idutl: 1P_~ll to 2PlU K,.r' ... .. - - LV fC~ ~f__.-. _~ _,,,,vUa FOrM P. . { .~:~. __ :Iwmiap~ . .F: .~. r _ - x. ~~~~(}~ t !~i :~rNT,'r Yr ~~~~,C,S~,1~~~. :~PE4rm41!a4sap"'~''. ~~ 64 ~~~~, ,~ - Baameaamaaaaag. aaa~a!q'_ - 'r:,. ~. . i"- y ~' '~7a1 m ,, ~zt `+' .- .onn...rrr~.r .~r~r i. -.. ~~ ai.rt- ,, i:u. R 'i ~If ~Vle~iflV{'D1.11 t: HI ~~1 •~~K L'tl'1 ~^ ~j N', IC~_'a *' ~'~ JOLLYMAN PARK ATTACHMENT #2 JorlYm:an "Q3r.7aT5 lLe.a:~f~ free 1•'~etr>taon traci:~sr OIdE Nrt4itil[E PE(1. €1i~iiF5ffti01113 ~D(~'f ]. 3:U(53. MIR-~ Wb'~'1f Y t>~.•u:P~rblLtis3 T 7n•?4! 1+L1rtiI Hill [ 1 d':I.r, trelir..nt 3 7.~.~6!a?.'bN~er.ls}tve a ~t t,^u ra tires ~ 1001G5e ielrtEter D.~Ir'e iCt1 errArtty 7 ~:i-a! rlsr 1~ (3nrg+r fye Y r"t.trrrtiusn & T593• PlbrrriaruC~ . VMa rtu ~u errlnn ~' i1~S5.'uYl'd1Flfl"+vCr~t ~tC] a~cePCttittr~0 81 ].114515~~rrit Ei,,+eJ! 1+10 ~u° riiir:>fv 9i 958 V4+e~lynn Lh1'a- NO iL:u etrtlrlo 1C1 7i''. r 1 G'tJnrrr3rrly l~7nrn- MdC] d:t.tltrrlinn 1~ 752a Uc~~r` Dr I~tO ~t{pcr#>inlo 12 7'SJ.1~ Grln.n Laney Y ~u. erilno 13 7'4'Tt6tS~ullir rr Rt1 emu; ertines l~l i[IFi!9iSl IrArn+dnn:lrt (firl y C'a.5lrrrlHrxt lg 1Uta~}~tar7lGDnt~:r Y' >uupettlrtcr 16 1U1.5S+Imper>allllwe• Y ¢.'u;Petriarto 1;7 10315 irnNm>f ibl Aar: y- Cs{f+c° 1lnnv 'tA EIL'1(f (2'rrsr 1t!(ncsaum~q}r yr 4^_'t.r~rrttir;+n 19 ~065~+~Irarldslme tAr€I:t ti"' tGU; er>:lltiv LCI ].;?•1l5~5~ ~ H'ti 5i' 's'2aaiQ 2n. 752 e(.re:,r ~vsxnrJ cn ~ ~.up,r° tires 22 755D Lockfrard ~C`t t`i0 Iau.PCltino 23 ~+'~F(f lafw[n 49akS Ln i~EU ~It s+rsc x~ 7'~F~II•Stau!tfarti Ixl tJt?~ ~tlPertll~o y'S 7f17r'IF-rt:•i~rrlrrr(:~r+~l ~ tU:l'S i,^irl+r>11ie°tt ?[i 'f 1l1 .S "+1'rllingr Rd ~r L^_r.r,(sr"~t(ttin 29' ~IOS~ ~~c Ct 1" l~u;Pt=lrto~o ~H ~061&S• ~.arlden manor [:[ t+to emu: r[!nv 29 ~.i65-0r lJ Imrw1 tflt'e hl!O cv >t drily ~G- 771. R~citsinrd~cll'MVar~ Y Cu;pct'dlno . gib ]~ '~ i~i.711p 1 C.I I~r.( ~u C! litsrci ;f1 xUYUUIY.711C [;rccnl>f #'~~~ NLT I;:U ICrt>tt3v ~3 ~>~d7'l+Crcnclfa 1~r N~] 1Cu crtiir~v :1f11 7'uiF!i! t,dararrM-wr1 Vtif ~lT +-rtur>In 35 'inF['I t+F`+Iwrrrlkx-r 17r (SIC? 4:r.r ze-rliirt[t 36 1FL:5~ Keencwrsaa?AVM 1110 ~u; rrlmn 37 J.0'7r5 (ieCYLVUtxldiltlVrC hlo +GU rtlrto :'3R ~'?Fe`l'!]!inte J°irtrt Rune( y 4:t.r;lrtvlirsrt ~~ /'ft(J l]rorer~ndc lrya~cc Y 4taPcr(nnv AMU '.?U6~5• P4~7rICY ~ "f R:uper[uno +1,7: 318~11J~ILazac fvW~e tr,u etzlnv as~llynrrla:n 'L71vi:•~-Lcaskr fr+ec 1^c1:ItrQn. trackclr (31111. N~LM>t i°~FI."EIS.lI;JS't' HiULLY KJ~r JiL'~ fi -r!1aJF.Ar~se. tYcq:;Oe>t~es " C~1.V' ^U~ 7`565 Hea~tlerxuelRati tDr }f' dupe-r[7na ~3 9'~CS'1fC1'~iaen ['rrrvrtrrcl~ Csh yr {:tr,~rrt9nn ~4 7D16151 C?~k~ Cn ee.k la r, !~ ~ C~e~er tirlu +~~ 3[]6~!,F F~Itan YUw~N Y I (~llp>crdna X116 ~B^a5i Ll:nct: 1.~r~e ~ GIS crr(na ~Ilf l~1 5tantc~and I~[ ~ t:u.{>'cr4na dtFl 7'4.I~'WLxrst (lull G ra '~ d"irrtirrYinn ~i~ 7'~71511Wese HIN [.n 1d0 G~Irp~e'rttna 5L1 ~:CJ3S~ Ktllh~rlld,e Gr GIJ ulna 5]: cK7B81TUlc~ ~Y +~ ~Gu.pCrdna ~~ J'[]Y'[i7 I;r,r1~eLY,' }~ K:Ir}~rrrinr>f 'S~3 7'581: ~rwriir>I Ldr[e: ~-t1 Lirw `..r4 !i`J',f13!(1ric~l:AI71c rar y* ~t;u.p~CrtlnC7+ i `I CIiA!r! rr[trnrw '~'Urry 'y t('l e;~rr-t•lnc. 56 816Z~ IBetie hv~e. ti,!' !Olt:p~e~r[9 n a 5;~ ~i!?.~''Viuluaid ~. Ffrfl lLw f!~+1Evs :i9 iC~:3~°'t I`4r^IEi~t:Err Rt( H!E[T dell; ~niy 5~.~ _ _ ___ 1~4•~4~314K~ilm'I;~•[7~1i I~r ~:~ll crt~na #'aEl l[}`°~'Yr.! I loll t:t' yi' d;LfFtf"it7nr+ lain 7:P~l:li'!:! !':krltcr 11mn_rtn L^ ~+~e'lt 512 7`57r~ Heaai:tt~rrood CJr !Ou ert7na G3 ~.B~J: ~z n~a~1b .r<v~ 4f "Gup~e•rr3 n f} G}1 7~7?I.9'u^J'lltdflr~".ver 4M'a~+ +~ ~ul~~.r,<ina ~r5 ?535 Hes1llaarxJ!err. 2'li ~ ~~u: >±stirtta fH: :7_'37!'1! Rriri•L~nw i'Dr kd;[} t[':lr ri'inn i ,~ '1 ~7~7 krn~tvur~nsJ ,11ur +~ l!";i [~.r~rt'inn III 3 ~'b +f [Cr ntuurrnrJ A,ur N{ } t :a e~rrt7 nn 6nl l[}t3r.1":tfrlturu• [ari FIIC} Karr, rrtinn TO ~K75(14 Pe ~r Tre`e: Ln ~~ p~r!L7nOr .~~ 11J~2 ! C ~ ~l7 f;:I~L1i1G l'1 li.~i:i5i fltJAc~l3rrn, 1191' 1+1;[}' t;.~n .I.•rt,[^ T~ :LLtSF M4t7[td~~r!Lrr IV3C3 $a:rl .ldf5te 7'd ~~17r5?~ ~Ce>s?ILe:LUrn St ~ ~u ttira~ J'. l!~H:l:J 1i' C.}41/r ~• I1c - (+j![} 'npPTi? t~U T6 19141 5~ ~ ict< Gu e~1na Tir, T5~( R-di.r'1'1,+~.v~+ L`~r h1a ~C•tz e~'L"+rtV fH H'nS aLn~e~ I11rlS•cnrn f+l!C} d:re;larrttnn J'1DI 1 [}il'ei I rlse-~n I ^I hJ;C} K:r r rrhntY S4( 7<~~k B~ rl>` Lin ~~ .f~os~e a871 2~(i5+3'~~'Iwtle Fir CL Cu, e•t tutu 11'I i[]tdef NVraxr. mhrr IYr Y R:tc r+'ttnn ~3 S~IIBIG Hea~>in~r^"ood Gar !~u e:lzlno IA4 jL']1'11.4 rrlrrmo~ I-d yr 'C%up~ortlna ~}-I'I Jl7LLY1VIHIV F'HKK HI IHl,t11VIt1V I ~L N A lally~rnan 'D•ag~.~:c~kl free ir~ctlrtitan fr~cl~a:r . [v~:~~. l~~r~'HCx~~tH:~LUr ~~r~LY Cara t ce~~ raer- ; . tty 8~ ?i~T7' Elt~el ~!~vt~aA ~L ~;~ Ct~Wel lnrlu $~ ~d3~~'ii9J'lirtt~l ~ ~ ~uipertunra i91~ ~8/~'~ ~Cbi7~ ~' 'C'LC ~ LYtAI~O R;~1 T~a~~ "!~-J~~r, HI~I Fau~~- ~ r~-.ghPaTnryn 89 :3.]l2~'s~~oxr~cf[lr ~lC. crt~na 9Ci c131c~. ~uh~fr rra~d y ~urpertnnv 9~ :1f~1~ 1f~c~+nn Vti1;nv' *~ ~t~pt=rtunv a9? 71144if1. ~;Frrfnr~aeJ9rt Ni['F ~::Iq~Prrir7ri ~J~ 1][~l'~1 tuflr,l~r~rdi 1}~r N!I:k ~upermnv ' ~ 1a1.1C ~:ae+Mw4~ o ~d'. fir ~ - ~u crtHna QA s7.J k ~ p ~l 1~~Q1IR~df:"ttc ilFl! .. .rPt~~' f~` 9~i 281 J~1~~irvrtc A4wc ~ Swt~lt~ G1ar~d '9~ ~~~ ;Hftlmt~ard,4ue 11D~ spa ei~ esa!r3 Hsi l 4•l:~ >ti!lolltsr L17itP T~1{ } :~ n It7CP ~~9 !.0©~ 5~er crldef' I~r hI!O stn ertgrla 1•EI(1 '~~:83~~ e~nletci Et ~~ ertiie~s~ i~~ 7~8~1±Cr~~klin~c eta ~rt~~a 1 75~~ 1 ica~hrcr-ytaoti ~r ~u crtenQ 1~Ci.~ ~583Hccr[?fsrra~vr~t!'f~ ~ ~~~erlnrt[~ 7~111~ i []4~f tn~r7 k~&t11S t n t:tc PT~r1fI 1~f31S 7~d1~ Stair~~ard I.+~~~iCl~ {~1l' ~tl~ eT't®Gll7 1~I1~ 7'5~~11F:aUl+en. Lead Lr~ ~u ertnncs 1 Oi°3" ~'S1~ >=:all~en L~~-f Ln ~ ~~ ~rtana 1EIQI 75Gf]T tacLn ~u crtnrlo 1i~9~ 7'~9~~fii ~ ~n ~ C~ rl lst1[] i 1 ('t Tfil T FI~F?rlerr'ftxtH n' FIIC7 ~tfi P~r'r0~1f3 1IL ~`a.f~ HL';ith~2i!Uii"OQi~ LEI' C!r eTtn[1L1 ' rri~ueaa ~_vr~ *~ tnpegtnno 113: ~55.2Hcat+ftcr•-waactli'?r- ~ Gu!pcrtana 114! 1~~3c~uCUrr . ~ill~ Lrl ~ ~t>! r~tiirlew 11~ 1145 tee -1.~ r~~ie Lain ~[t L~[Irl[a 71 fv I~~ H~~fi:~~wtNart 17~r i!I~[ 1 t::tr : Prtnr7n 117' 10~r Talon ~d~ils Ln ~i~Q Ctn ~rtgrte~ 118 1Q3~g~ 6~.ran~c.r.~:sr~ *~ Ct~.pcrtiino Z~~ 3.]i.4~`fa r~ar~ttunu t~rr-a~ce~ur ~~ I:tL~Zertunv Respondents b9% Dog Owners 31 % non Dog Owners t ':,~ ion Ocmers Ian Dot O:mcri R.-I$ N cn JOLLYMAN PARK ATTACHMENT #3 ~~ , . H, ,lL~u„ L -.. i. :b ~ is - -~ ` ,i l~~,f rirti 5111x1, I r ~ (s ~~ yil;tllia A .~ ~ il'~1~11~ ~n:t 't"7 ~ ' . IY ~~r ~~ +' 1! • ~~ r ~ J~fiVt .. ' l :1 Y - .. . 'r~ ! ~ r rt ~. _!Y1 .? ' ! tit ~ - L . t if .. r ii i ~ _ .._ ti' ! c:r SiYr:[~ ~ ~ i. iF . lt~~lE'.i.~:V'IIS r.IC~`. t i , ~i •t. Jolfyma~- - !..sash Free Doffs Fceq~ency Qf Distribution [~,~aliyr~an park 1~: Yes. for leash free (number €n box = # ~n sheet) a~~E SI~ATt.~R.E PEA F~~[.~SEt-~fl~.C~ All signatures arse visitors to 1-otlKman Park ' .-. '1 1 ~ ...... r~ S'+~ 1!'i }14f1;'!druC ~:}t- {;'Inr;t~Mfta),~~~ ,'. ~ ~ 1 ,. r - yf t~ rrlJYSr~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ;rs ° ? C - h-A 5. '~,' *., , ~ ~1 -fir ; , ~ '~ ~~ ~ =:.rtrr'.41~i , s t k ~ ,, V 1 ~~ ~ 5t r x ~ R~ c~7 "'t'~'t T ~~ ~ ~' - ` Its 1 w _.~ _:L..;t '.7.. 't ~~ 1 ;~ t~, ~. ~ ~' M ~r' t .r t ~Fy~ s :> ~ ~ ~ `r"= -•. a.l. ~.$ ~ tr . ~~ ~ cr .. = ~;. a ~, b ~ ,. ~~~ v _ ~ s t it ,.r • . i~t.,~ y t~- ~ ~ .. .. ,.. ~rcy - c. ,t..1 it ~ ~ a ~.riCi i ~ ~f ~~ _t , F~'d' ttr,yl.ar.~tlil i ~"1 4i1',~; :. d }.~ : r., 1Jt ' , . ~; ~1 r^ .. .~. i I ,h '~ 'tilt ~l~ ~ ~ ~:f .. s= `l~ilSil3'C5 :4 i n d ' 'f r'~~r.~~ ~ '' , 4. ,C } '; r' ~; i , ~ ~ i ; ,r .. i 1 ~~ a •~^;~ , i ~~ 111 ~~ i - !~~ ijr ~r1'I'.1 ~ k• ~,,yTll r.,nrt byl:, , ij A~~9 Trial Park(s) Monitoring • During the trial period trained volunteer citizens group members will monitor their assigned park along with San Jose Animal Control and record all issues that they observe. • Cupertino Website will have comment section to collect citizens inputs • Comment cards will be provided at trial parks with a collection box and collected weekly • Citizens group from each trial park will meet with Parks & Recreation Staff monthly or as needed to report progress. • Sheriff's Department and Animal Control wil[ provide reports of all citations & incidents each month N ~ '~~' Tria! Period Results • Data will be gathered from before, during and after trial from: -- Neighborhood surveys - Park users surveys - Park maintenance persons - Trained volunteer park monitors Trained by San Jose Animal Control} -- Sheriff's Department, San Jose Animal Control, and Parks & Recreation Department a Drr,rsr-~rnc r111ar F"~f'f1l~~tinr~ ~nrl ~rlhc~ror~rr~ to thr~ rrii-Aria CA1' 1 I V s I A l I 1 J 11.+1 1 ~.. J, 1 \... 5 u I U t, l v l f, t..t 1 1 ~..1 u 41 f f ~.. s `. ~ e ~. v ~,. v a. ~~ ~. v~.~ ~.. .... .,+ ..... forth will be reviewed, problems addressed, and a final report will be presented to City Council ~by Parks & Recreation. • If City Council approves the final report then permanent OLDA will be established N v ~-21 Permanent Off-leash Dog Areas • The city parks used during the trial and after any problems have .been mitigated will automatically be eligible to be approved by Cupertino City Council as a OLDA. • Other city parks users wishing to incorporate a OLDA must submit a petition to Parks & Recreation that meets all the guidelines, rules, and regulations established under the trial program. Parks and Recreation will review the application and if complete and satisfactory, will forward it with a recommendation for approval to the City Council N 4 '~~ ~, • , QUESTIONS from the GROUP Ple~s~ asi< ~estic~ns per~ir~~r~~ to this r~ ~i.~N 6 N~~r~ ~ e cn N ~~23 SURVEY FORM Cupertino City Park Neighbors Date of Survey Street Address AdJoining Park Name Do Yov Use this Park? Yes Na ff answer Is Yes; Approximately how many times per month? What purpose do you use this park? ^ Exercise D Picnics D Playgrounds D Dog Exercise D Sports Fields ^ Other ro~s.~a spoor{ y.srXa•- This Parks Impact on You: Noise: D High ^ Medium Q Low ^ No Noticeable. Noise Tlmeoi DayMfeek Noise Is Hkghest W halls Primary Noise Source w 0 Faellitles USe: p Heavy D Moderate ^ Low D LItUe Used Time of bay/4Veek Park is Used the most: Sanitation: Is Park Clean of; ^ Garbage tv.p.r, SoMr, not ^ Dog Poop ^ Leaves & Umbs D Garbage Cans Dumped Regularly P~~~~~ J c~f_ ~' ~~~ Dag Off t_~ash Qiy~rttir~nc.~ If a; DcSg ,4rea ur~~s a!cta.bli~h,aai fcxr tca~ hyr da{~ att~unPr fior caff..l~a~lt exercise; A:r~yati !-l In Favn:r" r-1 drn~.o:~~'"' r7 Na Ofxininn If you Favc~;r a off={ea~h dog a:r~ea would yro~u }~.ref~r ; C7 i=snc.,ad In Area ~! i3e5.ignate~d :AArea'"` ~' Ati d+~5ignaf'e~d ar+~a wau~i~ b~ am ~ .nairrtt~r€eren~ce basis. truifh ath:~r;park ~us~s r~itrh +jesigrt~te~ tires such: as early rnorn3rt~Qs and la~fe ev~enl+nga~ ## if you C~ p~pase i~le+~se provide a 6riei expdanatian wfhy; VY~ould kau support a51~( (~~ Mc+nth 7:rial for a ctff•leasit a~r~ea in this pa~rk~ ^ -~;e~ a h1!a Dave ya~u oibserued Qo~s +Dv~ners: ~ Gags using this PartC~ D Y,~s ^ Pta 'IiYhat Ita~ been ycnu r experiences r~egarciing d+a~s~ in this iaerk?' ^ ~~aad O dad ^ ~l~,ne please e:xplein y~ouc g+omd or tram experience t7eic~-v; I~~IE!e ~ C}~ ~ /~ ~~~ OFF-LEASH DOC; PARKS in BAY AREA (Source: DogFriendly.com-California Off-Leash Dog Park Guide) • Bay Area:73 OLDA • Peninsula: 26 OLDA • San Jose: 10 OLDA • Palo Alto: 3 OLDA • Cupertino: 0 OLDA w N !1 ~"7 . [''ii V' ~~ F C3 R 1'~ u.~~rt~ n~ pity Perk Users w w The Gl°¢y of Guperttotfl rnro.rk:ImgwCtlva cltUxerus genup !s abtaDn~ng'~[nfartmattam to ~det~rmine if thin paint v!rv~iid be srJfalbl~e to set as~d~e are area for tYrae as a aff-IeasEZ d!a~j ex~ercnss area. '4Ve ~.re Baliit.it'trtt~ par4x utserg EYYputr3 to tape #c~ avatuaika if this pAtzl<i%~ rt s:~etr~letfaEt: fcrt it siix ~~~crrYantLLr tR'uz~p tv~ ci-Eilt~t ~s fe:ii!e;E~ snr::a fcir aCtelayr ~>r ar a. icr~f~tt~ced area w itft ctesug~natecf ea:rEy morni,~rg asu~# [ate ev~erxng ho u:rs for off Ieastir dogs. lM1fe would ~_p~preeiat~e ~nJt tEtne to caitnpiete this f~rtn.an~d dtra;p in~ta the b~ax. 7lianiic.~rott fflr ~oett enpil4~s. l~a~~~ F'a.ric I~am~ 4'r~ur ~-~ trig _. 'S"'t~ur M~~o•fn+r~ in4ddir~s~s bark l~s~: .~r~nxim~te~fy hr~vrr ~ar~~. t~m~~:s laer rrr~nth ~Yo }tau ~~~ ttti~ ~.a>~C~ V1(h.a~ aurna~e d~ r~~!u use ~Firi~ gfark? ~(Clha ck: a~ #h~+t:pp Eye ' CD ~x,~raise 0 ~'lay~ro~ndls ~;p~orts C= ielcs ;~ Picnics Dog ~xer~cige Wither ._..--- ------------ ~p~c~aiEy Una ~anita.tlan; Is Parr ~i~an v~.; {cnxk. ~ unsu=~~ tD Leaves ~ L.imbs ~"a+8~1'I}Sge (Rx~,e,', FL4rn1t:.Hr~titre~, s.~t~:.} C7 C}o+~ Poop + :o.m n~e.nts reg±a;rdling $a~itati,a~~; ~._ _ - ~:~i:l:.'C ~ Cl( ry ~ a~ L7aq Park Questions.: Ifa Dag Area wa±~ e!~txh:lis.hect fhr 1.1_4 6~ dt3(~ c~urner far mff leash G. K~ 1'G is~~ a 1Lraya.u f~i [n Fa~~ar~' ~ O~:h,a~~w"" I-'~ M,l~ ~~:inian If yr~au ~evar a aff~l~as:h dog area uvaul~J you p.refe.r ; i-f Fpnceci to Aroma I-I D€x~:ign~tad W;r~a** '"" ~ d~slgn;et~ are13 ut~~td b~-c~n a non interferon t~~s urith otter perk v~lth d~3~~rb~~+~~d ~im~s~ ~u~h rpr9}" rngl'nir1 #~r1~d il~te ev~nlrrgs ~## Ifyvu ~ppos•e I~'leas+~ fs.ravicie a bre~fe~lcprlanation why; W Quid ~+ou; suppolrt a 51~ (~) [~~t~nt~h Trial. fr~r a~ off~leas#t aria rt this park? ^ `t'~s CD t~fl I-irivc ~ol~ ©b ,~crv,~d ~ilcag~ C?w.nc:rs ~. mo~~ ui~i:n~ th~i.~ Purl<?~ Q Yes Q too VW het I~as been your expenenoes re~ardsing ctngs in pis pa~rK'f Inl ra~vcl'< d T~ati1 D htgn~ I~laa~a ,explain, }~o u.r gopr~ ar txa+~ axpe~rienc.~ E1~l~quv„ .. ` . 1.. .. CJFF-LEASH D®~] PARKS in BAY AREA (Source: DogFriendly.com-California Off- Leash Dog Park Guide) w • Bay Area: 73 OLDA • Peninsula: 26 OLDA • San Jose: 10 OLDA • Palo Alto: 3 OLDA • Cupertino: 0 OLDA ~~~~ Criteria used during Selection Process 1. Safety of ark users and doffs a}The park users must have their dog under voice control b}Children should always be closely supervised by a responsible adult c}Owners should carry their leash on them at all times d}One activity for a citizens group is to help monitor interactions between dogs and other dogs and between dogs and people e}Overtly aggressive, overly assertive, overly unruly, and under socialized dogs should be discouraged from visiting the parks f}Park users should be discouraged from bringing young puppies or fearful dogs to parks, as they may be made more fearful by highly assertive dogs, highly interactive dogs, or rough play g}Limit the number of dogs per adult allowed in the park. U.C. w ~, Davis study suggest no more than 3 per adult user ~--~o ~{ ~ .. Criteria used during Selection Process 2. Sanitation of park facilities a}Plan and budget for an appropriate maintenance and cleaning schedule, done by the City, with assistance from the citizens group F ..~ w ~ .~ .~ ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~ N /t ~ ~ n V+. .' Iti ~+ n ~ ~ ~ ~ i"- V1 ~ IP i1 V'\ /~ /1 ~ P` 1 '~" /1 '~ ~ /1 Y1 ~'1 V' ~ / ~'1 [J)rldC.C 5!~(IJ Jl,dLll I~ ll IC t UICJ dl ll IC CI Il.l Clt II,.C~J~ l.V 1.1 IC ~.1a1 I~, AJ well as within the park, profiling the rule that owners must pick up the feces of their dogs. Be sure that the signs are well maintained. Signs should be in English and Mandarin. c)Provide adequate disposable bags, or other means of removing feces, and refuse cans for feces cleanup d)The a citizens group should help monitor the sanitation of the park w V A-3/ Criteria used during Selection Process 3. Appropriately increased and positive usage rates in parks a)The size of the off-leash area should be as large as feasible, but not too large to adequately maintain. b)Utilize alternate or nontraditional locations, if needed, to help decrease the chance for conflict with other community users c)The requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be taken into consideration w l~'~~ ,.~, Criteria used during Selection Process 4. Respect to neighbors a}locate the off-leash area so that it is not directly adjacent to residential property lines, to help decrease the chance of actual and perceived problems between park users and the neighbors b)The off-leash area should be close enough to a residential area that dog owners will take their dogs to that area and not allow them off-leash elsewhere c)Enforce leash laws in areas surrounding the off-leash area to decrease the number of dogs illegally off-leash going to and from the park w 1~-33 Criteria used during Selection Process 5. Limited traffic impact a)Provide adequate parking for the dog park users, as most users (95%) drive to them b)Locate the off-leash area as close to the parking lot as possible to discourage owners letting their dogs' off- leash between the area and parking 6. Protection of natural resources a)Mitigate concerns about possible disturbance of wildlife or native plants A O 4-3~f C~i.~eria sec durin~ Selection Process 7. Afforda i itv of eve oilmen and maintenance a)An active citizens group should participate in the planning of a dog park b)Encourage the citizens group to sponsor a fundraiser with park users c}A citizens group should advise the City as to the needed I~ h • • M A A /- ~ A ~M 11 • N ~ A • IA ~ ~ i1 N A f/~ I / I\ ... ~ ~ /\ N I\ I f/\ HA /\ V~ I ~ /\ 1/~ I ~ /"~ r GJUU! I.CJ l,U I I Idll ILdlI I LI IC ~,1d1 !~, dl IU l.U 1 lCI~,J ) I IV! IIIVI IlJ condition 8. Greater community education about dogs a)Suggest that the dog park citizens group sponsor an on-line and/or paper newsletter, and potentially an email group b)Park users should be educated in the signs that dogs display when performing aggressive behaviors A ~' City-Parks Acreage N 0 lollyman o Linda Vista o Varian o Monta Vista o Hoover o Wilson o Portal o Three Oaks (11.5 Acres) (11.0 Acres) ( 6.3 Acres) ( 6.2 Acres) ( 5.0 Acres) ( 4.8 Acres) 3.8 Acres) ( 3.1 Acres) ~+~~ Park Survey Checklist ^ Is there adequate area ? ^ Will there be a minimal impact on adjacent residences? ^ Is there an area not close to playgrounds? ^ Where are sports fields located & will Time Sharing . of this area be feasible? ^ Is the area in nroxirnity to nark walkways? - ^ Can dogs (on leash} get from parking area to exercise area without interfering with other park users? ^ is park geographical location close to potential off-leash users? ^ Is there relatively level grounds for dogs to run? ^ Do trees and vegetation exist for shade and will they interfere with dogs exercises (running)? A W /~~37 BLUE TAG PERMIT This program will be instituted if during the trial period it is needed to mitigate problems as determined by Parks and Recreation. San Jose Animal Control has been contracted to monitor the OIDA during the trial including checking on dog licenses and vaccinations tags. ,Q,-38 `~~ -a y .. off-Leash ®og Area Blue Tag Permit Program Program Rules & Regulations: 1} Cupertino residents only will be able to purchase an Off-Leash Blue Tag Permit to exercise their dogs off-leash in designated off-leash areas in city parks. 2) Both dogs and dog handlers with valid and visible Off-Leash Blue Tag Permits from the City will be allowed in the designated off-leash area in city parks. 3} In order to receive an Off-Leash Blue Tag Permit, residents must provide proof that their dogs} is licensed and up to date on all shots, including rabies. 4} Residents must have their permit(s) attached to the collar of each dog and visible whenever in the designated off-leash area. Residents shall display their valid Off-Leash Blue Tag Permit by attaching it to their outer clothing at or above the waistline so that it is plainly visible. Page 1 of 4 A ~-39 Off-Leash Dog Area Blue Tag Perrnit Program Program Rules & Regulations Continued: 5} Residents and non-residents will continue to be able to exercise their dogs in city parks on-leash, during regular park hours without having to purchase a Blue Tag Permit. 6} The (annual/trial period} fee for an Off-Leash Blue Tag Permit will be $25 per dog, additional household member for same dog, $10 per person. The fees collected from the Off-Leash Blue Tag Permit will help support enforcement of off-leash areas. 7)The first registrant per household must bean adult (over 18}. Minors may register as part of the same household dog. 8} Off-Leash Blue Tag Permits may be purchased at the Parks & Recreation Department. 9) Only dogs and dog handlers with valid and visible Off-Leash Blue Tag Permits from the City of Cupertino will be allowed in designated off-leash areas. Page 2 of 4 p-- ~ s~. ~N'. i off-Leash Dog Area Blue Tag Permit Program Program Rules & Regulations Continued: 10} Dog handlers may be asked by City staff or designated enforcement officials to demonstrate their dogs ability to obey immediately the command to come and stay while in off-leash area. 11) Should a dog owner/handler violate any of the rules and regulations, their Blue Tag Permit(s) may be revoked at any time for gross misuse. The penalty for the first violation is a fine of $50. For a second violation the fine is $100, and $200 fine and revocation of Blue Tag Permit for a third violation. 12) Blue Tag Permit privileges may be reinstated if the dog handler proves attendance at a certified training on voice and sight control, and written proof of successful completion of a voice and sight control certification course. The dog handler must pay a reinstatement fee of $50. Page 3 of 4 A V R41 off-Leash Dog Area Blue Tag Permit Program Enforcement & Monitoring: 1}City staff, including Parks & Recreation Department personnel and designated enforcement officials, will monitor and enforce the blue tag rules and regulations. 2} Blue tags may be revoked and fines issued for dog owners/handlers who are not in compliance. 3} volunteers will assist in monitoring compliance of the blue tag rules & regulations. Page 4 of 4 A ~--tl'~ Suggested Tin~eiine for Start of Trial Period A (O Council Approval -July 21. 2009 Launch Dog Education Program - 24,2009 Complete August • Survey Park Users and Neighbors - Complete August 31, 2009 11.,•..,...,r.~ rll n A Ci„r..,r .,.., ~~rr~ ~~.~~i-i~-~n Q_ ~~ e~nr ~hw~v~~~a-~ Cnvti~l- ~ ~nno I'I Ct,JdI C VLUH J1~! IJ VII IlC~U1CIlIV11J CX I1l.liCJ - 1.V111t.11ClC JCt..JL /,GVVJ Post Rules & Regulations in Trial Parks - Complete September 14,2009 Announce OLDA program on website and in News -Month of September 2009 Start Trial September 28, 2009 R-y3 A. :hment B Cupertino City Parks Trial Program Recommendation for Off-Leash Dog Policy Developed and endorsed by members of the Cupertino Off-Leash Dog Tria! Citizens' Committee Cathy Coe, Cecil Coe, Lynn Frake, David Fung, Judy Harrison, David Klinger, Judy Klinger, Tmima Koren, Erin Labmeier, Greg Labmeier, Paul McNulty, Runping Qi, Karen Seale, Sophie Wang .~ ' 1 Objectives N 1) Acommunity-centric off-leash plan provides positive benefits for all Cupertino residents, both dog owners AND non-owners 2) Cupertino should provide a legal off-leash exercise option 3} As with all park uses, an OL.A presents a "nuisance factor" to park neighb-ors and users. Action plans actively seek to minimize negative impacts anal interactions 4) Offering should be proportional to city size reducing community impact and operating costs 5J A complete proposal must realistically anticipate capital and operating costs L;~1~+r't204~ Citizens' ~.o+Y+mitte~ UL~I Proposal - ~,z.+) Q :~;. It's All About Interactions 1} Leash laws exist because of negative community interactions -noise, sanitation, intimidation -perpetrated by a subset of dog owners 2) Violations are widespread and non-trivial in aggregate a) ~~u~o iicetising conipiiai~ce b} You see dogs off-leash in every park, every day c} Scoop issues in pl aying fiel d s, par ks, and streets are evident 3) Enforcement is non-existent a~ No real sense of response by residents b} Do we really believe that there have been only 8 citable violations in -the last year? ~;, W q~Jl~n~?U(39~ Cifizens' ~:c~n-7rri~t:t~~ OLA ~ropos~! - v1.() -~j~^ ~ What Do We Do? Changing dog policy to legalize today's situation is NoT acommunity-centric solution Without recognizing and addressing conflicts, legalization will lead to MORE conflict Focus on minimizing negative interactions citywide and finding best-case sites for 4~As S31 t.~ ~~Z~:tO:~ Citizens' Cotnmitfiee C7L~'•, i}roposai - v1.~ _- 4 Characteristics for Success 1) Demonstrate understanding of both sides' issues and positive actions to meet them 2) Criteria for site selection and administration should be uniform and objective rather than arbitrary 3) Create legal options and strongly sanction illegal behavior to demonstrate proper community balance 4} Joint support by Neighbors, Park Users, and Community is key Utf.! ~.s rt tf)~~ Citi~er~s' Cor~r~~iitic~e OIA Proposaf - ~j:i_.J ~- A "Best Practices" Proposal 1) Compliant with all Best Practices literature a) Meets all guidelines in UC Davis Vet Med Report regarding siting, maintenance, noise, safety b) Meets al! guidelines in AKC recommendations regarding siting, planning, construction, budget considerations 2} Compiiantwith dog park manager input a) Addresses ali major issues in the Community Established Guidelines b} Addresses all issues and experiences raised by all local and other dog park managers surveyed 3) Compliant with all Committee consensus decisions to date a) No unfenced trial recommendation; unfenced is a matter for further consideration b) Disqualification of parks for trial consideration ~, C)~1un?C'C3~ Citizens' Lc~«~~rr~itte~ OI.A Prapo,<:; - v1.0 ~-r 5 Issues 1) Addressing Public Safety 2) Addressing Noise ~1 /~cc~irinQ(`lAan and\111PI1 ~/[aintainP~ Parks 4) Enforcement 5) Demonstrating Neighborhood Support sJf?..~ it n ~ i]OJ Citizens' Cc:~-~~r-~tittc~ Ol_A Prop~~sa{ - L~1.t:) ~ ~- ~~ Addressing Public Safety 1) The City has a responsibility to maintain public safety as its top objective 2) Properly sited and constructed fenced dog parks are overwhelmingly recognized as best practice for off-leash dog play. We support fenced park proposals. a) California Parks and Rec Best Practices b) American Kennel Society, Establishing a Dog Park 3) Unfenced OLAs are qualitatively different than fenced OLAs both in practice and perception. We oppose unfenced proposals. a) Voice control is not credible; unfenced OLA depends solely on voice control for safety b) No other cities in Santa Clara County have unfenced OIAs 4} A fence provides full safety mitigation. Buffer zones provide incomplete safety mitigation. G~~3-1~.in~[}t?9 Citiz~~~s' ",:<,r:i:,li+.t:-~c QI.A F'r-opos.~i - v:t.(7 ~ .- U Addressing Noise 1) Excessive noise is the top neighborhood complaint related to O LAs a~ Identified by local dog park managers b} UC Davis Veterinary Med School Study c} Most noise at opening and closing times -this causes highest neighborhood conflict in 2) Residential setbacks reduce neighborhood noise conflicts 3) Institute OLA shut-down rules for excessive noise, similar to loud music in parks t~ sJ u rt Zill~~J Citizen' Cusl~mi~tt~e QL/~ Prapr3~a~; - vJ..t~ ~-~ Assuring Clean and Well-Maintained Parks 1} Surface should be sanitary, maintainable, and offer maximal uptime a) Turf surfaces are problematic to maintain b} Cost for appropriate surfacing should be understood as part of plan 2) Maintenance plan and costs should include addressing marking/urine in approach and parking areas 3) Minimizing number of sites reduces total maintenance cost a t)~?s4~rt~()t7~~ ~3ti~i~r~~,' Carnn~ittee Cat.;ri ~~rop~sal -v:1.~ ~ ~ •- 1.t) Addressing Enforcement 1) Creating a legal off-leash option should be paired with reduced tolerance of illegal usage a) Leash law violations should be raised to $100 infraction with step up -reducing penalty sent a wrong message to the community ~) iviost ~rencea uv-~s report gooa resuit5 w~~r~ user se~~-pu~~ciiig, sU enforcement here should not be the primary focus 3~ Enforcement efforts should focus on citing leash, scoop, and licensing violations in the parks and city at large, including OLA access paths z;~.i~,-~~aa~ ~iiizei~s' CUr11i'17i1t~~ UL~1 Proposal ~ .~i.~J ~ -- ~.~ Demonstrating Neighborhood Support 1) Proper notice of any change to a park is necessary a} Proposed changes must have reasonable review and comment period for neighbors and park users b) Notification must occur before trials or use changes are enacted 2) Show of neighbor/user approval is necessary a) Changes affecting the community should demonstrate consensus support b) Neighbors bear burden of negative interactions {noise, traffic, sanitation) _ should have a greater weight in decisions N Q~Jttt~2~?() Citizen.;' C.t~rmitte~ QLA Propo4=.~1 _ v1.i} ~^ ~~ Site Selection Criteria A uniform "building code" approach make site selection objective and fair across Cupertino. Together, these elements create a "filter" that identifies the most suitable sites for an OLA. 1~ nc~iuc~ i~~a~ .~c~t,.ia~.i~ - 1.JV 2} Exclusions-sports fields, playgrounds, picnic areas, and other programmed use + environmentally sensitive areas 3) Buffer zones = 75' from excluded areas and access path to O LA 4) Physical Site -Minimum = 8000 sq ft, level ground with adequate drainage w f~~S!;~rti,?i.}p9 Cis~ize~~,' ~arr~n~itt~e OLA Proposal - v'l,~i ~j "' ~. Residential Setback 1) Noise is cited as the primary neighbor complaint by both local dog park managers and the literature 2} The 150' residential property [ine setback seeks to address noise conflict-approx. -15dB reduction in noise level 3) 150' was the setback chosen by Sunnyvale and Portland a} !n Sunnyvale, homes were built at 100' resulting in complaints 4) The residential setback requirement is not subject to workaround C7{iJur~20t~3 Ci~.izens` Cf..~n~irt;i,re4 ULA Prul~asa! - ~j:I,{) ~~. Exclusions 1} Excluded features are sports fields, playgrounds, picnic areas, other programmed areas, and environmentally sensitive areas '~~ C~~rr~n~ ~ i~^~ r-rr~~~i~-~~~i -tip v'~~~~irsv'~111~~[` ']n~ CY1/'1Y'}'C TId1~C Yl7\/~ L~ JI IQI Cll UJC, CJt.JCI.IQIIy Ql'.JlAy~l VUl luJ QI Ill Jr.JVI LJ 1141\.IJ, l IGV4 been spotlighted as worst-case conflicts of use-sport field damage, sanitation issues, scared children at playgrounds 08lui~20~J Citize~is' ~~r»mitte~ QLf1 Proprz;aE - ~l..t~ ~, ~ ~~ Buffer Zones 1) A 75' buffer zone around excluded areas greatly reduces negative impacts of unwanted interaction and sanitation issues 2) Addresses commonly recognized high-conflict illegal usage problems a} Dogs off-leash in oLA approach areas b} Scoop violations in playgrounds, picnic areas ~3} Relocation of excluded features is a legitimate workaround for meeting buffer zone requirements a} A picnic table doesn't necessarily disqualify an area, but a play structure probably will i~~Jt~rt20U9 Citi~~r~s' CcfrYrmitte~ CJI.~a Pro~~~sa! - v1.0 ~ .- 1i~ Physical Site 1J Appropriate physical site characteristics create a more compelling, better-maintained site. a) Reduce complaints from neighbors and other park users b) More legal use should reduce illegal use elsewhere 2) 8000 sf minimum; level ground - about a tennis court a) This may not be large enough b) Usable size for larger dog exercise c) Level land required both by users and for maintenance concerns 3) Appropriate drainage important to maintain surfaces and sanitation J JSJ unL~Q9 Citizens' ~~arr~mittee OLA f~rop~.;[ ~ ~~~E.~ -~ .(. f Site Criteria Application Examples Examples applying the Site Criteria to qualify fenced OLA trial sites. Example 1-Memorial Park -Suitable fenced OLA site Example 2 - Jollyman Park - IVO suitable OLA site .Example 3 -Linda Vista Park -Suitable fenced OLA site with mitigations () .ii.as~ZC)l)9 Ciii~.~i~s~' ~.:c~;n1l'titt~~ ALA Pr~a~,.r..;~1 - v3.C} ~j- 14i t Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 1 Adjacent Residence Line USJuri2Ua9 Northern Park View Only Residence boundaries (in yellow) ti:itizens' Co~~mi~keF ~L,~ Frapt~3ai -~ v1.0 g _ ~~_~ Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 2 Residential Setback 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) 0 OSJun~Q09 ~IfiIL2nS~ ~C?f71Rlltj:c~ t~~ ~ ~CCt~U~c7I ~• V1.U ~~ .; ., - -,~ ~ -- Za Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park/ 3 Excluded Areas Excluded areas (in blue) -tennis courts, baseball field, 2 picnic areas, Quinlan Center O~JtanZ0e7~ Citi4~~~ys` ~,c~rti~mitfiee QLA t'r~f_~~_~~,~i - ~l.Q lj -- ~ 1. Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park/ 4 Buffer Zones 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue) N ~~s.~~~,zoo9 Ci~:izens' Comr~ii~tet~ OLra, ['ri~~csal - ~,~1.~t "~ t L Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 5 Potential Site Map J W l)~J u n~0f~9 Map wifih all exclusions Ci~iz~ns' or~zmiLtc~~ QLA Praia+:,al - v1.t~ s ~~~~ r ,. -~- Z.3 Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 6 Site Recommendation Recommended fenced 4LA site (white}. Area = 10,000 sq feet This position is optimal because it is adjacent to parking, ~;, reducing conflicts and maintenance costs. A Of31ur~2(~Q~ Ci~i<<~~is' ~.or~~n~titiee C3i_~'~ j'~-~:{..~u~s~(- v7..0 1? ~-- 2r~ Site Criteria Example #2 - Jollyman Park / 1 Residential Setback 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) OLA excluded from yellow zone U8,1 u~~? pQ9 C:~tizens' Ca~~nmit:C~~ C)L,=~ Pi°o~osa! - i~1.~ I.~ r L~7 V Site Criteria Example #2 - Jollyman Excluded Areas Excluded Areas (in blue) - 2 soccer fields, 1 baseball field, 2 playgrounds, 1 picnic area 08JunZa09 l:ititer~s' ~:r~mrrii~ttee ~iLl~ F~f~ta~;~~sai - +rJ..tJ Park / 2 ~-- 26 Site Criteria Example #2 - Jollyman Park / 3 Buffer Zones 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue} oLA excluded from blue zone O~.Iun20t~~ Cil';?~t>>' ~:of~nmitte~ ~JLt'-, F'~ o,~~::;~~1 - v1,0 ~- 2I Site Criteria Example #2 - Jollyman Park / 4 Potential Site Map - No Candidates Only one small area ~<3000 sq feet} meets crifiieria. RECOMMENDATION - No OLA at Jollyman Park i~~~~unZ0~9 t:;,:sz~~,~s' ~omrnittee C~L~ ~'r~rpcrsaE - v:1.i} '~3 ~~`- Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 1 Residential Setback 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) J (D l:~~Jun2009 ~iY1~Gi'IS' Coinr'nit~_.~~ t~L~~ (}ro~~o~Gi - v2.0 '~ ~ ~`~ Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 2 Excluded Areas Excluded areas (in blue) - 2 playgrounds, 2 picnic areas, ~ parcourse The large field is not identified as a programmed use, so not highlighted 0 0~3Jun2t~09 Citiz~r,s' Cc?mmitt~::~ f~L~t i='~'c7;~osa: - v1..Q ~~- 3C Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 3 Buffer Zones 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue} oLA excluded from blue zone ()t;.~urt2..00~3 ~~tir~~~s` Coi~~~~~itt~~~ ~3LJ~ Prapc~sal - v.l..~, ~ " 3:t Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 4 Potential Site Map Map with all exclusions. The west picnic area disqualifies the site that has been under discussion, leaving only a small oLA area, but `~ relocation of a picnic area is a possible mitigation. N (~L~.~i3C1~~Q9 C..Itlic(:'.1'1St ~Q(YiCTll~~f'C. ~~_r^, i~C~O~~CSd~ - V~...C~ ~ r ~ Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 5 Picnic Site Relocation Under this proposal, relocation of excluded zones are permitted. Here, the west side picnic area is released by creation of a replacement W space elsewhere in the park, This removes the buffer zone restriction f~~~n the "lower" area , tJ~.lGtn ~ C~iti?e~i~, ~c:•~r~r~~ci~~._c Cla ~''~"o~~s~l - v.1_.~ ~ - ~:3 Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 6 Site Recommendation With the relocation ofi the west picnic area, the Lower Linda Vista site now meets all criteria and is suitable as a proposed OLA site din white} 08Jt-r-Z[_;0~~ Cifizer-s' ;;c~;ti,~;ikte~~ QLr~ !'rapasa! - v1.0 ~~ 3~`. Site Criteria Example #3 -Linda Vista Park / 7 Access Path Mitigation The access path to the proposed OLA is only 30' from the tot playground and violates the buffer zone. A fence along the path twhite line} mitigates ~' this issue. t~BJ~~n~OL79 C-iYizcns' Carnrnitte~ (,1I_ ~, ~e c~E:,asaf - va_.~ '~ ~'" 35 Trial Procedure / 1 Pre-Trial Notice and Approval 1) Publish full trial plan for review and comment a) Trial site, days and hours information b} Monitoring methodology c) Survey/feedback documents d} Results analysis methodology e} Minimum 30 day comment period 2} Neighborhood approval process a} Neighbors bear burden of negative impacts, should have greater weight in approval process b} Adult residents within 750' of OLA boundaries are given 2x weighting, Cupertino resident adult park users given 1x weighting c) Polling process should show 60% approval for OLA plan, otherwise no trial t78J un2009 Cifiiz~ns' Can~n7i~~~E~ ()L,~ F'rcpasa! - t,~1..0 ~ r a~ Neighborhood Approval Example -Memorial Park Local Neighborhood-Area Parks in denser areas will have much higher local neighbor counts. Memorial Park has over 80 housing units in 750' radius (count is approximate because of apartments and townhouses) Ui•3JL~nZ0~9 ~i~:izens' C:o~t'~mitic~{:~ aLA Prvi.}osal ~- v:1.~ ~lj •- 37 Neighborhood Approval Example -Linda Vista Park Local Neighborhood Area Residences within 750' of the proposed OLA site (red line) would have higher weight in a show of public approval. Linda Vista is an extremely low density area with- only 20 houses in range. ~.r 081~an?~t}~) Citizens` Co~~~,~~~~ttee ~JL~ (~ra~c:rsai - v:1.Q 3i3 Trial Procedure / 2 At Trial Approval /During Construction Period 3) Community educational process begins, focused on legal vs. illegal activity 41 Neighbor/Park User survey polling begins to establish are-OLA ~., . ~ ... baseline satisfaction level 5) Immediate increase in citywide enforcement to establish pre-OLA baseline violation level a} Citation fines don't increase until permanent OLA approved 6) Pre-OLA baseline noise and sanitation study a) Build experience in measuring and recording techniques U8Jun2C~U~i Citizens' CoiY7mi~k~r- GLIB ~~•o~~osal - v'!..E:~ f1j -- 33 Trial Procedure / 3 During the Trial 7) Randomly select park users and park time to survey. This process will be conducted during park hours for the length of the trig l 8} ongoing monitoring of noise, maintenance/sanitation issues, and citations Qu~un~i=?~}~) citizens' ~QlYlCllltkc'.~; ~~ /, (proposal - v1.~} ~~ Trial Analysis 1) Need to determine success criteria for a} neighborhood satisfaction by survey b) changes in noise level c} changes in sanitation/maintenance d} changes in city-wide citation level 2} New trial required to change hours, rules, or restrictions U~Jun2[)U`.~ Ciiiz~i~s' 4(UIT~Ii~i'f1Llt~~:.` UL~ F~rapc~s~~i - ~f~..U ~ - ~~~ Trial Recommendations 1) We recommend a fenced OLA trial at Memorial Park and identify an acceptable alternate trial site at Linda Vista Park 2) Public notice and neighbor/user show of approval must be obtained before enacting trial 3) No unfenced OLA recommendations a) Not recognized as a best practice b} No other cities in Santa Clara County have unfenced oLA c) Entire safety plan is unproven "voice control" N (?~S.lun.?C~Ci9 {~itiiaeEis' Carnn'~itlPe rJ~~a P~-ap4sai - v~ .t) ~._ ~.z Future Focus Recommendations 1) Support the plan for a fenced OLA in Stevens Creek County Park 2) Support integration of OLA specs and requirements into the nlannin~ nrocessforfuture aarksand aublicworks projects a} Including consideration of oLAs in planning for future projects will allow for better fenced and unfenced implementations with reduced conflict b} Purpose-built facilities can easily meet criteria which are challenging for existing parks (siting, access path, parking, etc.} w GB.I~~i~lU09 Citizens' Com~~litt:~~: ~}LA ['roposaf _ v1.~ ~, ~- :~ Summary 1} our "Best Practices" approach maximizes success of the OLA by proactively reducing negative community impacts 2) Issues and mitigations were identified independently, then applied to the parks which allows for equitable selection across neighborhoods 3} our "building code" for site selection successfully identified candidate sites while addressing proven community issues 4) Plans for Community Support, Enforcement, and Maintenance are al! critical parts of the trial, beyond site selection 0~3JuriZ0f~~3 Citize~~s' Cc~ri~;-r+~~te~ C7L~ Pr~}~osai • vJ..~) ~..,. q~4 Site Criteria Example #4 -Library Park / 1 Residential Setback 150' Residential Setback {in yellow) Citize,is' ~.Ut~n,r,i~t~cs Ul.A €~ra~3~saE •- v~..U `b -~ ~~~ Site Criteria Example #4 -Library Park/ 2 Excluded Areas Excluded areas (in blue} -cricket field Q~.Iur~7..0U~ Citizens' Co1l~mit~te~~ C)l,~ PropQSai - v1.i ~- 4~6 ~' Site Criteria Example #4 -Library Park/ 3 Buffer Zones 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue) ~' The buffered area exceeds fihe boundaries of the park 08J~~n'00~-) Citiz~~~s' Cci~~r~~itt~~ 01_A i~rai~osai - ~,~'l.() ~ .- ~7 Site Criteria Example #4 -Library Park / 4 Cricket Field Relocation ~~-_ .~~x. ~,:: If the cricket field were relocated, then the residential setback is the only site determining factor 0~~_iun'~tJC}'~ ~.itiz~n` C:e~i~nmiYtG~ C~~.A 1=t~a~a~a€ -1~1.C `~~j - ~~~ Attachment C Community Established Uff-Leash Area Guideline Criteria Site: 1. Safety of park users and dogs a) The park users must have their dog under voice control b) Children should always be closely supervised by a responsible adult c} Owners should carry their leash on them at all times d) One activity for a citizens group is to help monitor interactions between dogs and other dogs and between dogs and people e} Overtly aggressive, overly assertive, overly unruly, and under socialized dogs should be discouraged from visiting the parks f) Park users should be discouraged from bringing young puppies or fearful dogs to parks, as they may be made more fearful by highly assertive dogs, highly interactive dogs, or rough play g) Limit the number of dogs per adult allowed in the park. U.C. Davis study suggest no more than 3 per adult user 2. Sanitation of park facilities a) Plan and budget for an appropriate maintenance and cleaning schedule, done by the City, with assistance from the citizens group b) Place signs stating the rules at the entrance(s) to the park, as well as within the park, profiling the rule that owners must pick up the feces of their dogs. Be sure that the signs are well maintained. Signs should be in English and Mandarin. c) Provide adequate disposable bags, or other means of removing feces, and refuse cans for feces cleanup d) The a citizens group should help monitor the sanitation of the park 3. Apprapriatel'V increased and positive usaee rates in parks a) The size of the off-leash area should be as large as feasible, but not too large to adequately maintain. b) Utilize alternate or nontraditional locations, if needed, to help decrease the chance for conflict with other community users c) The requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be taken into consideration 4. Respect to neighbors a) Locate the off-leash area so that it is not directly adjacent to residential properly lines, to help decrease the chance of actual and perceived problems between park users and the neighbors b) The off-leash area should be close enough to a residential area that dog owners will take their dogs to that area and not allow them off-leash elsewhere c) Enforce leash laws in areas surrounding the off- leash area to decrease the number of dogs illegally off-leash going to and from the park 5. Limited traffic impact a} Provide adequate parking for the dog park users, as most users (95%) drive to them b) Locate the off-leash area as close to the parking lot as possible to discourage owners letting their dogs' off-leash between the area and parking 6. Protection of natural resources a) Mitigate concerns about possible disturbance of wildlife or native plants 7. Affordability of development and maintenance a) An active citizens group should participate in the planning of a dog park b) Encourage the citizens group to sponsor a fundraiser with park users c) A citizens group should advise the City as to the needed resources to maintain the park, and to help monitor its condition 8. Greater community education about dogs a} Suggest that the dog park citizens group sponsor an on-line and/or paper newsletter, and potentially an email group b) Park users should be educated in the signs that dogs display when performing aggressive behaviors Attachment D City ~f l~or~an Dili ~ff .Lush ~Qg Park ~~ ~E ~~r ~I1~ ~- ~ Enter ~t Your Qwn tusk D+og owners ar guardians one lt~iy r~espunxlblt for airy damage, itijurY, or ilin~s your dog(s) Y cause to itsc9f, otter days, ether p~raplt or yours~f. Neither M~IDU6 or the City of Morgan i:lll, their officers, t+~layEes, manta or valuntttrS wJ1! bt r~crtsible in arty t~ly fAr people or i'heir pets w3akli: in tltt dug pork. 1i 11 ~~thtr' rules govtr~g City Parks shall oppiy. .s Uoys are to ~ utxtar vados caiitrot, inatpht a(Its a~ncG and Hover full urtattcndetl; ~' owner moat ra rry tsssh at aN tirn4s. ~~ ~s Heuer weal a coEler, prrfarably 3 tlst bucWe colta-, vrlt#c k~enti(ieattart, ctirrezit "~" 1t+~ansa, vacc#natiaa ant(ra6lea, tis1i$ ~aUlaahad. Chat<a:ehsino, prong, ~F1kod ar shock caltarsare ~fot perrr:tded. .. Dugs exhNah(rtp eppnasstvs t»havlor toward paop4e~ or ~athct drags moat bo rcmnv~d ~' 4rcrn ~ t~ [mm~adtsietY. {City codo: s.12,184f .'~; A1E ownara are to clean up agar tMEr dopy d~ipasal ba9$ arv providv¢. ~.`" Qoy(s must tt¢ iaa#had orttet[ng and betoro exlUng t1t~a park ~, Urnit of 2 dogs per pera or1 peg wish. #r Fornato dopy to season era net sUtrkad En the pneic. Spoye+dlnatr#orac! animRFB preEgrrod. .~' : RuFptea Url¢~t 4 marttha a(ape era not permttis¢ wtthlt- the uric. !~~',, Childtgn must be dlrestiY supcrvixad a3 a1! tiffs. R~cnning anci Ct+a:clnp dpi ip prp3sEbrtad. .`~; No 5ntakteg, food, as altoltio! altovred In the park. ~; Ro~41~er blsda:s or siestas, sica4Dbosrds, sr~! Ixleyeta; not ititovro~l. -~ Psrtc tg subJact to uiosure up~an detarrtatn~ation aY the City that there ka a reason deemed '~` to ha in Cho puWlc's tiRtsrost ar eatery. NQdJRS ~F ~?Fi#tAi'C>~1: S1tt~R1~E i0 SUNSFi 15 - 101 Attachment E City of Milpitas Dog Park at Ed Levin (Milpitas Muni Code V-9-7.01}: o Only dogs, dog handlers, and those persons accompanying them are allowed in the dog park. o Dog handlers must be ifi years of age or older. Any person under 16 years of are in the dog park must be accompanied by a person 18 years or older. o A dog handler, as defined herein, shall accompany his of her dogs at all times. o Dog handlers are responsible for picking up and properly disposing of all feces deposited by their dogs. o No more than two dogs per handler will be permitted in the park at one time. o Dogs in heat are not permitted in the park. o Dogs must be vaccinated and free of communicable illness and disease. o Dogs must wear proof of current license. o Dogs must be under voice control of their handler. o Dogs displaying aggressive or anti-social behavior are not permitted in the park. Upon signs of aggression or anti-social behavior the dog will immediately be required to leave the park. o All other City of Milpitas park rules apply to use of the dog park. o Only dogs less than 20 inches from the top of the shoulders are allowed in the "Small Dog Area." o Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the park. o Users of the dog park do so at their own risk. Neither the County nor the City shall be liable for any injury or damage caused by any dog in the dog park. Dog Park Rules and Policy san Jose coae.t3.a4.o2o Owners must accompany their dogs in the park at all times. No more than two dogs per person are allowed a# one time. Children are not allowed in the dog park, unless accompanied by a guardian. Owners are responsible for picking up after their dog. (Doggie bags are provided in the park.) All dogs must wear proof of license and have proper vaccinations. Dogs in heat are not allowed in the park. Dogs with bad behavior will be required to leave the park. 15 - 102 AKC CA...INE GOOD CITIZEN TEST the CGC TE5T consist; of 10 skills needed by all well-mannered dogs. All of the exercises art- dune on a leuh. Teat l: Accepting a friendly stranger The dog will allow a friendly stranger to approach it and speak to the han- dler in a natural, evcrvday situation. Test 2: Sitting politely for petring The dog will allow a friendly stranger to pet it while it is out with its han- dler. Test 3: Appearance and grooming The dog will welcome being groomed and e:camined and will permit some- one, such as a veterinarian, groomer or friend of the ownu, to do so. Teat 4: Out for a walk (wallcing on a loose lead) The handier/dog team will rake a short "walk" to show that the dog is in control while wallcing on a leash. Test S: Walking throngh a crowd The dog and handler waUc around and pass close ro sn~eral people (at ]east three) to demonstrate that the dog can move about politely in pedestrian traffic and is under control in public plans. Test 6: Sit and down oa command and Staying in place She dog will respond to the handler's commands to 1) sit, 2) down and will 3) remain in the place commanded by the handler (sit or dmm posi- tion, whichever the handler prefers). 'l'ent 7: l:omingvrhen called The dog will come when Called by the handler. The handler will walk 70 feet from the dvg, turn to face the dog, and call the dog. Test 8: Reaction to another dog To demonstrate that the dog can behave politely azuund other dogs, two handlers and their dogs approach each other front a distance of about 20 feet, stop, shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and continue on for abOni io fCCt. Teat 9: Reaction to distraction To demonstrate the dug is confrdcnt when faced rt~th common distracting situations, the evaluator will select and present nvo distractions. Examples of distractions include dropping a chair, rolling a cram dolly past the dog, having a jogger run in front of the dog, or dropping a crutch or cane. Teat 11i: Supervised separation This test demonstrates that a dog can be left with a trusted person, if nec- essan; and will maintain training and good manners. Evaluators are en- couraged to say something like, "Would you like me to watch your dog?" and then rake hold of the dog's leash. The owner will go out of sight for three minutes. Equipment You'll~eed to bring your dog s brush or comb to the CGC test. In the CGL~esr, dogs must wear a buckle collar or slip collaz. For c~tails regarding equipment, expanded descriptions of the exercises above, and how the CGC Test is administcrcd, sec: brt~J/www.akaorg/r~cenrs/rgdrmrninR taling.rf»r n rrnr• ~nnr M ,file., 4.t11V11~1 UVVL CITIZEN PR®GRAM '~:~t _ '.~r~, AKC`Canine Good Citizen (CGCSM) Program What Is It? AKC Canine Good Citizen (CGC) Program At the American Kennel Club, we're not just champion dogs, we're the dogs' champion. We believe that all dogs deserve training and a responsible owner and our goal is to reward responsible dog ownership. The AKC's Canine Good Citizen Program is designed to recognize dogs who have good manners at home and in the community This rapidly growing nationally recog- nizedprogram stresses responsible dog ownership for owners and basic training and good manners for dogs. All dogs who pass the 10 step CGC test may receive a certificate from the American Kennel Club. The Benefits of Training A key component of the Canine Good Citizen Program is responsible dog ownership. At the CGC test, you'll be asked to sign the Responsible Dog Owner's Pledge before you and your dog go through the test. Responsi- bility should start the moment you decide to add a new dog or puppy to your family. a.: 0 t-1ow It Works You can attend a basic training or CGC class to teach your dog the CGC behaviors; or if you have. the skills and knowledge, you can teach your dog the CGC skills. When your dog is ready; you'll sign up for a.CGC test ad- ministered by an AKC Approved CGC Evaluator, Tests are held at AKC dog shows, at some training dasses;:at a number of pet super stores, or some evaluators will make an appointment to test your dog. When your dog passes the CGC test, the evaluator will give you the papernork to send. to AKC to requestthe =. CGC certificate. Y 0 The AKC CGC Program provides an excellent foun- dation for training in other fun activities such as Rally, Ob@~ience, and Agility and results in swell-mannered dog~vho is a joy to live with. Some therapy dog groups req~re passing the CGC Test as a prerequisite, some insurance companies recommend CGC training, and an increasing number of apartments and condos are re- quiring CGC training for resident dogs. To fi~zd an evaluator nearyou, see: http://w~vw akc.org/events/cgc/egc_bystate.cfna a 0 AKC CGC RESPONSIBLE` DOG OWNER'S PLEDGE I itrill be responsible for my dogs health needs; These. inJude • routine veterinary care includingcheck-ups _ _. and vaccines • adequate nutrition through proper diet; clean wattz at all times • daily exercise and regular bathing and grooming ; ' I will be responsible for my, dog's safety. : • I v~ll properl}~ control znry dog. by providing fencing, where appropriate,.not Ietting my dog run loose, and using a"leash in public. • I-will ensure that my dog has some form of identifi= cation when appropriate (which may include collar tags, tattoos, ormicrochip ID). •.I will provide adequate supervision when my dog and children are together. I shill not allow my dog to infringe on the rights of others. • I will not allow my;dog to run loose in the, ' neighborhood. • I will not allow my dog to be a nuisance to others by , barking while in the yard, in a hotel room; etc: • I will pick up and,properly dispose o4'iny dog's waste ; in all pul?lic areas~sueh=as on he grounds of hotels, on sidewalks,;parks; efc.'° • I will pick. up aridproperly dispose of my dog s`wa"ste in ivildemess areas, on hiking. tr2ils, campgrounds and in off-leash parks.,. I will be responsible for my dogs qud~it_y~ oflife.~ • I understand that basic'xraining is~berieficial to all dogs. • I will gi~~e my dog attention add playtime. • I understand that owning a dog is, a commitment in time and caring. tiLL~ ~1liGllL lT 1s the tag d "license" car unigue to a specific dog? The tag signifies that the dog guardian has registered and is participating in the program. The tag is not specific to a dog. Do 1 have to renew my registration at some point? No. What if 1 change my mind and no longer want to be registered? Dog guardians who no longer wish to participate in the program may call OSMP at (303) 441-3440 to have their registration discontinued. 1-Ivw can I find out more about the program? Dog guardians can learn more about the Voice and Sight Dog Tag program by visiting our website at www.osmp.org or calling {303) 441-3440. ~f BOV For information visit: ~'~ ~ ~'- . _ ~ fi vvww.osmp.org ~ ~ or call ~3z...: {303) 441-3440 ~~~ or write ~ Open space & Mountain Parks P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 ~~~ .lani~aN 7!1l1F-9~M Pro~~rl~ ts~ained, a roan can be ds:3g's hest friend. - Corey Ford ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ The city of Boulder is one of only a few systems on the Colorado Front Range which allow dog guardians to walk dogs off-leash. This opportunity is passible only if dogs are not required to be on-leash and are responsibly controlled under voice and sight control. It is a tough standard for both dogs and guardians. Anew Voice and Sight Dog Tag Program has been designed by the city of Boulder to help dog guardians understand voice and sight control standards and to reduce conflicts which can occur with visitors, other dogs and wildlife. ~~ What:is voice and sight control? Voice and sighYcontrol means the dogs you' are responsible for must be within your sight and under'your verbal command at all times, regardless of distractions which can occur during a walk. If your dog cannot immediately obey verbal command,-:your dog must remain on-leash. Also, keep in mind that dogs under voice and sight control are not allowed to charge, chase or display aggression towards other people or dogs or chase, harass, or disturb wildlife aid livestock. STEP 1. The city of Boulder has produced a video which illustrates the requirements of voice and sight control and realistic, enforceable dog management behaviors. The short, instructional video can be viewed on the OSMP website, www.osmp.org, on Channel 8, or by acquiring a copy of the video on DVD. Watching the video is a required step in the registration process. After watching the video, dog guardians are expelled to know the regulation and understand how it applies to managing dogs using voice and sight control. Before registering for the program, you wilt be asked to affirm that you watched the video and agree to control your dogs off-leash under voice and sight control in the manner described in the video. STEP a. Dog guardians can either register for the program on-line or by visiting the OSMP Administration building at 66 South Cherryvaie Road. You and every member of your household who wishes to walk your dogs under voice and sight control must register for the program. STEP 3. After you and other members of your household have seen the video and registered in the program, you may purchase the voice and sight dog tag in a couple of ways. You may purchase tags through the OSMP website with your credit card. The OSMP staff will process your order the next business day (please allow 3-5 business days for arrival). You may also come to the OSMP Administration building at 66 South Cherryvale Road to purchase your tags with check, cash or credit card and you wilt be issued the tags upon payment. STEP 4. Ensue that voice and sight program tags are displayed on all dogs when using voice and sight control on City of Boulder lands where voice and sight control is allowed. l~aes everyone in the farni{y or hc~useho~d have to register? Yes. Every member of the family who wishes to walk a dog under vaice and sight control must register in the program. The first registrant must be an adult {over 18). Minors may register as part of the same household. Each participant must watch the instructional video and agree to manage off-leash dogs under voice and sight control on City of Boulder lands where voice and sight control is permitted. There is no extra charge for registering additional members of the household. ~N`hat i~ i don't agree to register and get a dog tag? If a dog guardian chooses not to register with the voice and sight tag program and display voice and sight dog tags, dogs must be kept on-leash at all times. ern l pro~dected r`rs~rr~ getting a ticket i~ my dOg has a voice and sight dog tag? No. A dog guardian who participates in the program and walks a dog under voice and sight control in areas where it is allowed may still be issued for any violation of the following standards: ~ The dog guardian is walking more than two dogs under voice and sight control; The dog guardian is not carrying a leash for each dog being walked under voice and sight control; a~ The dog guardian fails to display voice and sight tag on dog; ~ The dog is not within the guardian's sight and under voice control at all times; ~ The dog does not come to and stay with the guardian immediately upon command; The dog charges, chases or otherwise displays aggression towards any person, or behaves in away that any reasonable person may find harassing or disturbing; ~ The dog charges, chases or otherwise displays aggression towards any dog; ~ The dog chases, harasses or disturbs wildlife or livestock. +,1lihat are the penalties? The maximum penalty for a first violation is a fine of $50. For a second violation within 24 months the maximum penalty is a fine of $100. A third violation within the same 24 months will result in a fine of not less than $200 and revocation of the privilege to use voice and sight control. Y~JI-aen is rev©+ a.e~; i ~sf'doice artd =t~i€"6ti CHr9l~Qleges ~~SSBI:tI~~ When an individual has three convictions of Boulder Revised Code (BRC) 6-7-16, "Dogs Running at Large Prohibited" on city OSMP or Parks and Recreation lands within 24 months based on the date of the first violation revocation will occur. Violations of voice and sight control and dogs off-leash in leash only areas are violations of BRC 6-1-16. Can i get back the privilege to use voice ar;d s.ght control? Voice and sight control privileges may be reinstated if the dog guardian proves attendance at a city of Boulder certified training on voice and sight control, and written proof of successful completion of a voice and sight control certification course approved by the City of Boulder. Dog guardians must pay a rt rE a' 9 a T p R rE rE li a u H t~ D h it a• C i~ Y u 0 N tl d P V D C C G rc Attachment H San Francisco Recreation & Park Department 5 10 Final Dag Policy Table of Contents (May 8, 2002), , __ ~~~, ~ xi 1. 2. 3. Introdnct~on Definitions ~' ~~ DPA Site Criteria for Off-L' eash Use"~ 3.1. Location 3.2. Size 3.3. Boundaries/Barriers 3.4. DPA Surfacing 3.5. DPA Amenities 3.6. DPA Opportunities 3.7. Partnerships ~~. r'. 15 4. Rules 4.1. Maintenance and Management Responsibilities 4.2. 4.1 Dog Play Area Rules 4.3. 4.2 RPD/Partner Responsibilities 4.4. 4.3 Advisory Committee 20 4.5. 4.4 Hours of Operation 4.6. DPA Evaluation 5. Signs/Rules of DPA 5.1. Sign for On-Leash Park Spaces 25 5.2. Sign for Off-Leash Park Spaces 5.3. Enforcement 6. Miscellaneous 30 6.1. Show to Propose a New DPA 6.2. How to Modify/Eliminate aDPA 6.3. Funding 6.4. Complaints 6.5. Professional Dog Walkers 35 6.6. Public Information 7. Appendix (Not included as part of this docament) *~-~ w., a $ j F -cf 7.1. Park Code 40 7.2. Health Code 7.3. Park Acreage {10 acres & up) 7.4. Policy Stakeholders 7.5. Current RPD Off Leash Sites 7.6. RPD Permitted Athletic Field List 45 7.7. Significant Natural Areas List 7.8. Dog Policy References and bibliography(Available upon request) Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 1 of 12 15 - 107 1.0 Introduction In preparation for the draft dog policy, we have performed extensive research and compilations of policies and data of dog parks, throughout theµcountry and world The following draft policy reflects the Recreation & Park Dept (RPD)4Strategie Plan, input from}comm~it_y, stalreholder groups, SF 5 Municipal Codes, the 1998 Dog Task~T'~~rcc; recc~~nm~~endations~, ~s Well as~tle best and most relevant efforts of established dog parlt designs and policies ~' The San Francisco Recreation & Park Department (RPD) welcomes dogs on leash in most of its parks; dogs are currently allowed off-leash in 19 designated areas. (see reference material for existing sites) Existing & proposed sites will need to be evaluated in the context of this policy. Dogs are not 10 allowed in some areas as noted in 3.1 of this policy. This policy does support on-going use of parks by dogs and their guardians. The following policy supports continued and increased education about how to be a responsible park user with your pet. RPD believes the off-leash dog issue is not entirely about dogs but a debate about appropriate uses for, and stewardship of scarce urban parkland and open space, which are stretched to 15 accommodate all the uses San Franciscans propose for them. This policy outlines rules and guidelines to allow all citizens to share urban parks and open spaces without endangering one another or adversely affecting these spaces. The intention of this policy is to assure San Francisco citizens and park visitors a quality and safe experience in our parks. 20 2.0 DeCnitions To provide consistency in this document, the following terms will apply throughout: RPD: San Francisco Recreation and Park Department 25 DPA: Dog Play Area defined by RPD, a designated park space for off-leash dog use in either a permanent or timed use area. Owner: shall mean any person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal, and the verb forms of "to own" shall include all those shades 30 of meaning. (SF Health Code, section 41.g) Partner(s): An active volunteer or partner group to assist with monitoring and maintenance of DPA. Dog Advisory Committee: As defined in section 4.3 of this policy, an advisory committee will be formed to help RPD create, monitor, and mediate the community process 35 surrounding DPA's. MOU: Memorandum of Understanding 40 Athletic Fields: Any field for which the RPD accepts permit reservations (see reference materials} Children's Piay Area: Any axea that is in immediate proximity to children's play structure or apparatus and sandbox. Study Draft Dog Policy With Tuned Used Concept Wording Page 2 of 12 15 - 108 Permanent DPA: A type o Do Play Area establi~:hed permanently within a designated single purpose area o the park; created specifically for dog play and containing permanent improvements to support dog plan. 5 Significant Natural Resource rea`~s``T'he Significant Natural Resources ~Vlagement Plan t ~_ o ~; _ (SNRAMP), adopted by the Recreation and Perk ('ommi~ssion in 195, listsover 30 open spaces throughout the city as Sigmficant atura~l`kesou.,rcexAreaS~(SNRA's). Sigr~~icant Natural Resource ~, Areas are generally remnants `of San Francisco's oi-iginal~lan[d'scape and s"u~port important plant and animal populations and habitats. RPD's Natural Areas program is currently conducting a scientific 10 study in order to more clearly designate and define: these areas. Sensitive Habitat Areas: These areas support or ar~~ likely to support locally important, rare threatened or endangered species (examples include red-tailed hawk nesting sites, heron rookeries, cormorant nesting colonies, red-legged frog habitat, western pond turtle habitat, wetlands, quail 15 habitat areas). Sensitive Habitat Areas are areas within designated Natural Areas (see list in Appendix) that would be off-limits to dogs. Of approximately 500 acres of Natural Areas available for recreational use, approximately 20% would be considered Sensitive Habitat Areas. The remainder of the Natural Areas (approximately 400 acres) would be potentially available for off-leash, on-lease or on-trail DPA's. Sensitive Habitat Areas include: 20 • Sensitive wildlife areas such as breeding h,~bitat for birds • Sensitive remnant native plant communities such as wetlands • Sensitive plant populations such as locally rare wildflower species • High erosion prone areas • Active restoration areas {#emporary exclusion only) 25 RPD is currently conducting a scientific study in order to more clearly designate and define these areas. This scientific study will be reviewed and revised through a public process beginning in June 2002. While the attached list of Significant Natural Resource Areas provides a good framework far identifying SNRA's it is general and is not necess:~rily reflective of on the ground resources. 30 Therefore, each park and open space must be evaluated on a case by case basis in order to determine the exact boundaries of Sensitive Habitat Areas. Time Use DPA: A tune of dog nlav area established within a multiuse area of the park that is scheduled for varied, compatible and chan~in~es during the course of the day, including use as a 35 DPA. A Timed Use DPA is a non permanent use ~~f a park area for a dog play limited to sped is hours ofthe day so as not to conflict with other scheduled and non-scheduled uses. 3.0 DPA Site Criteria RPD will use the following criteria as defined below to appropriately evaluate existing and potential 40 new DPA's. 3.1 Location The density of the dog population varies from community to community. The size and nature of each DPA will be determined by several factors including, but not limited to, available park land, proximity to significant natural areas, dog population, proximity to other DPA's and other existing 45 park uses. It is RPD's desire to provide DPA opportunities in all neighborhoods. However, not unlike Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 3 of 12 15 -109 pools or athletic f elds, some neighborhoods do not have adequate park space to meet this goal. Therefore, RPD will work closely with the Dog Advisory Committee and community partners to identify suitable spaces for additional DPA's. DPA's should be neighborhood fri~adly'an:d, a~ta m1n~;f~um, v~ill be to ~ttc «t~ere they will not 5 adversely impact the surrounclwg ne~hborhoii~l and~pc~ space ley; • Causing ongoing conflacts due to overcrowding' ' • Causing detriment to the surroundizig eiivr`oiunent such as digging or trampling • Causing displacement of established recreational activities including passive recreation • Compromising the intent of the DPA to allow dogs and owners to exercise and socialize in a 10 safe area. • Siting shall also take into account the following: o DPA's shall be sufficiently distant from residences so that noise and activity levels are no more disruptive to neighbors than typical park uses. Some noise is expected and will not be used as a reason to disallow the establishment of a DPA 15 o Ability to place DPA on well drained area of any given park or financial resources to install appropriate.infrastructure o DPA's shall comply with all codes and regulations as they apply to the Federal Americans wi#h Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code Title 24. 20 • While dogs are allowed in most park areas, dogs are not allowed in the following areas: o Athletic fields o TennisBasketball/Volleyball Courts o Children's Play Areas o Sensitive Habitat Areas (feeding/nesting grounds for significant animal species) 25 o Areas prohibited in Park Code Sec.5.02 3.2 Size The size of a DPA will reflect the amount of available land, dog populations, park size and other considerations (see Section 3.6 DPA Opportunities). Wherever possible, DPA's should be at least 30 30,000 square feet (equal to approximately 4 tennis courts). The minimum size of a DPA shall be 10,000 square feet, approximately 2,800 square feet larger Haan a standard tennis court (60' X 120'). 3.3 BoundariesBarriers DPA's require adequate delineation, natural or man-made, to protect dogs from vehicles, steep cliffs, and other hazards as well as to prevent conflicts with other park users. 35 Some fencing will be required to separate adjacent land uses. Where fencing is required it will be 4 feet high. However, to the extent possible RPD will advocate for non-fence alternatives. The boundaries of DPA's will be identified with physical enclosures.. All barriers will strive to be aesthetically pleasing using landscape features such as shrubs and vines. Type of barrier, size and location will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Barriers shall be evaluated based upon the 40 following criteria: adjacent site use; size of DPA; active park uses, proximity to SNRA; and historic use patterns. Permanent fencing will not be required to def ne Time Use DPA's unless the fencing is compatible with other shared uses within the timed use multiuse area. Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 4 of 12 15 - 110 3.4 DPA Surfacing In accordance with RPDs turf management practices, DPA's with turf surfaces will be subject to closure during inclement weather and to perform routine maintenance. In these circumstances RPD will post signs directing users. to the nearest DPA I£ RPD and_ the DPA~artners can't maintain a 5 reasonable turf planting RPD:,~~11 ~~,alu~e vv~t~the co~muni `~ alte~nte ~,~te~ials for these specific sites. RPD favors the use of alternale.,:marials 'suc h as °sand, g~ra~e.~, decomposed granite, synthetic turf and other surface materials cn sm allez nI?~1's ~~o as~to allow for regular ~~nd appropriate _~:; maintenance. Combinations of inr-aterials nnay be used. ~" ~~ 3.5 DPA Amenities 10 • RPD will provide at a minimum the following amenities: • Bag dispensers • Signs • Bench(s) • Surface material 15 • Barriers 20 • Boundary Markers • Trash cans (RPD to service) • Lighting (where financially and physically possible & will not adversely affect surrounding areas) RPD will work closely with partners and the dog advisory committee to identify funding sources for additional amenities such as lighting, water fountain, or informational kiosk. 3.6 DPA Opportunities RPD welcomes the opportunity to provide several different outdoor experiences with your pet. If 25 the general screening criteria in section 3.1 Location are met, RPD will initiate off leash use areas under the following circumstances, with support from the Advisory Committee: Regional Parks -Parks larger than 35 acres (see attached list for consideration) Boundaries: 30 • Soft barriers such as language posts, or field markers delineating approved areas • When in close proximity to conflicting uses limited hard barriers may be used (i.e. stream or sensitive habitat areas) Size: Overall park size and topography will drive :;ize constraints. 35 Surface Materials: Surface materials will be governed by existing conditions, i.e. turf in meadows and dirt trails Other Criteria: • All park users must be able to access the facility without encountering off leash dogs 40 • Signage that designates "Dogs allowed off leash on this trail (or meadow)", and "Dogs must be on leash" • Dogs must not be able to directly access prohibited areas such as Sensitive Habitat Area (SHA) • Off leash use does not preclude other uses in these areas. The public can use at their discretion 45 • Some parts of dog accessible Natural Areas may have additional restrictions such as on-trail, Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 5 of 12 15 - 111 voice control, and/or on-leash requirements. Some areas may require seasonal restrictions. These restrictions will be considered along with other park criteria and determined on a case by case basis. Large Parks & Squares -Parrs 1 « 3'` acres1 ~~ _ ,A , ~ a4`',` .,; .~ ' are po sibleas~long as paths, boundaries, signs, topographic features, Boundaries: Unfenced DPA s landscaping and/or other use'separation`features`car'reasorabl`y''define areas: 10 Partial physical barriers may be required to delineate various uses. This will be decided on a case by case basis. Size: These areas will be a minimum of 30,000 square feet (equal to approximately 4 tennis courts) Surfaces: 15 The majority of these DPA's will be have turf surfaces. RPD will consider use of mixed surface materials as required to meet optimum maintenance levels (i.e. sand, turf, DG & synthetic turf) Other Criteria. • DPA may not be adjacent to playground without limited hard barriers. 20 DPA may not be directly adjacent to SHA without limited hard barriers • It is strongly recommended that DPA include direct access to at least one edge of the park to help facilitate access. A major access path/trail may qualify, but pets must be leashed. • Off leash use does not preclude other uses in these areas. The public can use at their discretion. 25 • Some parts of dog accessible Natural Areas may have additional restrictions such as on-trail, voice control, and/or on-leash requirements. Some areas may require seasonal restrictions. These restrictions will be considered along with other park criteria and determined on a case by case basis. 30 Smaller Parks & Playgrounds -Parks 0-10 acres Boundaries: • DPA's will have physical enclosures. Landscaping and other measures will be used to the extent possible to screen the effects of fencing enclosures Size: • These areas will be a minimum of 10,000 square feet (equal to 1.4 tennis courts) 35 • Surfaces: Alternate surfaces (o#her than turf) or combinations of turf and more sustainable surfaces will be explored Other Criteria • DPA will include double gates in at least two locations for safety precautions • Some parts of dog accessible Natural Areas may have additional restrictions such as on-trail, voice control, and/or on-leash requirements. Some areas may require seasonal restrictions. 40 These restrictions will be considered along with other park criteria and determined on a case by case basis. Timed Use Areas Timed-Use is a park management strate~pplied to maximize the use of designated park area for 45 multiple recreational uses and potentiall~if Brent user groups. A designated s ap ce maybe used for a primargpurpose and compatible secondary uses, based upon a defined schedule (daily weekly, monthlyLseasonal, annual} that takes into consideration characteristic requirements of each use and us~oup. Generally the timed-use is set out in the conditions o}'a permit or management policy .Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 6 of 12 15 - 112 associated with the space' Timed Use DPA's maybe considered for establishment in regional, large and-small parks, as an alternative to a~ermanent DPA when the Adv_isory Committee or the Commission believe the Timed 5 Use area will.' ~ `~~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • Maximize the recreational ase of availdble~urk_lafid ~ ~~~ ~t • Increase the net number of~ours~ available or o -leas~~do la . ~~.:_x • Increase in the number of o,ff leash~dogplay areas in lesser served communities,- ' Reduce or avoid conflicts between differen~! park user groins., 10 • Reduce costs related to construction of ormal do~play area's. • Formalize an areas currently being' used for on--leash and off-leash dog,~lay,. • Increases park security in morning ana' evening hours with the presence of dogs and caregivers, and/or • Assist in evaluating an area for potential establishment of a permanent DPA. 15 The criteria and method for establishing a Time Ilse DPA will be the same as that used to establish Permanent DPA's. Timed-Use areas shall not include identified /permitted athletic fields or sport court areas. 20 Improvements associated with Timed-Use areas will be minimal. Generally the onlyimprovements associated with aTtimed--Use area are si~nage, boundary markers and dog waste deposit stations. Timed Use areas will rely on existing_park infrastf•ucture and improvements Lbenches. drinking fountains, security lights. etc.,) associated with the primary use to support the alternative use. 25 Time-use DPA's do not have continuous hours. T1'Te~ay have one to four sessions per dad of specif c duration. generally two hours in len tg h~~'ossible sessions would include a morning, afternoon, early evening and late evening session. Session hours are scheduled not to con ict with other uses and to provide assess to the timed-use 1)PA during hours considered most important to caregivers. 30 If a reasonable compromise cannot be reached in the community, RPD staff will make recommendations to the Recreation and Park Commission for final approval. 3.7 Partnerships 35 DPA's require an active volunteer or partner program to assist with monitoring and maintenance. Partners must demonstrate their commitment, organizational skills and willingness to support and promote the DPA standards. An identifiable responsible partner is required for new and existing DPA's. A current "Friends of..." group is sufficieirt. An acceptable partner would be a smaller subset or committee of a larger park advocacy group. Refer to Section 4.2 for volunteer/partner program 40 responsibilities San Francisco Recreation & Park Department 4.0 Maintenance and Management Responsibiliities While RPD has jurisdiction over DPA's on RPD property and will contribute to both the capital start- up and operating expenses, the success of any DP2~ is based on the ability of its users to help 45 establish, fund, operate, maintain and monitor each DPA site. In our research of DPA's around the country, most off leash areas require direct support by site users, local residents, and/or organized Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 7 of 12 15 - 113 groups or volunteers. The RPD encourages and welcomes partnerships in many forms. RPD is moving toward MOU's for all park partners. 4.1 DPA Rules Advisory Committee and RPD will develop adequate s#andard ~Igr~age It will'~follow the general 5 guidelines listed below. ~'~~ _~ ~~ ~~. Your neighbors and the Recreation and Park Departnerit appi`~ci~te responsible dog ownership. • Dom Plav Area hours of operations are llnsert hours of operation or for Timed Use Areas hours of one or more sessions • All dogs must be licensed and vaccinated before entering the DPA 10 • No dog less than 4 months old shall be permitted in the DPA • Female dogs in heat are not allowed • No more than (3) dogs per owner are allowed in the DPA at any one time • Professional dog trainers may not use a DPA for the conduct of their business, unless sponsored by RPD or by obtaining a permit from RPD 15 • Animals must be leashed when entering and exiting the DPA • Owners shall be in possession of a leash for each dog at all times • Dogs must be under control of their owners at all times (i.e. dog must immediately respond to commands) • Control excessive barking and noise 20 Pick up and dispose of dog waste in a proper manner • Aggressive dogs must be leashed immediately (snarling, unwanted jumping) • Owners are to fill holes dug by their dogs prior to leaving the DPA 4.2 RPD/Partner Responsibilities 25 Partners and RPD shall share the responsibility for maintaining and monitoring DPA's. The following are general guidelines for each group. Recreation and Parks Department • Maintain and repair surface (subject to available resources) • Maintain surrounding landscape 30 • Repair or replace- barriers/boundaries and other basic amenities • Maintain informational signs • Empty waste receptacles • Liaison with Animal Care & Control • Post hours of operation for DPA 35 Regulate hours to-best serve maintenance needs • Provide cost es#imates for new or renovated DPA's • Process necessary regulatory permits such as CEQA. • Provide and manage permits for Professional Dog-Walkers • Monitor DPA to determine general compliance and effectiveness 40 Report monitoring findings to the Advisory Committee and community • Work with partners and Advisory Committee to remedy any flaws in DPA design, location, or infrastructure Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 8 of I2 15 - 114 Partners • Stewardship of DPA to uphold policy standards • Distribute DPA rules and other educational materials to park users • Serve as good role moc~e~~.~~. ._ .~„t r,~~a ~.,~.. °~~ 5 • Ensure DPA is kept free°ofFumal~ir,c,~s " ~ ~~ ~ - • Alert RPD/Advisory Comm~itee to maiiitenaa~ce ~iceds~ • Help establish priorities for ~epai~r~ and renovation ~ _, ~ _ • Schedule routine cleanup/workdays as nea:ssary • Fundraising activities to support additional amenities based on DPA needs 10 Partners will enter into a date limited MOU/permi~: agreement with RPD under the auspices of the Advisory Committee. The Partner organization will assume responsibility for the administering the conditions ofthe Hermit relative to days and times of use. areas of use and compliance with general DPA standards and guidelines. Failure to meet st~indards and responsibilities set forth in the MOU 15 agreement will subject DPA to review by RPD. Rl'D retains the right to discontinue activities with any given partnership group. 4.3 Advisory Committee RPD will form an official Dog Advisory Committee with balanced representation from the DPA community, children's groups, environmental groups, other park users, and invested government 20 agencies. The Dog Advisory Committee will be moderated by RPD and the RPD General Manager will appoint members. The RPD General Manager will also appoint the chairperson for the Advisory Committee. The committee will consist of 11 men-bers eight (8) selected from citywide organizations promoting park advocacy and three (3) representing citywide government institutions. A partial list includes, but not limited to: 25 SFSPCA Neighborhood Parks Council PAWS SFI~OG SF Animal Care & Control Fund for Animals Coleman Advocates SF Police Department Friend: of ACC Native Plant Society Audubon Society Sierra Club Environmental Quality for Urban Parks Department of the Environment Responsibilities of the Advisory Committee shall include, but are not limited to making recommendations on the following items: 30 • Establish term limits and bylaws • Identify partnership opportunities • Organize educational events (i.e. obedience; classes, canine good citizen tests) • Assist in developing and distributing education information • Organize collaborative events throughout the City (i.e. vaccination and licensing days) 35 • Assist in the mediation of neighborhood paxk issues related to DPA's • Recommend community guidelines • Promote community relations • Solicit and identify funding for amenities and improvements not provided by RPD • Assist in review and evaluation of DPA's 1~ Partnerships 40 • Establish a formal complaint evaluation system and DPA evaluation instrument. • Act as liaison between users, local residents, and relevant citizen associations • Meet bi-monthly unless deemed otherwise • Meetings shall adhere to all City and State public meeting regulations Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 9 of 12 15 - 115 • Identify 3 (three) DPA trail/meadow experiences (in regional parks) in the first year of forming • Draft language for DPA signs • Report to the RPD Commission 2-3 tunes per year with. updates/i sups-., • Report to RPD with are~orninendation ~n tim~d.~use for parks f7 he Department, with input from the Advisory Committee willprepare at~~l deliver a teport to the Recreation and Park Commission no later khan Oc#ober 20Q2 on timed.{u~e.,~ !, _. _. n _ 4.4 Hours of Operation 10 Permanent DPA's shall be open 7 days per week, within the posted and/or legal hours for any RPD park. Hours of lighted facilities shall he worked out with effected residents/neighborhood and civic associations. Timed Use DPA's shall be oven according to the hours established for the specific Time Use DPA. A Timed-Use DPA may have one to_four sessions per day. Possible sessions would include a morning, 15 afternoon, early evening and late evening session. Session hours are scheduled not to conflict with other uses and to provide assess to the timed-use DPA during hours considered most important to caregivers. Tyz~ical session hours might include: • Morning Session „(Park Opening. to 7: 00 A.M. } • ~ternoon Session {ll: 00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.} 20 • Early Evening Session (5:00 P.M. to 7.'00 P.M.} {May not be compatible {or athletic uses,} • Late Evening Session (9:00 P.M. to Park Closing.) RPD reserves the right to restrict any DPA operating hours as needed in accordance with neighborhood input as well as maintenance requirements. 25 4.5 DPA Evaluation DPA evaluations shall he carried out one (1) year after a DPA is first sited, established, and/or significant renovation has been completed. After that, DPA's should be evaluated every three (3) years. 30 Timed Use -Areas would be evaluated on a continuing basis and permits would be revoked for non_- compliance with permit conditions. Attention must be given to post-u.se cleanup and disposal of dog waste. Each space must be returned to prior condition. All timed-use designated areas shall be subiect to closures in accordance with City-Wide Tur Management, Neighborhood Services Maintenance Standards, and Permits/Reservations best practices andprocedures. 35 . An evaluation should be held in the interim if RPD determines that conditions warrant it. Existing DPA's shall be evaluated within one (1) year of this policy's inception. DPA evaluations will be conducted by a committee comprised of representatives from RPD, the Advisory Committee, the neighborhood, Animal Care & Control and relevant local citizen 40 associations. The Advisory Committee and RPD will develop the evaluation instrument. The evaluations should include utilization, compliance, and effectiveness of barriers, community and fiscal impacts. The evaluation should also include a satisfaction survey of users and neighbors and consider the number, severity, and resolution of complaints and issues raised during the evaluation period. To clarify the issue of complaints further, RPD will attempt to resolve any complaints within Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 10 of 12 15 - 116 30 days. RPD will report to the Advisory Committee on the status of all complaints. Any complaints that are not resolved will be considered by the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will work with the complainant and RPD to determine an appropriate action within 60 days. L ~• ` + a~ i 5 5.0 Signs/Rules of DPA ~ "` ..` - t~ .., The intent of providing signs is fo ideritify;"`educai.e and pruvide'"a clear and consistent understanding of the expectations of dog owners and non-dog owners within DPA's and other parks throughout the city. The RPD shall provide and install signs at all DPA.'s that outline the rules and regulations for those 10 spaces. When appropriate, directional signs to the :park DPA will also be installed. In addition, RPD will install informational signs, which will accompany bag dispensers at on-leash sites. The signs will outline several current San Francisco laws and ordinances in addition to information that has proven effective in managing off-leash facilities in other cities. 5.1 Sign for On-Leash Park Spaces - As Required 15 (These signs will accompany bag dispenser) Your neighbors and the Recreation and Park Department appreciate responsible dog ownership Please: • Pick up and remove dog waste • Leash your dog(s) 20 Don't leave your dog unattended • Control excessive barking and noise • Prevent digging and destructive behavior • Keep your dog's vaccinations and license current Thank you, 25 For information regarding dogs in parks, please contact the RPD @ (415) 831-2700 or Animal Care & Control @ (415) 554-6364 Health Code 40 A&~B; 41.12 A-D, 41.15 Park Code 3.02 5.2 Sign for Off-Leash Park Spaces {DPA'S) Language for DPA signs will be developed with advisory committee. Language will reflect simplified rules and regulations. See section 4.1 fer general guidelines. 30 5.3 Enforcement Although previous enforcement has been inconsisl:ent, RPD intends to pursue enforcement of all related state and municipal laws. Enforcement wilt! necessitate amulti-agency effort to include SFPD, ACC, and RPD. RPD strongly believes the greatest voice for following established rules and policies will be from DPA partners and users. 35 Upon adoption of this policy, a period of ninety (90) days for extensive public education and notice will precede strict and consistent enforcement. During this ninety (90} day period, it is expected that the RPD will install informational signs, appoint ~.dvisory Committee, as well as provide educa#ional materials to be distributed that generally support a "soft" or warning, enforcement period. The RPD is eager to designate additional I>PA's prior to hard enforcement. Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page JI1 of 12 15 - 117 The Recreation and Park Department shall recommend a joint enforcement policy to the Commission within 90 days of the adoption of this Policy. 6.0 Miscellaneous 6.I How to Propose a New DPA '~ In general, users and neighbors, and~~or a4Pari: partner can'subr~nt a`'writteir request regarding the establishment of new DPA's; or adding%repainng arienities at existing DPA"'s to RPD (submit to General Manager). The RPD will evaluate the request and make a recommendation to the Advisory 10 Committee within 60 days of receiving the request. The Advisory Committee will begin public process/negotiations. Siting a DPA shall follow the accepted community-wide planning process, which includes CEQA review. public notification and opportunities for input from users and neighbors, RPD and relevant civic association {s). 6.2 How to Modify or Eliminate a DPA 15 If, after evaluation by the Advisory Committee, relevant park groups and RPD, a DPA is determined to be flawed in nature, potential solutions will be developed and implemented. i.e. if an unfenced DPA fails to confine uses, hard barriers may be implemented. If adequate alternatives cannot be identified, or are deemed ineffective, RPD reserves the right to discontinue the DPA in question. 6.3 Funding 20 Prior to establishing a DPA adequate funding must be identified by RPD, Advisory Committee and/or community partners. RPD has the primary responsibility for providing the resources necessary for the establishment, maintenance and management of basic DPA's. RPD will work with DPA Partners, The Dog Advisory Committee and other government agencies to identify support through additional city monies, grants, private and corporate funding, and agency partnerships. 25 6.4 Complaints Complaints and concerns arising inside the boundaries of the DPA should be brought to the attention of the RPD. All complaints will be reported to the Advisory Committee in a staff report. If after 60 days the complaint has not been resolved satisfactorily, the Advisory Committee and the complainant will meet with the appropriate RPD personnel to mediate the situation to resolution 30 with final resolution the responsibility of RPD. 6.5 Professional Dog Walkers RPD requires an RPD Permit and Animal Care & Control agreement form. Dog Walkers are required to have a maximum 8-foot leash in their possession for each dog. Animal Care and Control recommends that professional dog walkers not have more than six (6) dogs in their control at any one 35 time. RPD requires no more than six (6) dogs per person be off leash at any one time in a DPA. Professional Dog Walkers will use DPA's between the hours of 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. RPD will institute a sliding scale fee schedule for Professional Dog Walkers so as not to unduly impact their livelihood. 6.6 Public Information 40 RPD will provide outreach information by producing signage and brochures that shall be distributed through a number of means including veterinary offices, SFSPCA, pet stores and RPD facilities, as well as the RPD WEB page which links to other support organizations. All RPD staffed facilities will provide information on the closest available. Study Draft Dog Policy With Timed Used Concept Wording Page 12 of I2 15 - 118 _. Attachment I TOWNSHIP OF DOWER MERTON Department of Parks & Recreation Proposed Off Leash Dog Areas Pilot Program Goal: To increase recreational opportunities in the Township park system by enabling residents to walk or exercise their dogs off-leash in Lower Merion Township parks. Program: t . The length of the pilot program will be one ye:cr with evaluation throughout the year. 2. The Board of Commissioners may terminate or suspend the program at any time during the course of the year if the established evaluation criteria are not being met. 3. At the end of the one year pilot program, the Board of Commissioners, with input from the Ad Hoc Off-Leash Dogs Committee and the publi~~, will determine whether to continue the program. 4. Residents and non-residents will continue to be: able to exercise their dogs in Rolling Hill and West Mill Creek Park on leash, as well as in ol:her designated Township parks, during regular park hours without having to purchase a permit. 5. Residents of Lower Merion Township only wi(1 be able to purchase permits to exercise their dogs off-leash in designated areas in Rolling Hill Park and West Mill Creek Park. 6. The fee for anOff--Leash permit will be $25 pear dog. 7. Off-Leash permits may be purchased at the Police Department and the Department of Parks & Recreation. 8. Only dogs with valid and visible Off-Leash permits from the Township will be allowed off leash in the designated fenced and unfenced areas ar~d at designated times. 9. In order to receive a permit, residents must provide proof that their dog(s) is licensed and up to date on ali shots, including rabies. 10. Residents must have their permit(s) attached to each leash and to the collar of each dog and visible whenever in the park. Rules & Regulations: l . Only dogs with valid and visible Off-Leash permits from the Township will be allowed off leash in designated fenced and unfenced areas and at designated times. 2. Dogs must be in view of and under control, including voice control, of their owner/handler at all times, as required by Pennsylvania State Law. 3. Dog owners handlers are responsible for the a~:tions and behavior of their dogs at all times. 4. All dogs must wear collars with current rabies tag visible. 15 - 119 5. One adult may have no more than two dogs under their control and off leash and must have a separate leash available for each dog. 6. Dog owners/handlers must have their permits} attached to each leash and visible. 7. Dogs must be leashed immediately at the first sign of aggression or unruliness and removed from the designated area. 8. Dogs may not chase, hunt, or harass people, wildlife or other dogs. 9. Dog owners/handlers must pick up and dispose of their dog's excrement. 10. Designated areas: a. Rolling Hill Park: • The Unfenced Off-Leash dog area is restricted to signed, designated trails and is permitted from Dawn unti19:30 a.m. only seven days a week. Dogs must be kept on-leash everywhere else in the park, except the fenced dog area. • Dogs must be kept on-leash in the parking area and entrance trail until entering the woods and trails identified as the Off-Leash area. • When walking through fields, dog owners handlers must remain on the trail and all dogs must be kept leashed to protect the meadow and grassland wildlife. • The Fenced Off-leash dog area is open from Dawn until Dusk seven days a week. Dogs must be kept on leash everywhere else in the park. • On-Leash zones: Dogs are permitted, but must be leashed at all times where these signs are posted. b. Rolling Hill Park Fenced Area: • No food, drink or rawhide is allowed in the fenced area • No children under 6 year of age are permitted and must be under an adult's supervision at all times. • Puppies under 6 months are not permitted. • Dogs in heat are not permitted. • Pinch and choke chains and spiked collars are not permitted c. West Mill Creek Park: • Off-Leash dogs are permitted from Dawn unti19:30 am and 2:30 pm until Dusk Mondays through Fridays and from Dawn until Dusk on Saturdays and Sundays. • On-Leash zones: Dogs are permitted, but must be leashed at all times where these signs are pos#ed. • Dogs must be kept on leash in the parking area and entrance trail until entering the park. • Dogs can access Mill Creek only via identified stream access points. • Dogs are not permitted in the wetlands meadow or the riparian buffer. 11. Should a dog owner/handler not adhere to any of the rules and regulations, their permit(s) may be revoked at any time. 15-1~0 Enforcement & Monitoring: 1. Township staff, including Parks & Recreation and Police Deparhnent personnel will monitor and enforce all park rules and regulations. Permits may be revoked for dog owners/handlers who are not in compliance. 2. Fines will be levied for dog owners/handlers that do not follow all Township ordinances, rules and regulations 3. Volunteers will assist in monitoring compliance of the regulations. Evaluation Criteria: 1. The natural resources of each park are not being damaged or otherwise negatively impacted. 2. Dogs are on-leash in all areas of both parks duiring designated On-Leash hours. 3. Dogs are on-leash in designated On-Leash zones at all times. 4. Dog owners/handlers exercising their dogs off•leash have purchased Off-Leash permits for each dog. 5. Off-Leash permit tags are visible on each dog ~~nd the handle of each dog's leash. 6. Pennsylvania State Law is being followed and. dogs are under voice control and within sight of dog owners/handlers at all times. 7. Program rules and regulations are. being followed. 10/30/2008 15 - 'I~ 1 Attachment J 15 - 122 ~'°. `s ~, 15 - 123 What 1 s a Dog Park and How Does It Benefit the Community? With cities becoming more and snore crowded and leash laws becoming more restrictive, many concerned dog owners are looking to the creation of dog parks as a solution to their need for a place to spend quality time with their pets. But just what is a "dog park," and what benefits can one bring to your city or taws? A dug park is a public park, typically fenced, where people and their dogs c:an play together. Similarly, a dog rnn is a smaller fenced area, created for the same use, that i.s often located within an existing park. As the names imply, these places offer dogs off-leash play areas where their owners can emjoy a park-like setting and the chance to socialize with other canines and their owners. Dog parks, which are sometimes managed by park users in conjunction with city or town officials, are being established a.li over the country and offer a wealth of benebts to dogs, dog owners and the community as a whale. 15 - 124 ~~~~~ `° AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB" 1Vlore than jLCSt "room to roam," the creation of a doh parr .. . ,lows dogs to exercise and socialize safely. Puppies and adult dogs need room to run, and encloses{ play areas pei•mi.t them to do so while preventing them from endangering themselves and others (for example, .L~y running into the path of an oncoming vehicle). In addition, dogs who are accustomed to playing with animals and people other than their owners are more likely to he well- soc;ialized and react well toward strangers. Promotes respo~asible dog ozvtiership. Dog parks prevent off-leash animals from infringing ou the rights of other eoinmunity residents and park users such as joggers, small children, and those who may be i'earful of dogs. Parks also make it easier for a city to enforce its leash laws, as resident dog owners with 2 Establishing a Dog Park 15 - 125 park access have no reason to allow their canine co-npanious off-leash when outside of the park. Provides an outlet for dog owners to socialize. llog parks are a great place for owners to meet other people with common interests. The love people share for their dogs reaches beyond economic and soeial barriers and helps foster a sense of community. Park users also benefit from the opportunity to ask questions of other owners and find solutions to problems they might be having with their pet. Makes for a better community by promoting public health and safety. Well-exercised dogs are better neighbors who are less likely to create a nuisance, bark excessively, and destroy property. Their presence in the park, along with their owners, also may help deter crime. 15 - 126 AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB" 3 How to build a Dog F'ark in Your Community By now you've recognized the need for a dog park in your ,area, and you're eager to see one established. But how do you get started? Thc: following are some strategies for a successful campaign: The First Steps .. . Start with a core group of committed dog park activi~~ts. Talk with a halt' dozen other uidividuals who are concerned about the lack of off-leash spares. These may be people you already know, or you may want to put a notice in the local paper. This group may form a park association and will be responsi)'-le fur meeting with public officials, making presentations, maintaining the park and defusing any problems that arise. Hold u public meeti~ig. Once the core group is in place, a larger eommun.ity meeting will help you get the word out to supporters and solicit input and suggestions. Contact other dog owners, clog-r. elated clubs, veterinarians, and humane society and animal control officials to gather interest: and support. Do so by posting, mailing, or distributing notices in areas such as neighborhood bulletin boards, pet supply stores, animals hospitals, and shelters. Encourage eople to write letters of support to public officials and the media, and to make ^.resentations to community groups whc-se backing would be valuable. Educate your fellow dog owners on the need to be responsible. The owner who neglects to pick up after his dog or who allows an aggressive or unsocialized clog to run loose can do a lot of damage to your cause and undermine your chances of success. l~rite a clear mission statement that details the need a:nd purpose of the park, stressing the benefsts to dog owners, their canine companions, and the greater community. The Redwood City [California] Responsible Dog Owners' statement says it all: "To establish a. fenced-in, off leash dug park where well-behaved canine citizens can exercise in a clean, safe environment without endangering or annoying people, property or wildlife. 1'0 4 Establishing a Dog Paric 15 - 127 15 - 128 ~,N KiN~,f s ~~ AMER1CAfV ,~ KENNEL CLUB' S rywe develop a beautiful, well-maintained space open to all dog lovers and friends who are willing to uphold the park's rules and restz•ictions. To view this park as a community project, in partnership with the City of Redwood City, designed to ~.tisfy the needs of clog-owners and non-dog owners alike." Cfcoose u site. The ideal area will be a safe, accessible locaition that takes into account the needs of pa.rl~ tFSers as well as the effect the park will have on neighbors and the environment. Please refer to "Dog Park Design" on page 15 for additional recommendations. Create a budget. Determine how much it will cost to construct and maintain the park -costs for grass, fences, garbage removal, lawn maintenance, drinking water, field drainage, lighting, benches, and a pooper-scooper station. Some cities are willing and able to finance a clog park; others would rather share the cost with a group committed. to maintaining the park and ensuring that park rules are followed. Keep in mind that, if it is within your bud'.get to do so, ~Q~-ltYZOUth ~QltCtty, ~~vJ ~S'C9C~ ` ~~ !»hme~nt of an off-leash ue~rn ui c ~ Li the sumn~t~r cif 19J d, a ueticl} organ- hlonirioi~th (:uunty:~The '1'liuni son }'ark ~ ~ i~.ed groupof Munnu~iith County clog - ~ 1)0~; 1~uti uhened viii llrtober 3(1,1~J~, ter owners j~etitinned the eonnty park system ' ~ enormous }it~pul;iri[y. and several local rtninripalitics tu, oytaL Now that, the park has-~opc~cd,area ~sbt.~an off-leash dug park. The BaY Shore `- doh c~w~~ers will cuu~cntrate o1i fci.rmin~ a 0tnp~luu[iPog ('luh and ]~~ew,lersev D. cure grt~up to hel}tkrepup the siie and t'). G.~(I)ug Ownr~rs Group) he}ped~~ee.ruit' pre6ent potential F~z•ubleiny. J~ist_hecaus~~ ineia~hery-and cuLlt?ct si~iatureti frunti~ dngs,Hre allonved te`run free dugs-nut. ~iwnera of the hear}y r9.fl;b~001ic~•ntied c}nos , _ mean-that cwnerF<will noYlie.r-csPonsib]e livinh'ia'the cvuuty:- for t1~r,ir anitnx}s"actions. There are cults Alterculla?ting7?,000 wi}natitres; the to bc;folkiwer}7 guiileliiit`s to be, gruuh prcnc~ifcd its prupu~.altu the ~maintained:_"Pt~k~lic education fur dug ~' 'couulypark system'S}3oard~f Recreation. owners will heci-iticai to the park's 1 ~~.Goniniissiune~rs acid ~nutu~ipal }iark snecc~sN;>, notesopc ~k.1-6c. organizcrs,'1'he gystem officialG. Officials al~reed that a par): itself provides a'terrifit venue for Clog ~~ark_would offer ni:~itty b~~unfits to teaching.people tube n° ponsi}~}edog ~reaidents. They talked tu`~~ther counties owners. 111emhers of the }ocaldog conimn- with sncncssfuTparks abot~ Liability- Yiity Gave a}ret~dy held a "Park Do's and ` issuea, rubs, and r~g~ulatiuns; before 1)on'ta" seminar and plan to host filtiire voting to ap}rrov~ Pi~i~tng fbr the i~tali- prhgt'an~s there.... 6 Establishing a Dog Park 15 - 129 ~~ ~ }. . _ ~ • _;~,~ ~.~:_ llepending on your situation, you will leave to cleterxnine how you will generate revenue for your budget. One possibility to consider is user fees - requiring all park users to pay an annual or daily fee. Permits could he obtained f'roan the city or town or through the park association. Fund-z•aisers such as a dog wash or concession sale at a local dog show can also help to generate money to cover expenses and maintenance costs. Finally, considex• soliciting town and city sources. By convincing elected officials that there is wide support 1•or a dog park among taxpayers and voters, you may help encourage funding for the park. Solicit the input and seek the approval of significant organizations in your corrcirtunity. Meet with tlxe proposed park's neighbors before talking to city hall As soon as someone brings up a concern, address it and try to come up with a solution. With a little good will and cooperation, neighbo.rh.ood differences can usually br, resolved. ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ AMERICAN ®~ KENNEL CLUB' 7 ^~.. 15 - 130 sharing expenses with the rity can be a great pul.~lic relations tool. It shows officials that you are committed to the project, will help foster good community t•elations and may increase youz• chance for the park's approval. 01~ you've gathered your resources. Where do you go from here? reate a proposal. Your well-prepared pr. esentation will include your mission statement and goals, and should address issues such as location, funding, maintenance and enforcement. Committee members will be eatpected to establish and enforce reasonable health and safety rules for the park, and these shotilcl be included in the proposal as well. Suggestions for these guidelines can be found in the "Rules and Regulations" section o£ this brochuire. A goad proposal will also do the following: Demonstrate need. Do this by gathering statistics on the dogs and the people in your community. • How many dogs would use a dog park? • What are the demographics oI'the people in your city? • W.ho currently uses city par. ks -and who d.oesn't? Downplay the "dog factor" and emphasize people issues. Dogs don't pay taxes or vote. 8 Establishing a bog Park 15 - 131 Demonstrate support. In many co~ntnunities, organizers found that a simply worded request, circulated on a petition, helped convince city officials that there was indeed both a need and widespread public support for a responsibly run dog park. . • Place petition gatherers at supermarkets, pet-supply stores and other high- traffic areas. 5arast~ra,~~atanfji; Florida ~ off leash arcs at ~Voodntcrr. Park "in Sarasota County is,tlte p~•oizd hoize to ~r'ni~r, 1+'loridn. lti support o[ thf+ move, tvo successful "pow liatks,'.' thanlcs~.in% ~ the ,(Grt •~tei :V~~nice.~'loridai)oh Club - ~ai•t to ;some active .AI~C/0-affiliated dqg ' donat;~d a d~; ur hive sign-tn riiark the -club mentbei•s. ~ new ~r,w ~ist•k's~lhcntioi5. One long-tinC elttb member chaired thi~ In the last y~'ar, "c~uuty off~ciela from Animal Welfare Advisory ~ominittec that .-= act•oss t]ie"patron have,coptartecl the approved the opening'of the T7Ch"Stiff=ec.t Sarasota Cotinty,Pa~ks and f{ecreation- Paw Park last year. The chairman and Department regarding then succf~s5 in lus rescued Greyhoutiid participated`in a develping atd'trtaintatnitg pa~+~ parks. ribbon-r.utting'ceretnouy that attracted Based on" the:-positive rosp~ix~se - the attention "of enthusiastic -dog owners, eomntuiity r~sident8.have had" to:ahe media andeity officials alike~'Tue :parks; bout off leash areas`wtll Continue " overwhelnung success of the"17th Street to serve as'niodels;fgr dog;gtouga~n the. ;Pam Park led to the oreation`of a sec~ud future AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB' 9 o~' 15 - 132 • Enlist the support of local veterinarians, groomers, dog walkers, and others who have a real interest in seeing a community filled wit]i healthy, well- socialized dogs. Involve them in gathering petitions, wt•iting lettea•s to the editor of local papers and generally spreading the ward. • Organize local residents to contact their community representatives, parks department officials, and media in the form of letters, e-mails, and phone calls, asking for their support. • Consider sending press releases to local media, explaining haw the cointnunity will benefit from a dog park and providing ir.~.fo-•mation about the success of existing parks in other areas. • You'll need to get the neighbors' approval, too. Explain yotu- proposal to them, as well as the ways that a dog paz•k will benefit them, and ask them to sign a separate petition stating that they are willing to have the park in their neighlx-rhaod. Get to know local officials -your city council membE~rs and the director of your department of parks and recreation. Attend meetings, join them atfund-raisers. Find out what they need from you to move the dog park forward. To help you get started, the AKC's Government Relations llepartment can provide you with brochures offering tips on working with government officials. 10 Establishing a Dog Parlc 15 - 133 Whew you're ready, request a hearing with city government to discuss your proposal. Have two or three carefully selected, knowledgeable and articulate member. s of your group present your plan, clearly expressing its many benefits to the community and calmly addressing any concerns. Be prepared to deal with a range of concerns, including the risk o.f dog fights, dog bites, noise level, parking and traffic needs, liability issues, and maintenance. Explain why some of these are nonissues -the park's dogs, for example, will be well-socialized and therefore less likely to fight, bite, and cause accidents in the community. Have a plan to address legitimate issues, like traffic and noise. Be patient and flexible. Dealing with city government is rarely a quick process, but don't give up! rollow through with continued letters and e-mails, $~uS~litca, ~E111~~P'~lit ~ wel} as inanrfain xnd iinprov~ the-hrounds: ' ln~early I't91, the ~ (;itY of Sau~a}ito }inprow~nienlti to the Park i^ exr.ess of ~ ` - -~sti~ ~}~ a }aw re m»in~r do ~,~to Lc ]cashed g.. ; ' ~ ~' ` g ~ ~ ;6~Uf}d to date have been ~~~1~}~ tlii•ungh - dunafo#i~, sal~}y frrnn parkunt re.:Tu at all times within the ~'aty=lunits. After ~dditi+xri.tu ~irigit~al fencing the pork now'- re~c.iv.iu~ a ei anon and $ne fir walkug_. her {lug R~m-ngton without a Ie ish; one }3~s lighting, .~ titor~ige shed,'a riding n dog p~c n~caables, benches, ~~11II'Qwer, ,awnerled a citi~ora=}Troup that,~vur~ed with , , dt-tnkuh-water area' and a "scooper" the city.council the .parks and recreation: r ~ cleaning station. - depaYtnient and the Ma, ~n $u~ane- a d~,dir~t~~ endoq~>d `Soc~ety to ~sta~iligh Tho park is the 6vme of champion 5ho~~ g _ ,~:~ be~~o~s of Sau,ahtq could h~~ ~area,whcre t as mixed breeds. Dog owners dogs~as well ~: _ -'-aff leash. ~ have iidol>ted over 3O "re;,cuc" dc,gs_ ~Blruiy 1)iii~igtluit summer vuhuitcers riiEe~i own~~rti new i~svr tw<, dogs uF a result of fuuda tu~~enee.a l 3 acre area in the. t}iiB ~T ot,rald: having ~`eiioive~~ the }>ighest rating of "`~ Mi-rtiii~~other'T.n~~~ school area, located ~~ ~ I'aw~" in The G~lifornia Dog l~vc:r's un lhe~riurth side of Ssnxsahto ;; tubeused ~ (;om~pniou; thr 5aus.ilitgliog,Y~irk is now as a ilcdic;ited dog pa>"k. In Noveu~bcr ` ' asedl5y over 3011'do};s hrr play. li'rom 'a~rk", was; 1yy1;-the,' Remuigton~Dog1 - snctiip to sundown, ~Ipgs pf"~a}I ages; tii~rs, offiecally opened with agala ribbon e(~tting - acid types can he seem romping in'thc attended by: city cotmeil mpmbers,~lo~cal citizens, and their dog eumpuiiions, park, chasing a never ending buppl7~ of 4 ' Although thepity. prgvides utilities, l"yang at thew m-~str~rs tenoiti halls; 4tmply ~ ~ ' iiaclud~ng water; elecfiicity, a~cl garbage or_ im top uC the fec~ under a picnis~table ` yemoval the paxk has b_ eezt~~a~ntairi~d l.y ~ picnic table demanding (ace-to faa• itSUse'rs snipe°tho openutg ~RegularTy'~ attention. _ schedu~ed j5ox~t~pardes cut th~~ grasp its ,;, - .. ..," .~ .t, ~ ~ _ ~~~,~, iilsu www.dot;park-sausalit~~.~•orn.} .. J'M~ 'V `~~ AMERICAN KENNE~.CwB' II 15 - 134 and lie willing to work toward compromise. ~~1.[~2lhl'~SS~~.~~~~~7da~ ~ recc.},ivc~ to tlrc. idea, it wan c]r•ar that little Members of the.Ochloekanee ~l{iv~-x• ~. could be ~lozie-witlxiut fttuds for fenciug,~ KezirieY Chtb arc alw a}'s looking fur ways to Pcx~l~er-s~c~x~pers, and the likr~. (?ftK(:, give back to thee' comrnunzty, sa wl-eit thr~ whi~~h donates iv v<irimrs or{;ani~ationti -~ppot'tunity carne to hr'kp wtth `the<~ " ~ rvery year, r,fron ahi~eed hr give the' pity-the tablishment of a dog-'parkiu:Tallahussr•c, ~l,000 that would be needed to fegce thin; they jnmp~d at~the chaiu•e. twc~-aern dark. Other ~lub~and,fanrirr~ . The grou~.ha'd;I<ong:realized-hare ~ _ followed shit, dor~atirit; mon,cy fur waieru~g i_iit}iortant itrJas for dog ownezs to have a - holes, cleatau}~,facilities, shade trees, and ~ilaee where they could'_'boeialize with others b~'nche .The city even dunate<l old-fire `and let their dogs run or ~lay:Frisbee At` hydrantti tiiadd to. the fun. the~same tune; theictepmmtuiity,was £acizt~; The hark has been extremely ~~<ihnlar ' problems at a nearby citypark where; ~ ~ ~ since_ttsphemng int}~r: si~nmier of 1')'>!t, owuers were permitting their dogs to ;` ` and city 6fliciuLs. wino originally a~meed to illegally'roain offleash The soltztzmi -~ ~:oPeu thcpar-k on atrial t~ais only,are now seemed simple =build a dog parkl A public -` entliu:,iastic irliout Bevel<~}~itig more. convnittee was.forined,-rand ari' ORhC' ~ ' Metiers, of -the ORT~C az•e pleaNeci to h ave `.board ti-ember'volunteered toserve on < had a`helpiri~ hand in the }iark's behalf of the dog community: es}ablishnieut and si•c it a a t;r~5nt While'the city of Tallaliassee~was~ `~ npixirtunity to inerea~eayy.~areness of ~~' respypsilil`ejdug uwnexship, 12 Establishing a Dog Park 15-135 Congratulations -they a~~roved it! Now what? Your efforts have been successful, and develnprnent of the clog park is moving forward. Now is the time to thank everyone who helped bring the park to fruition, including volunteers, government officials, and community residents. As a result of everyone's hard work, many dog owners will soon have a new opportunity to enjoy their canine companions! Be sure to share this good news with the AKC's Gover.nm.ent Relations llepartment so we can pass it on to others. The key to future and continued success of the dog park will lie in responsible park-association meanbers and park users who strictly enforce the riiles. For the most part, this will mean getting people to clean up after their clogs, quiet excessive barking and curtail any aggressive behavior. Occasionally larger issues may arise, and it will be up to you to help settle disputes in a responsive, flexible manner. Maintenance will be another important consideration. In some areas, parlr associations work in conjunction with local kennel clubs and parks department officials to organize volunteer "park cleanup" clays. Kennel clubs and other dog organizations may also he willuig to donate funds for future supl~-lies of scoopers, trash bags, and cans. The development of a successful dog park requires a great deal of planning and effort. But your .involvement and dedication will hopefully lead to the ultimate reward - the joy of creating and maintaining a special place where dogs and their families can run, romp and socialize. 15 - 136 ~ AMERICAN tCENNEL CLUB' ( 3 ;k 1~ ~,~ HCaUR J ` DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TINtE 6:30ANi--9'PM ~~~; B~4R`K--~'RE~ ~C~NE; RI.EASE BE CONSIDERATE. NC)ISE - ~,,r, FROM THE PARK IS A NUISANCE 4.:, TO OUR NEIGHBORS. DOGS THAT - r BARK PER~iSTENTLY MUST E3E REMOVED FROM,: THE PREMI~;ES: UNATTENDEC) C3C~G~ 1JVILL R~ IMPOUI'~DE;D DO NQT LEAVE .YOUR PET IN THE sr DOG PARK WITHOUT SUPERV1;31ON, '- CALL: THE MARiN HUMANE ~CJ~II~~"11' ~~3--;4'21 TD REPORT A DOG PROBLEM `, OR LOST .PET. , 14 Establishing a [)og Park 15 - 137 ®og Park Design: The Ideal Dog Parlc Should Include ... • Qne, acre or more of land surrounded by a four- to six-foot lvgh chain-link fence. Preferably, the fence should be equipped with. adouble-gated entry to keep dogs from escaping and to facilitate wheelchair access. • Cleaning supplies, including covered garbage cans, waste bags, and. pooper- scooper stations. • Shade and wafer. for both dogs and owners, along with benches and tables. • ~ safe, accessible location with adeduate drainage and a grassy area that is mowed routinely. • Tf space allows, it ilg preferable to provide separate areas for small and large dogs. This will enable large dog owners to allow their pets to run more freely, while protecting smaller dogs who may not be suited to the enthusiastic play of larger breeds. • Signs that specify park hours and rules. • Parking t:lose to the site. 15 - 138 4 Akly,~ ,~` AMERICAN ` KENNEL CLUB' 15 Rules aid R~gula~i~n~ Members o f a dog park committee should establish .rnd enforce reasonable health and safety rules for the park, such as the following: • Owners are legally responsible for their dogs and any injuries caused by them. ' • Puppies and dogs must 1-e properly licensed, inoculated, and healthy. • Animals should wear a collar and ID tags at all times. • Owners must clean up after their dogs. • llogs showing aggression toward peof-le or other animals will be removed from the park. Animals who exhibit a history of aggressive behavior will not be permitted to enter. • Puppies using the park must be at least four months old. • Owners should not leave their clogs unattended or allowed out of sight. Tf young children are permitted in the dog park, they too shiould be under constant supervision. • Dogs in heat will nut be allowed inside the park. • Owners must carry a leash at all times. llogs should be leashed before entering and prior to leaving the park. • Violators will be subject to removal from the park and suspension o£ park privileges. I b Establishing a Dog Park 15 - 139 ,y, r'~i F: E, h~ ~~- ~' ~~ i"<, .» 15 - 140 't ( F {`rah L ; ~~3dk~{+' -r-~ '. R.'i- ~ ,~"'. .-( - .;., ~t ~ aC" ~ _ r~ _ R.ap.s ~ ~t 'ic. ',fin .` .~.. .. .a ,. ~ " . ~ ~ Ics1y~,~ -~S ~ ~~ ' ~* F P ' b~ ~GNQED ~ ~ - AMERICAN - KENNEL CLUB® AKC® Web .Site: www.akc.org For more information, contact the Government Relations Department Phone: 91.9-8 (6-3720 Fax: 9 19-8 16-4275 - E-Mail: doglaw@al<c.org .Photos of Remington i~og Park, sausalito, CA,byVicky Cock GLEGO! (1010 15 - 141 Attachment K Petition for `Leash free Trial Period' atlollyman Park, Cupertino ~d~f;°^_ JOINT PETITION FOR MAKING JOLLYMAN PARK AS AN `OFFLEASH TRIAL AREA FOR DOGS'. Petition to: Ci#y Staff: City Manager Dave Knapp Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder City Council Members: Mayor Orin Mahoney, Kris Wang, Gilbert Wong, Mark Santoro, Dolly Sandoval We, the residents of Cupertino, and users of Jollyman Park, request the following:- 1.. We, the signatories (Attachment 2) hereunder, petition the allocation/creation of a Do s Leash free section at Jollyman Park 2. It is already a proven safe area for dogs. The leash free area is not near any walk or path and has been used for many years by dog owners of Cupertino. 3. All Signatories are residents of Cupertino, and request the decision makers to balance the 'Quality of Life' aspects of dog owners as is prevalent in many cities across the US and Pacific Coast as presented by the Director of Parks and Recreation in the last city council Meeting. 4. We are not demanding the whole pie, i.e. unrestricted leash free time for our Dogs, but requesting a fixed `Time Fence' when everybody will know that dogs will be leash free at specified times. 5. We agree to the requests of the people who do not want dogs to be off leash and provide them 22 hours of the daily pie and request only 2 hours when we can take our dogs to the park as a group. Time: all days from 7:30pm to 8:30pm. Monday to Friday fpm to 2pm. 6. We ask the Cupertino Council to approve the Jollyman Park as a `Leash free' Test area for 6 months trial period after which the council can decide to make it permanent. Page ~ 1 15 - 142 Petition for'Leash free Tria! Period' at lollyman Aark, C'upertlno Attachment 1 Section of the park recommended for the `L ff leash dog Area' Time Requested: All days: 7:30PMto 8:30~PM; Monday to Friday: IPMto ZPM ?xe.__.~~. ~ ~ ~`' ~ (~_ Da Foe CK /""~ untrid l,n ~ _ _ i I ~~-'+ ray _ Page [ 2 - - 15 - 143 . ®~.~ ®6 e :~ Parks & recreation Authority Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn: Staff o +~.t ct ~ N 14-Jul-09 s~ ~~'~'~~ Subiect: Unfenced /Leash free Petition + Orieinal Sienature List for lallvman Park Dear Staff, Please find attached our original signature list 1. Petition is proof of approval of [1] Cupertino Residents and [2] Jollyman Park visitors 2. Petition represents `democratic vote' and not an opinion or assumption 3. Signatures are empirical evidence residents approve a 6month trial period whole heartedly Background 4. Petition signatures collected a. Directly at the Jollyman park Site b. Directly by collectors in their immediate Cupertino neighborhood 5. Jollyman statistics are sample signatures of one Cupertino Park and its visitors 6. Finding; Dog owners are some of the most regular visitors to the parks at Cupertino 7. Signatures collected from around June llu', 2009 and is ongoing $. As of July 13, we have the following Statistics a. Slice 1 i. Total household contact =174 ti. Total people approved =146 = 92.41% Approved iii. Total Not Approved* = 12 = 7.59% Disapproved *'No' Signatures not collected b. Slice 2 i. Approved by Dog Owners =100 ~ Approved ii. Approved by non dog owners = 46 iii. Not'sup~orted ~ = 12 Did not approve iv. Refrain from commenting = 09 Undecided Best Regards ~ ~ ~ ' ~-'JC~t/ v~+ Gauri & Hari Guieria 7692 West Nill Lane, Cupertino CA-95014 Core team forJollvman Park fVarrie - Address `Rartk:Score* Cit-` - State, 2i'P Judy Colloton 7589 Heatherwood Dr 3 Cupetirno CA 95014 Sue Peters 7565 Heatherwood Dr 3 Cupertino CA 95014 Alex Vaymer 1006 September Drive 2 Cupertino CA 95014 Mandy Fu 912 Sage Ct 2 Cu ertino CA 95014 Gauri & Hari Guieria 7692 west hill lane 2 Cupertino CA 95014 Jackie Jackson 20648 Shelly Road 2 Cupertino CA 95014 -rcanK acare As agreed by both sides highest weightage must be given to residence absolutely adjoining the park. We use the following 3= houses absolutely connected to the park (one of the boundaries) 2 =households within a 1 mile radius of the pork (distance most dog owners walk to the park) 1=All other Cupertino Residents . 0 -Non Cupertino restdems 15 - 144 Petition for'Leash free Trial Period atlollyman Park, G~pertino ~~S \ Otsyt~~- i # T- ,. _.~___~. Name _. , .~ Address -- , - ~ Signature 1 ~ -- ~~ f • ~~ ~ lr~ 1 V ~ ~ V~~i V[.J~.~J~ ~ ~ I 4 ~I ~ S 'iJ ~ ., G~S~QN-e- ; 6 . ~ -~ ~. ..~ 4 ,~l / ~ t fl i~ iz. j .ems s Q c~ ~ I ! 7 s3q ~~ ~~ ^ r, ~r ' ~'~ 6 ~t~„, ~ s ~~ N Q..~ . ~ W ~ ~ o 7 `~ i,N~ ~ v`1 +~ ~ ~ tJ`'' t 1.~,~ `G lnl ~ 1, ~ (hI S s S~(C~'1 G ~ ~' ~ S~ l~ ~ S ~~, ~ ~ u~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 S'e, e_r~ ~ti K " s 5" , ~ o [ t ct.~d E r r P I ~~~.~. NO 11 _ _ 12 A. Mgr art{~ L~~,v~- ~~ ~-~0 13 ~ ~, ~~~~~ ~~7U ~~i~„~ ~~ ~ q ~~~ .v~ f~{, U ~ ~(}lo~ "~, ~VYL~~.J ~~~ pia 1i btu .~ ~r~ ~,~ ~os-e_ ~~- 7~ 17 1/ ~, , ~~ ,-- . , -eo I / J~ 19 ~ !~ - ~~ ~ ~ C r ~,~s-~, ~~ .~.~L -tom ,~e _ -..- ~°-~ zo ~.~ C~~ ~- ~z~~~~~ s .~~ ~ ~ sou ~ ~ ' 1 , y / ~~Q Page ~3 15 - 145 Petition far'Leash free 7"rial Period atJollyman Park, Cupertino Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHEET # Name , -Address 3 Signature ~' - - jog owner" Yes %'No ~ ~~ ,, - ~ ~,~, 7s~ L~u~~ ~ ~it, c-.,o ~ { ~~ 23 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~S ~~ 2'~ tN ~~}-3 b' S~-acv' a~ d J11 A! ~) _ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~7Ai=l~'N ~GuP ~~v ~~5 ~ Li ~~~ ~~ ~" C ~ ~~ ~ S~~L ~ -~ S r ~ n 2- f w ~[~ f/ ~U ~J`I~VV 2~ `.~ Y ~j 1 b~x~ ~ W f ~ 31 ~ VIA 7S~ `, ~~~ ~Y1Gy1 c~r~ wtic.~~ ~-- ~C v , ~ Sr 2©t~oa ai~ ~r-~~-~, 3 ~ td-~ ~ ' ~~ D ~~ sa ~ saws ~,r / "° o? Io~I ~~ ~~ ~~ ' ` N a ~~t ~~~~ Yc~~~ ~ ~~U~N~~Jm~ ~ o! ~. ~~C] No ~ ^o~ . ~~ 1 7W~~ L L'1 S ~ ~~ 3`~ ~~--~•~s~` 1 ~7S G~en~` ~• ~ ~ ~~l0 3rd s qn ~ uor, ~O Ps+`J ~ c~ ~~~~C ~S . "~~ ~ ~7 0 ~~ Y ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ G ~ i ~ ~s ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ `~ es Page ~ 3 15 - 146 Petition for'Leash free Tria! Period at Jollyman Park, Cupertino SIGNATURE SHEET ., _ - Name. ` - ~~ ~.~ ,._~ Address ~ ~ ,- :Signatu_re. - ,_ ~~`-aogov+iner Yes/`.No_ J ~~b ~c p ~EYY ~~ ~ 1 S.~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 49 ~a~+ 1M ter- l1 7~ 7~ tv~5f ~;~;Il ~:h. Cu t. ~- ~ ,~,~i` ,SD ; C~3~~~~~~'~ ~ ~°~ ~ ~ fy /~.,~~ P~~r rd~, ~.~~ l~'lc+r ~~/c `~ v S S 17 ~/G~ C 7" C vI'F27.~te ~ ~ ~Pi ~~ l ~~ ~ ~~ L~ ~` S ~ K~ w, ~~ ~~ ~,. u~1 i~~~o~ ~~ ti~ U~ ~ ~a~; ~. ~:. ~ . L~; ~I~S ~ ln~ ~~~ ~ ~a~ ~ 1~dc~ ~ ~ `~~ I {~cC~ ~ '~ ~ , ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~{ ~uvni~~ Yuan ~'~~"~ ~.~111ng~~i! ~~ C~pe~f;~~ ~- 'eJ ~~ ~~ v~. ~- ~ ,~ ~s ~ -la ~ t~ c.~ .. ~ ~~ -~~ l ~~~--- ~ e s E,Z ~~, r~ ~~~, „J ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~~~ e,-r~v~t a,-: ~ 6~ t ~a ~ t l3 ( ~~~ ~ ~L~ V~ ~ ,~ 1 . Q .- _~ _~° Page ~ 4 V / 15 - 147 Petition for `Leash free Trial Period atlollyman Park, Cupertino SIGNATURE SHEET ## Name„ Address Signature png owner Yes ~,~N o bF' 7~"' 'a ~ ~v'Y ~''~ . ~ ~ ~/~ '' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ M ~ ~b~~~~. ~ ~ I~a ~ ~ ~~- ~~e Qs -, - ~ ~.~. 7 R~~CS~ C `I 1 `~ l~ 1 ~ `~= 2r ~,t~ o ~ t _ ~'' Q~- ~S v' ~C v.r ~~(~~~~~ f r ~ ~sr ~t.trv~,~ f 127 ~ ~ ~~A ~-~f ~~ -rte, h nd c--t~ `~.~1 ~- ~ ~. ~~~ 7~ i ' ~ ~'c~~ s ~3~t ~w~ ~,~ c~~~ ~/~S , ~, C-~1"it-~Q..-~~`. d--~JIC~.I_ C~ `1 ci C~ 7Cj' ~ / /t--l~ . ~~. ~'~a~~ ~-~~~ ,u ~.~y~l ~ , ~~ ~ f ' ~ Cfj . ,. Page ~ 5 ~' ~{ 15 - 148 Petition for 'Leash free 7rra! Period at Jorryman Park, Cupertino ~,~~ r~ Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHET~T~ # Name Address Signature aog Owner Yes / No J p .~ -' -P~ ~j ~ Z ~l~ ih ~I~ G--~ ~~ ~Z~Vi'i7 ~~'' d ~~ i ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~.~~ GUSH ~:(~3nr D r ~ ~ r ors % ~t ~- i ~~ ~ Z1S 3 ~,~~~-~ r ~~ ~ S 1 Sv 1 ~ l~ ~~ .: ~ .- ~ ~ ~~ ~~-~ ~e l 1}- ~ Ste. ~ ~ qo ~~L ~~~ 7~-~ ~~~ ~f~D ~ ... q 4 .:.~ h~ ~ ~~ : - ~ ~ r ,; E 3 15 - 149 ' Petition for `Leash free Trial Period atlollyman Park, Cupertino Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHEET ~. # Name ,` Address Signature ~~~ '. ~ogowner, Yes ~~: N o 4~ ~~~ ~, ~/ (~, ~,~%v~ws~.~ ~ ~ lya~ ~~ei/~,/~P s ~~ H Lt c ,~ v~ f ', Q~ ~r~~z~. ~~ t rvk,~~~ A~ . ~'~r,.-I~ C~~ - ~3s~s' , ~ ~ ~a k ~~~e~--- ~g~2 ~-1 u~o ~~ ~~- ~-sa S ?~ Z ~ ~ ~. ~ l~i~~ 1'+'u~la~ ~ ~J~ - - ' ~ o r' ~1 S~'r-e,~K ~-~' ~ ~r ~,' ,~ ..~,. ~ O ~ ,,J f',(,(~P,i~h i~ r? ~ 6?-- UrC~ l ¢ ~:~el,~ Pi'~ _ ~ ' Page]$ 15 - 150 Petition for 'Leash free Trial Period otJollyman Park, Cupertino Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHEET # Name Address Signature; [)og owner ° Yes:/ No ~ i ~63 ~ '~ ~ r ~~~ a ~~ . 75~ i~ea1-~~~ ;.., f ya. o~ ~~..~~ 1sz~ -~~~~ f ~Q~,~r~ ~~ ~ foS ~tu-c ~~~lp 'D~f' ~ ~il~ ~, o~ . IU~ ^ ( ~ 1L~~y/~ //~~ k~(/~/l7 ~ ~Q~ A ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 5?~ " ~~1~~ ~ ~~ V ~ i ~ e ' ~ ~, 1 ~~I / 1 Gl.t;: s i t b~ ~ ~ / -~ n Fi 0 ~ f ~~ ~ ~ // , ~ ro 6~ /7 ~j }- 1 ~~ / ~'~l ~ ~~.~ ~ L j 6 ~ ~~ ~G'~~~'f i ~i 1 (~ ~D , ~( ~ > l 12 1!~ ~. ~eu~~c ~~ ~~ ~~~~~c~~ a~~~~ ~ y ~~ al Page I 3 ~• 15 - 151 Petition for'Leash free Triaf Period at1o1lyman Park, Cupertino SIGNATURE SHEET # Name - Address Signature Dog owner .Yes/No 1 i~ u„ ~ ow ~ 5 ~, '~er,~r n o c~l r~ rc~ '~ e.~ `~ ,,~ i~ ~~ ~5=~-G~v-e~S 1 X53 Colo ~-; Its ~.rl. ,QS. t1 y-U~~t {~SC~i'h /!y~ S-tee,A e c~i~sp ~~ne 1i~~. ~ , - 1t~ ~~~ ~l,~Lt-L~ r 1c~3 ~ C~ ~~~L~~ ~r• ~ r~ ,~/ ~ ,. . ~~ .r Pane ~ 4 15 - 152 Petition for'Leash free Triol Period ailoliyman Park, Cupertino Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHEET # - Name _ - ~ Address ,,~ ~~ :~,,.- air, ~~, SIgIlatUte .~.. Dag Owner,- Yes / No I +~ y t ~~~ Ce, __ -- -- - r ~ ~ ~~ ~-~V C ~~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~-G C~~~~n~ tr ~, ~~-1 r~~ ~~. tt Y C1~ S~ 5~ L/~ V r V ~ M ~~ ~~ f j ~ t ~r ..~a~-Q.l =~~-t ~ ~ .~~ ~~~ ~ ~b ~ .~o ~. - ~, D "~`~ / ~ f V u ~rt ~V UC 1~ ~ ~/~ p 4- ~~_ // ti 6 O ~A./~,f ~ /I ~ (! ~~c.M. ~ ~~ f J l ~ G^-'yL /Vi~~'-Q/ ._ ~.5 cam,, ~ ;~ v;r~ef Gv~t~ io)3 w~sfly ~~n ~a %~ e r~~ L~Iccc~~. ~~1~ ~0-3~~ s~- ~~ No - - - _, Pagef3 ~;. F~ 15 - 153 Petition for'Leosh free Trial Period atlollyman Park, Cupertino SIGNATURE SHEET # Name Address Signature ~ogowner Yes / No i3~ 1 Yet `ZCt~Y~ ~ 15 ~ ~ j CCt/J't," ~.~. l3"~ `~ ,~ ~ ~ h ; ~ ~- ~. ._ 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 6S 66 67 gage ~ 5 15 - 154 Petition for'Leash free Triai Period atlo!lyman Park, Cupertino Attachment 2: Signatories. SIGNATURE SHEET # iVame : Address Signature Do' o,emer No; ~3~ 6r~ ~ ~ V ~1~1~I1 1.:,-LI ~vR- ~7~6 aS L~;.,~s~t wqv~ ~u ~ ~ G y ,i vS~N ~ - N d 1 ~ IZ/L. oho ~ ~ c~ ` ~~ ~ on 2v~ ~ s ~ d~r. es 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Page ~ 3 15 - 155 EXHIBIT S BEGIN HERE 7/21 /2009 .~ ~ S~ CUPERTINO 7/21 /2009 c c-- 7 /Z ~ /~' `j ~'/S Linda Lagergren From: Ahmad Yazdi (ayazdi) [ayazdi@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:06 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: Ahmad Yazdi (ayazdi) Subject: Off-Leash Area for Dogs Dear Cupertino City Council, I wanted to raise my concerns regarding a trial run for off-leash area for dogs in Linda Vista Park. I can see several reasons this idea will not work: 1. The park is used for birthday parties and family gatherings. Many city residents also walk and run in this park. Having unleashed dogs will pose a danger to the kids and other citizen;; using this park. We never know what could set a dog off and there is always a high risk of safety issues and liability for tfie city. 2. Unleashed dogs will litter the park without owner supervision. 3. There has been already incidents with unleashed dogs in this park and it has happened to my neighbor. 4. The park is not centrally located to the city of Cupertino and ii: is not convenient for many residents to drive to the edge of town to have their dogs unleashed. The park is also located in a quiet residential area with low traffic. The council should not disturb the serenity of this park and subject the neigriborhood to more traffic. The council should be considerate of all the parties involved in this matter and I think the voice of the people that live in the area should be given very high priority. Regards, Ahmad R. Yazdi 10807 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino CA 95014 (408) 888-9399 cc! r-~I-a~~I_~ Linda Lagergren From: Frederick Eagle [fredeaglex@yahoa.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:30 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Fenced Dog Area, Linda Vista Park Honorable Mayor Mahoney, Cupertino Council Members, I see no good reason to put a fenced area for dogs in Linda Vista Park. I live at 10837 Linda Vista Drive and enjoy my walks to this unsullied, small paradise in our neighborhood. I am all for dogs enjoying that same area on a leash in their owner's hand. Linda Vista Drive is awell-traveled street; why has someone come up with this idea to create more traffic? Where in the world would an unobtrusive "fenced area" be created in this small but delightful park? Most important of all, please don't expect all owners to clean up after their pet(s). Who would do the clean-up on a timely basis; it needs to be done quickly, frequently to avoid a health hazard! Thank you for reading this email. Please vote "NO" on even a trial set-up Fred Eagle ~~ 1~7~ ~~-off ~/5 Linda Lagergren From: Rok [rok_sf@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:35 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly 5;andoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: rok_sf@yahoo.com Subject: Vote NO on fenced dog park in Lincia Vista Park Dear Cupertino City Council Members: I am writing about the Agenda Item 15: c. After neighbor and park user support is obtained by the Citizens Group Committee, authorize a six-month tri~il for a fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park I strongly oppose a fenced off-leash dog park at Linda Vista Park. I urge you not to authorize this trial. The trial is a bad idea, because this is a quiet neighborhood park and a fenced off-leash area (the only one in Cupertino!) will destroy the park and change the nature of the neighborhood. A fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park will destroy the park because: - the propose fenced area is at the opposite side of the park from the parking area, so dogs will have to be led over the entire park to the fenced area. This will create potential conflict situations for almost all park visitors. - a lot of the park visitors are small children and elderly. Increased presence of dogs during the entire day will make the park much less attractive and safe for them. As one park visitor said after she was told about the proposal: Do not destroy the last quiet and peaceful park in Cupertino. - the vegetation in the fenced area will be destroyed and will need to be reduced to gravel or replaced with an artificial turf. A fenced off-leash area at Linda Vista Park will change the nature of the neighborhood because: - it will significantly increase the traffic through the neighborhood. As the supporting documentation shows: 95% of dog park users drive to the park. - a main attraction of the neighborhood is its proximity to excellent schools and the ability of students to walk to the schools. Increased traffic will make the walking riskier and increase a chance of accidents. - it will significantly increase the number of out of the area visitors, which will increase the risk of crime in the neighborhood. Please vote no on the proposal. Regards, Linda Lagergren From: Sophie Wang [sophie.wang@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:47 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: No unfenced OLA in any city parks, please! Dear Mayor Mahoney and Cupertino City Council, I am writing to you with regard to the off-leash dog issue that will be reviewed at the City Council meeting tomorrow night. I first learned about the issue and the on-going citizens group meeting in early June from a knock on my door and have been attending the meetings since. I am very concerned about the proposal that a group of off-leash advocates presented at one of the citizen group meetings, in particular, that they wanted to start asix-mom:h off-leash trial in 4 city parks, including an unfenced trial in 3 parks! This is totally unacceptable in m.y view. Please allow me to explain myself a little more - I appreciate that you take the time reading this long email. 1) Unfenced off-leash areas should NOT be allowed in the interests of public safety. They are a big liability to the Cupertino City. All the city parks in Cupertino are surrounded by highly df~nse residential areas. They are used heavily by all age groups. Taking Varian Park in my neighbor hood for example, the senior citizens from the nearby Sunnyview Retirement Community use it daily -they walk- there early in the morning and in the evening, they play Tai Chi or have a friendly chat with their friends; the ',kids from the neighbor hood use it to get to Stevens Creek Elementary School besides playing at the play structure; during school year the field is used frequently for school activities and is often packed with kids; and many dog owners walk their dogs there everyday ... It's a place shared by everyone in the Community, and we shoixld try our best to keep it peaceful and harmonious. Having unfenced off-leash area in a city park is a public safety hazard. Just yesterday I saw a big black dog chasing two small dogs across the field, which frightened the young children in the playground close by. A couple of months ago I was nearly knocked down by a dog running in the tennis court next to the park which was apparently used by its owner as an OLA. 2) There is no good reason to start off-leash trial in 4 city parks. One is more than enough. As I mentioned above, we already have various issues with. off-leash dogs and their irresponsible owners under the current leash law. Lack of enforcement is a big factor. having unfenced OLAs won't solve all of Cupertino's dog problems, only enforcement will. Starting the trial in such a grand scale would be disastrous -there won't be enough volunteers to self-police the parks, the city would have to spend so much more to enforce the park usage and to ensure public safety. While we are cutting library hours and laying off teachers to keep our ends meet, do we want to spend that much resources to support OLA trial in 4 city parks? 3) The Godbe Survey sited as evidence of public support is flawed and should be disregarded. One of the questions, #14, is in particular misleading: "In place of a new dog park, the City would consider to have designated areas in existing City parks for off-leash d~~gs during certain hours and days each week. Do you support or oppose having such areas in existing City p~irks?" First of all, the question asked didn't specify whether the off-leash area was fenced or unfenced, and many people (like myself a month ago) would automatically assume that it meant unfenced. Secondly, off-leash area in city parks was presented as an alternative "in place of a new dog park" in the question - I would have simply interpreted it as that having fenced, time-restricted off-lea~~h areas in existing city parks would be a cheaper alternative than constructing a new dog park (since it was ;asked after a query of spending $250,000 on a new dog park), and I doubt I am the only one who would think that way. Further more, if people didn't think that spending $250,000 on a dog park was a good idea at that tame, I doubt that spending twice as much ($500,000 as approved by the council for a dog park or water feature repairs) would be very popular now either. Let's not forget that when the whole OLA conversation started in the summer of 2008, the economy situation was in a better shape and most people had no clue of the e~;onomic crisis at that time. Had they known that the City of Cupertino wouldn't have enough money to keep its library open longer hours, or keep all of its teachers employed, would they still support spending as much as $`.100,000 on a dog park? 4) Community support is the key I hope you've realized that having an off-leash area in city parks will have a much larger impact on people than any other changes in park usage or city services. Our neiglborhood park is a part of our daily lives. Aside from public safety issues, having an off-lease area in a city park will be a quality downgrade for many people who live close by the park due to the increase in noises, envirorunental sanitation concerns, and a drop in property value. This is a very divisive issue that we should tread with caution. Any rush to start an OLA trial would be very unwise - we must engage the neighborhood and get their fi.rll support before start any trial. 5) Lastly, I support the "Off-Leash Dog Policy Proposal" from David Fung and Greg Labmeier. it offers a rational, sensible, and enforceable off-leash policy for the use of our shared park spaces, with best implementable practices for a fenced dog park. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sophie Wang 10109 Crescent Ct. Cupertino, CA 95014 ~c/7~ar-o~ ~1S Linda Lagergren From: Fantozzi, Marilyne [Marilyne.Fantozzi@bankofthewest.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Off-leash Dog area at Linda Vista Importance: High Hi Orrin - As dog owners and Linda Vista Park neighbors, both Mark and I support the idea of an off-leash dog area at Linda Vista Park. I sincerely hope the trial period is approved. Dog owners are members of the community and I am happy that our rights are being considered in this way. Unfortunately, Mark is currently out of town and I have prior commitments this evening - so both of us are unable to lend our support at the meeting this evening. I did however wish to convey to you our support. Thanks again. ~12arilyyne L Fantozzi, CISIr' AVP Trust Officer, IRA Specialist Marilyne.Fantozzi@ bankofthewest.com (408) 299-1648 (800) 232-2430 Fax: (408) 275-6174 ;, t~: . t,. ~~~~ ~.~ru ~.~~~i ~~~~ Confidentiality Notice: The information included in this a-mail and any attachment is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This message, including attachments, may contain privileged and confidential communications. If you as the reader are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any retention, review, use or distribution of this communication or the information contained in it is strictly prohibited. If you received this a-mail in error, destroy it immediately and please notify the sender of this message. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended on13- for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply a-mail and delete the message. c~ 7/al~oY X15 Linda Lagergren From: John Xiao [cunxiao@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:38 AM To: City Council Subject: Recommendation for Dog Park in Linda Vista Park Here is a recommedation some of our neighbors prE~pared for tonight's item for Dog Park in Linda Vista Park. Thanks, John Xiao pear City Council members and neighbors, I come here carrying concerns and words of some of my neighbors, because some of them can not make it tonight for various reasons. We believe that this debate tonight is NOT about dog owners against non-dog owners. My kids and I are eager to pet dogs on every chance we can. We have never seen a neighbor without a dog turns back on an on-coming neighbor walking H~ith a dog. People always smile and say hi. What a nice neighborhood! A few of elder neighbors live alone. Or we should not say they live alone, because they have their loyal companions. Dogs are great! In the light of this proposed change, the issue before us is that we come to realize what our neighborhood is, and collectively decide how to preserve it while safeguarding our neighbors and our properties. This should be the starting point for EVERY argument. We believe we will. Linda Vista Park is such a compact, very well-functioning, beautiful and serene park. Play area for kids under 3, play area for bigger kids, exercise area for adults, BBQ area, lawn, and picnic area are designed to fit together very well. No to mention the loop, on one side you could see the golf course and on the other side it is brief hike up and down a significant slope in between shady trees. It is how Goldilocks felt: just about right! You can not make any area smaller. Our neighbors have very strong emotions to it. The emotions are so strong that in a very short time, over one hundred signatures were collected against installing the fences. Why? It is because the fences are like slicing one's body with a sharp knife. It is not pleasure-looking and it is painful. In fact, the park has such an excellent architectural design that it should be a jewel of our city. We should treasure it. That is one of the reason we decide to make our current house HOME. The park is off a bend of Linda Vista Dr. Some folks add a little gas to cruise down that bend as if wishing to have a nice sports car insi=ead. Linda Vista Park is not a park with open access ~~s other city parks do. The park has a little parking lot. It has a narrow entry. On entry, yoga would make a right turn off the bend, drive up a little, and immediately drive down a slope while making a 90 degree turn. You cannot see much ahead. There are occasions when people had to park their cars along the entry way. Adding a dog park to Linda Vista Park as the onl~~ trial site, no doubt, will add more traffic to the park. Increase safety hazards. We have to carefully consider the safety of our neighbors, especially the elders and kids who use the park quite often. They come in mainly by walking and biking. We have to address concerns of their home safety as well. Based on these reasons, we ask the city council t:o vote NO on this trial proposal for Linda Vista Park. Thank you! 2 c~ ~~al-oq -tE IS Linda Lagergren From: Sam Kao [sskao@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:09 PM To: City Council; Orrin Mahoney Subject: Oppose the off-leash Dog Park at Linda Vista Park Dear Mayor Mahoney, I am a neighbor of the Linda Vista Park, and just got the "log Park" info from a friend this morning. I oppose the off-leash Dog Park proposal. I also wonder that this kind of thing even been brought to agenda since I did not get the survey notice. I will appreciate if you can provide me more detail information. Thank you Samuel Kao 21896 Hyannisport Drive, Cupertino CA 95014 cc ~ -a r-o4 # 15 Linda Lagergren From: Randy Ong [randyong@comcast.ne~t] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:14 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Linda Vista Park July 21, 2009 To: Orrin Mahoney, Mayer From: Randy and Eva Ong 22044 Baxley Ct Cupertino, Ca Hi Orrin, Hope your doing well. I know this us a hot topic, but I was reall~~ surprised when I first heard about the proposed dog park area for Linda Vista Park just this last Sunday. Speaking with other neighbors such as Joan and Craig next door, they seemed as surprised about it as I was. I know you are a rationa' and calm guy, and I am hoping that you can lead the other council members will approach this decision in the most r~~tional, informed, and fair manner. First of all, I think there really are two decisions, not one. The first is whether to have a dog park at all in Cupertino and if the decision is yes, then the second question where is the best I~lace to put the park that will have minimal impact to the local residents and solve the issues for the dog owners. I do not have a strong opinion on the first decision. I do believe that when people buy pets, they need to make the decision kno~Ning what are the consequences and responsibilities and they should not inconvenience others for their decisions. I do have a strong opinion on the second. I do not believe that Linda Vista park is the best place for the dog park, in fact, I think it is one of the worst places in Cupertino for the following reasons: Having lived in this area, I think you know that we have a serious traffic problem in this area. In reading a website that expresses the "pro" opinions about a dog park in Cupertino, it is clear that a dog park in Cupertino will attract people from Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Los Gatos if not other areas. (I wanted to understand their needs). These people will have to drive into and through the neighborhood to access the park. Because of the three schools in the area as well as De Anza College, w~e have serious traffic jams along McClellan and Hyannisport drive, the main access to the park. Also there are major problems with the alternative routes. In the morning, making a left or right from Linda Vista onto McClellan is a nightmare, since large cars tend to block the view of oncoming traffic on McClellan. This is an accident waiting to happen and it would be unwise to aggravate an already bad situation. A more appropriate location w~~uld be near a freeway off ramp or major street where many dog owners do not have to drive into and through a neighborhood. 2. As a block leader, we are trained to watch out for strangers in the area and to report them. Since this park is tucked away in the hills, there will be people driving into the neighborhood looking for the park -this will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the watch program. Some crooks do have dogs too and they will take advantage of a situation if they see an opened garage door or item left ~~n a car seat. I don't need to remind you of our concern for this type of thing. Again, if the park were located near a major freeway off ramp where dog lovers do not have to drive through a neighborhood, this would significant reduce this problem. I think you know that the hills behind and in the park reflect sounds of the park and project them towards the neighborhood, not just to the homes nearby. Many, many homes are affected. This is evident during the weekends when there is a lot of activity, and during the weekdays when church groups, boy scouts, and other organization use the park. I personally don't mind the n~~ise of people enjoying the park, particularly kids since I believe parks should be for people. But I do mind the sound of dogs barking at one another, and putting dogs together in a small space will dramatically increase the barking and whining (this was even mentioned in the "pro dog park" website). Currently, if a neighbor has a dog that barks all day, one could call the sheriffs office and have something done. But with a dog park that amplifies the sounds, I would not be able to do anything about the noise. It is unfair that some neighborhoods could enforce a noise ordinance while we who live in this wonderful neighborhood cannot. Locating a park where the sound is not reflected and focused back to the neighborhood is a more practical solution. 4. Because this park is close to wild animal life, certain portions of the park have been closed off in the past due to the concerns of ticks and fleas and the spread of disea:~es. Concentrating a dog population here is not only bad for the dogs and their owners but for the community as a whole, as possibly infected dogs will be spreading the fleas and ticks to their neighborhoods. Also, there are a lot of wild animals that go through the park, including deer that can carry fleas and ticks. I have seen coyotes, rabk~its, possums, skunks, and raccoons in the park. I live on the other side of the fence from Linda Vista and I have :peen in the last year two rattlesnakes on my property. A 911 call made last year can verify this fact. Dogs and wild animals don't mix and this is a real safety concern even for the dogs. With more traffic in the park, the chance of a problem increases. Locating the dog park away from natural wildlife would seem to be the wiser decision. The park is really a small park in the neighborhood and the space required for the dog area will significantly reduce the currently peaceful, clean, and open feel from the neighborhood. Linda Vista park is small, but it seems that people outside of Cupertino will be coming in, people who are not investing in the neighborhood. If this is an experiment, then the experiment has to be designed properly based on what the ultimate goal is. Funneling many outside people and animals into a small neighborhood K-ark nested deep into a neighborhood with wildlife and one that reflects back the sounds is not an experiment representative of a long term solution. This neighborhood is considered a desirable place to live and helps keep Cutertino to be a great place to live. I invite you to drop by and I can introduce you to the neighbors and you can a:~k questions. As a former VP of World Wide Operations for the best public company to work for in the Fortune's Best 100, Xilinx, I am well aware of the need to manage by walking around in listening to the people in the front line. I think managing by wandering around came from HP. I'm am afraid that since the neighbors did not hear about this until recently, you may not be getting all of opinions and issues that are needed to make an informf:d decision. As you probably know, large committees often don't come up with the best solutions. I sent most of this letter to the other concil members but because of the late notice we got and therefore response, I hope they have time to read. Sincerely, Randy Ong 408 252 8625 cc. 7-a--a9 ~i5 Linda Lagergren From: Cynthia Kollerer [cgkollerer@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:16 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly ~~andoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: LINDA VISTA DOG PARK I have owned my home on La Paloma Drive, one block from Linda Vista Park, for 31 years. My sons attended Cupertino schools,played Little League and AYSO soccer., participated in Parks and Recreation classes and camps and many other activities this community has to offer. A favorite activity when they were grade school age was to play and explore at Linda Vista Park and our family greatly appreciated having this lovely park in our neighborhood. Over the years, much has changed in Cupertino. When I drive to work in the morning, the Indian grandmothers are out walking in their saris and white tennis shoes, Asian grandparents are pushing babies in strollers and many people are walking dogs of al:~ colors, sizes and ages. One lady walks a gorgeous fluffy Collie, a man walks a sturdy Chesapeake Bay Retriever, a young man has lively Goldendoodle and there is a beautiful snowy Australian shepherd. This is what I love about Cupertino -the diversity of the residents, the richness of all the cultures and the appreciation the City of Cupertino has for all. You sponsor the Moon Festival, the Feast of Diwali, the Fourth of July celebration and cricket is played on the library grounds. Can't we extend this spirit of community and support to our dog owners as well? There are so many lovely parks in Cupertino, surely the use of a portion of Linda Vista Park 1~or a fenced dog area will not limit any one's enjoyment of this park or any other in Cupertino. All the dog owners in the neighborhood appear to be responsible and caring. The dogs walk well on a leash, the owners carry a plastic bag and show concern for any non-dog walkers they meet. I do not have a dog at this time but do consider myself a dog person and love to see the parade of dogs walking past my home. Please, do follow through on the six-month trial of Linda Vista Park as a dog park. The park can be used and enjoyed by all. Cynthia Kollerer 11075 La Paloma Drive mac. ~~- a/-O ~ ~' ~5 Linda Lagergren From: Sanjay Sawhney [sawhney408@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:20 PM To: City Council Subject: Off-leash Dog (Jollyman Park) I strongly oppose the use of Jollyman park by off-leash dogs in an unfenced area. The lady who organized the petition on behalf of the do owners misled some residents including myself stating that the dogs would be off-leash ONLY in a fenced area. (My autistic son was once chased by an off-leash dog a couple of years back and the dog owner did not do anything other than laugh at the whole thing). Regards, Sanjay Sawhney, 21071 GRENOLA DR, Cupertino, CA-95014. Linda Lagergren From: judyschro@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:06 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office; M;erk Linder; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Dolly Sandoval; Jeanne Bradford; David Greenstein; dstauffer@cupertino.org.dlee@cupertino.org; Darcy Paul Subject: dog leash laws While I am not a dog owner, I do agree with those that feel the only way to see if a time period for unleashed dogs in the park will work is to give it a trial period. This will help you to come to a better assessment of such a controversial issue. I do feel that as long as the area is properly posted, and the owners know they are responsible for their pets, it should not be an issue. Those who are not comfortable around loose dogs would then know to stay away from the area during that time. I h;~ve walked through Jollyman Park while a lot of owners were there with their dogs and enjoyed seeing them playing without feeling threatened by their presence. Judy Schroeder 11113 Wilkinson Ave. Cupertino, CA An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easv ~5teps! c.~! 7 - a. r --o ~ ~'l5 Linda Lagergren From: Prem Malhotra (premalho) [premalf~o@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:38 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: on dog park issue Hi Orrin, I am a resident of Cupertino in the vicinity of the Linda Vista park and visit it regularly. I am not happy with the proposal to setup a fenced area for dogs as a trial in the park. It will ruin the aesthetics of this small beautiful park as well as spoil the serenity of the place. Please do not approve it. regards, Prem Malhotra 11072 Bel Aire Ct. Cupertino ~1~1~1~1~ Ci5C0 Prem Malhotra Director, Master Data Management Business Intelligence & Data Services prernalho,'a~~isco com Mobile. +1 408 891 5988 Preferred Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive,. San Jose.. CA 95134-1706 USA Cisco home~age f-7Think before you print. G~i 7~~~-'~ 1 ~1 Linda Lagergren From: Bryan & Carol Miller [bcsmiller@coircast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:33 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Dolly Sandoval Subject: FW: Linda Vista citizen input As of this afternoon, the total number of "valid" signatures in~`avor of a trial period for an unfenced area at Linda Vista during specified hours (one signature per household, living in Cupertino) is now at 58. See you soon, Carol M. From: Bryan & Carol Miller [mailto:bcsmiller@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:00 PM To: 'omahoney@cupertino.org'; 'kwoodbury@juno.com'; 'gwonc~@cupertino.org'; 'dsandoval@cupertino.org'; 'msantoro@cupertino.org' Cc: 'Mark Linder'; 'Julia Lamy' Subject: Linda Vista citizen input Dear Council Members, As I announced in our weekly Wednesday morning meetings of the Citizens Group, I am personally against people going out on their own to "gather neighborhood support" since that eras supposed to be the next step in the process. However, the flyer that was distributed on Friday night tipped t:he scale. I was able to gather 14 supportive signatures yesterday afternoon, and could get many more with more time - which I don't have any more of today or tomorrow. I may be receiving petition forms from 2 more people, but have attached information I have consolidated thus far for you to review. The petition states, "Our community parks were created to serve all residents equally. We, the residents of Cupertino, approve of a trial period having unfenced designated off-leash hours (hours TBD based on community input.) "We, the signatories hereunder, petition the Cupertino City Council to approve an unfenced off-leash trial at Linda Vista Park." Here is my understanding from the people I talked to: they would prefer an unfenced area at Linda Vista. They are willing to share the park for a few hours each day with their neighbors who have dogs (keep things "low-key"), but their perception is that a fenced area will draw dog owners from a longer distance, which would be undesirable. If I receive more signatures, I'll send an updated file tomorrow. See you tomorrow night O Cheer, Carol Miller Columbus Ave. c~ 7 -a~ --o-~ ~,CS Linda Lagergren From: Hari guleria [hguleria@erada.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:56 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office; M;~rk Linder; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Dolly Sandoval; Jeanne Bradford; David Greenstein; Debbie Stauffer; David Lee; Darcy Paul Subject: I support unfenced, leash free dog time at Cupertino parks I am a Cupertino resident and I support off-leash dogs trial during designated times and areas in our Cupertino parks. With the right supervision unfenced leash free dogs represent harmony and allow socialization both of dogs and residents. It has been successfully done at so many cities and parks across the US, let us now do it in Cupertino too. let actual facts drive all council decisions and this can be accomplished only via trials. Hari Guleria Vh BI Busme~r.~> `~` illi~~ Arrizi±ect 19147 loree lwe, Cupertino, CA 95014 erad:+ nc Lowering costs via automating manual processes r~: h~ulen arroer~dd cam __ __ u: www.erada.com 'No wind is a g~c rl ;vino unlP>s the captain knows theirdc~stinatrr,-n" C7?de Fr,gl~sh nutrrtinir~ quote' "he content. < ,+,i; ~• i m~ rr ~,:~Ip~ly the wnrings, thoughts and Ideas of [he account holder and m<y not nece.,ar~ly reflect thu<e if tY ~ r.~r,i! ,~. If ,.-,i ~ ~~, ~r, ~~,.i ,~ r~ - ~ ~ , ~nahpropriat~ ~~~,~~ oft ~~ coon? I ie,;? c~rnai; info@erada.com. The information in this a-mail message including any attachments i~, intended only for the named recipients above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(si, please immediately notify the sender by replying to the message and deleting all copies of it from your computer. Ce courriel de meme que toute piece jointe s'odresse seulement au(x) destinataire(s) designe(s) et p gut contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou privilegies. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou que vous n'etes pas un destinataire designe, veuillez avertir immediatement I'expediteur en repondant au message et effacez-en toutes les copies dons votre ordinateur cam/ 7-zt-oq ~ IS Linda Lagergren From: Julie Ma [jma@translucence.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:01 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: Tim Bienz; Yan Ma Subject: Please No OLAs -Safe Parks for Kids and Neighborhood Dear Mayor Mahoney, Dear City Council Members: My name is Julie Ma, a Cupertino resident with my family of four. I would like to voice my strong protest against proposals for any unfenced off-leash area in our city parks. I have written to the city before reporting dog-chasing inci~3ents. My point in this email is simple: when a park has unfenced off-leash dogs, it stops being a safe park for kids rind adults. A year and a half ago, my family moved to the Varian Parl': neighborhood. My then 5 and 7-year-olds used to love to ride bikes to the park and play there. Unfortunately, soon incidents started to occur when they were chased by dogs. One day in last October, my older son ran home crying because a big dog chased him all the way out the park, and the owner did nothing more than sta~iding there and watching. My parents who were with my children at the park at the time did not speak enough E~iglish and was too scared to confront the dog owner. As you can imagine, I was appalled by the incident and furious over the what I saw as criminal behavior of that particular dog owner. While most dog owners are law-binding citizens, unfortun~itely there are irresponsible owners who knowingly break the law for their own purposes. In recent months, it seems that the number of off-leash dogs at the park, has increased, and it seems to have become an usual incident whenever we visit the park. Once a park has unleashed dogs, it STOPs being a safe park for kids and adults. Please, never ever entertain the idea of allowing unfenced off-leash dogs in our city parks. In addition, please help educate the dog owners to please respect the law and respect the neighborhood. The parks are everyone's to have and enjoy, as long as we all show respect for the law, for the people and for our community. Yours Sincerely, Yan Ma and family members: Tim Bienz, Jadon, Kalon B. cam/ 7-zt-oq ~ IS Linda Lagergren From: Julie Ma [jma@translucence.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:01 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Dolly ~;andoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: Tim Bienz; Yan Ma Subject: Please No OLAs -Safe Parks for kids and Neighborhood Dear Mayor Mahoney, Dear City Council Members: My name is Julie Ma, a Cupertino resident with my family of four. I would like to voice my strong protest against proposals for any unfenced off-leash area in our ciry parks. I have written to the city before reporting dog-chasing incidents. My point in this email is simple: when a park has unfenced off-leash dogs, it stops being a safe park for kids ;-nd adults. A year and a half ago, my family moved to the Varian Parlc neighborhood. My then 5 and 7-year-olds used to love to ride bikes to the park and play there. Unfortunately, soon incidents started to occur when they were chased by dogs. One day in last October, my older son ran home crying because a big dog chased him all the way out the park, and the owner did nothing more than standing there and watching. My parents who were with my children at the park at the time did not speak enough English and was too scared to confront the dog owner. As you can imagine, I was appalled by the incident and furious over the what I saw as criminal behavior of that particular dog owner. While most dog owners are law-binding citizens, unfortun,~tely there are irresponsible owners who knowingly break the law for their own purposes. In recent months, it ~;eems that the number of off-leash dogs at the park, has increased, and it seems to have become an usual incident whenever we visit the park. Once a park has unleashed dogs, it STOPs being a safe park for kids and adults. Please, never ever entertain the idea of allowing unfenced ~~ff--leash dogs in our city parks. In addition, please help educate the dog owners to please respect the law and respect the neighborhood. The parks are everyone's to have and enjoy, as long as we all show respect for the law, for the people and for our community. Yours Sincerely, Yan Ma and family members: Tim Bienz, Jadon, Kalon B. Grace Schmidt From: Kimberly Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:54 AM To: David Fung - Cc: Julia Lamy; Mark Linder; City Clerk Subject: RE: Request fora 10 minute group speaking spot at 7/21 City Council Meeting Hello Mr. Fung, Thank you for the advance notice about your request fora 10-rninute group speaking spot. All speakers are allowed a maximum of 3 minutes per person per item, unless other arrangements are approved by the Mayor. I am forwarding your request to Mayor Mahoney right now, and he will let you know at the meeting tonight how the public speaking arrangements will be handled. Kimberly Smith, MMC Cupertino City Clerk (408) 777-3217 kimberlys(~cupertino.org From: David Fung [mailto:dfung@symian.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 4:23 PM To: City Clerk Cc: 'David Fung; Julia Lamy; Mark Linder Subject: Request fora 10 minute group speaking spot at 7/21 City Council Meeting I am planning on speaking on behalf of a group at the 7/21 City ~:,ouncil Meeting tomorrow night. Do I need to file a request ahead of time, or is this handled on the normal blue speaker cards at the meeting? I intend to speak on agenda item 15, regarding an off-leash dog area trial. My name is David Fung, and I will be speaking on behalf of a group including Mehrnaz Hada, David Klinger, Judy Klinger, Tmima Koren, Robert Kroeger, Erin Labmeier, Paul McNulty, Manisha Puranik, Runping Qi, Premika Ratnam, ~~nd Karen Seale. Thank you, David Fung ~~HIBI°~ AGENDA ITEM No. 15 Cc 1-21-0~ ~'l,~ Consider actions for a trial period for an off-leash area for dogs Verbal Comments by Don Rosenbaum Cupertino Resident July 21, 2009 INTRODUCTION Don Rosenbaum Active member of Citizens Working Group Resident of Cupertino for 38 Years Raised 4 children & 3 dogs during this time Now have 1o grandchildren & 5 grand-dogs We all have and still utilize Cupertino City Parks for recreation My Observations: Since retirement 5 years ago I use the parks to exercise myself & my dog daily and notice our parks are almost empty most of the day(s). My Conclusion: There are many hours during the day that our parks could set aside an area & time for off-leash dog exercise without interfering with other park users. My Vision: All Cupertino Parks will accommodate all users without exercise of our off-leash dogs. be mu Iti-use a nd discrimination, including AGENDA ITEM No. 15 We should perform simultaneous trials on unfenced and fenced off-leash dog areas. • This will provide comparative evaluations on fenced versus unfenced • Costs and manpower will be less by combining both _~ _ . curing same time period • Adequate preparation has been completed for unfenced off-leash dogs - Survey Forms; Ready -Time allocations; Established - Rules /Regulations; Agreed upon - Criteria; Established - Enforcement; Available AGENDA ITEM No. 15 We should allow the park users & local neighborhood residents decide if OLDA will be fenced or unfenced. • Use local (neighborhood) community groups to perform surveys of both park users & neighborhood residents. Citizens Working Group & Parks & Rec. will analyze survey data to determine if park should be fenced or unfenced or not to be included in the trial AGENDA ITEM No. 15 WHY UNFENCED NOW? Citizens concerns/issues regarding safety, sanitation, noise, & environmental impacts will never be determined without a trial to test these in our parks. The most stringent test is with time allotted unfenced areas. LET'S GET REAL DATA AGENDA ITEM No. 15 JOLLYMAN PARK UNFENCED OFF-LEASH AREA Jollyman petition has demonstrated the desire and support for an unfenced time allotted area Jollyman has an established and active citizens group ready to help during trial AGENDA ITEM No. 15 MEMORIAL PARK Suggested locations for off leash dog area: North East area (Behind Quinlan Center) Considerations were; • Area is next to large parking lot Hrea is riat witn trees on perimeter ror some snaae • Located away from playgrounds, picnic areas, tennis courts, and water areas • Essentially no neighborhood impact Why this park; • This will demonstrate integration of an OLDA into one of our largest multi-use parks • This park is centrally located within the city AGENDA ITEM No. 15 Library Field Suggested locations for unfenced off leash area: Entire park which is located south of Library Considerations were; ^ Area is surrounded by two streets a a ' _ p rking lot and a tenced creek • Area is flat with trees on erimeter for p some shade • There are no playgrounds icnic ar ' p eas, tennis courts Why this park; • Field is only used once a week for cricket and is vacant of users other times. Park utilization will be increased • Centrally located within city AGENDA ITEM No. 15 Linda Vista Suggested locations for off leash area: North East area Considerations were; • Area is at lower level away from main picnic area la ro trails ~ p Yg unds, and • Nat'llral hnllnrl~r~o~ ~,~ L,:I1.. • Area is flat with trees on perimeter for some shade • Adjacent golf course has fence along northern erimeter Easy access from ar ' p • p king area Why this park; • Located at the western edge of city farthest from ali ma' activities so impact on streets & nei hborho jor city g od can be measured • Already has a group of local dog users and an active i to help during the trial eriod c tizens group p SET BACKS & DOG NOISE CALCULATIONS We do not agree with the arbitrary setbacks that the opposition has imposed upon OLDA of 150 feet for residents SET BACKS & Dog Noise Calculations 150 Feet set backs eliminate all Cupertino Parks from use as Soccer fields, Baseball fields, some Playgrounds. Since most of our parks are small we can not impose a 150 or even a 75 Foot set back unless we close all our parks for citizens use. Opposition has been totally unrealistic regarding noise levels of dogs versus other park usages. SET BACKS & Dog Noise Calculations Used Acoustical Solutions, Richmond VA Noise bevel Tables: (Tables are attached) - Large Barking Dog at 50 feet -Sound Pressure Levels (dBA) from 125 Hz to 8000 Hz -Transmission path: Quarter spherical -Atmosphere absorption was taken into account Calculations were made for listener at 75,100, and 125 feet from dog and facing the dog. SET BACKS & Dog Noise Calculations • Listener sound pressure levels (dBA) - At 75 feet from dog: 68.6 dBA - At 100 feet from dog: 66.1 dBA - At 125 feet from dog: 64.1 dBA • Example from recognizable sources within this range of noise level; - Normal Conversation ~ 3 feet; 63 dBA - Clothes Washer @ 3 feet; 62 dBA - Toilet Refilling Tank; 63 dBA • Example from- recognizable sources ten times louder in noise level; - Television @ 10 feet; 74 d BA - Stereo (AdultVolumej; 75 dBA - Passenger Car 55 MPH @ 50 feet; 71 dBA - Classroom or Lobby Areas; 78 dBA - Commercial Airline @ 1 mile high; 79 dBA AGENDA ITEM No. 15 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NOW • Educate the Citizens regarding dogs -Use Cupertino web site, newspapers, local publications, and flyers to educate everyone (both non-dog owners as well as dog owners need to be educated) • Start trials now unfenced & fenced) It has been too long in debate, now let's act! Su~~ested Timeline for Start of Trial Period • Council Approval -July 21. 2009 (Tonight • Launch Dog Education Program -Complete Au ust 24 2009 g , • Survey Park Users and Neighbors -Complete Au ust 31 2009 g , • Prepare OLDA Signs on Regs & Rules - Com ~ lete Se t 14 (~ p p ,2009 • Post R ~ ~ ~ P C 1V R a e c 1 n Tr i 7 I D r1 r L rr r` ,., .,.,.... 1 _ .L _ r- _ _ . .~ .- ......~ ~. - - - - ---.-,. ... .....r,.+ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ i a~ nJ - ~,~~ „Niue ~epT ~5,1UUy • Announce OLDA program on website, publications and in newspapers -Month of September 2009 • Start Trials -September 28, 2009 • Six month Trial period will cover; October 2009 throu h March g 2010 AGENDA ITEM No. 15 SUMMARY 1) We support the adoption of the rules for use of an off-leash area for dogs in a City Park. 2) We support the Stevens Creek County Park study for a fenced dog park. 3) We request starting unfenced area trials NOW. 4J We support a six member working group to work with staff to resolve any outstanding issues and help with the trial program. (Four of the working group have already volunteered to be considered as members) AGENDA ITEM No. 15 PROPOSED MOTION for COUNCIL Vote Council a cce is St • p affs recommen dations as modified herein • 1. Adopt the rules for use of an off-leash area for dogs in a Cit ark . Y p (This is Item #1 recommendation ~n staff report) 2. Approve formation of a subcommittee from members of the Citizens Group to work with Cupertino staff a_nr1 Cn~,nt~ ~f c~„t~ Clara staff to conduct a stud for fenced do ~ --w~•-~ v~ v~~.~~ Y g park at Stevens Creek County Park. (This is Item #2 recommendation in staff report) 3. Authorize asix-month trial for unfenced off-leash do areas for two or more of the followin arks: loll m g g p y an, Linda Vista, Memorial, and/or Library Field parks. All OLDA must stay within the established rules and approved budget. Staff will make final park selection(s) after receipt of satisfactory survey results. (This is Item #3 recommendation in staff report) 4. Approve formation of a six member working group from members of the Citizens Group to work with staff to finalize OLDA fenced & unfenced selections. (This is Item #4 recommendation in staff report) H z 0 U a u W H Z c~ 0 0 ACOUSTIC EDUCATION Noise Level Data Tables The table below presents noise data at octave-band center frequencies for familiar residential, outdoor, transportation and building activity noise sources. Intermittent or peak noises may exceed the data given in the table by 5 dBA or more, depending on the source or environment. For many pratical problems, however, the data can be considered to be typical source levels ~~t to given distance and condition, or average general ,activity levels for interiors. The data can be used for design purposes if proper consideration is given to especially load equipment or sources which may exceed it, unusual site conditions, and any other conditions that deviate from the normal. For example, it is prudent to measure transportation noise at proposed building sites near highways, airports, etc., so deisgn data will rE~present existing noise sources and reflect specific site features. 62 62 70 80 80 60 64 60 59 68 79 73 73 72 81 55 50 50 49 69 58 54 50 46 62 57 56 57 52 63 71 71 68 65 74 53 48 44 37 59 68 73 69 83 83 70 68 63 39 74 82 80 75 60 86 70 66 64 48 75 67 83 79 66 92 57 48 40 N/A 63 d/A 70 31 31 i7 35 ~ 50 64 74 99 64 37 52 52 70 102 58 37 54 48 72 106 54 35 57 72 86 106 7g 43 81 76 72 65 86 67 66 59 54 71 91 87 87 85 95 78 77 79 69 85 86 87 83 79 94 107 100 91 78 109 95 90 80 60 g7 70 56 N/A N/A 79 76 72 62 51 80 118 115 109 102 121 89 87 85 80 94 85 84 75 65 88 74 68 60 50 7g 106 101 89 79 108 Acoustical Solutions 2852 East Parh:~m Rd., Richmond, VA 23228 106 101 89 79 108 86 80 72 64 90 77 72 65 57 81 72 69 65 61 77 64 58 50 40 68 86 82 80 78 88 ~ 91 91 90 100 83 75 68 62 86 74 68 60 50 78 79 75 68 60 '83 Acoustical Solutions 2852 East Parh~im Rd., Richmond, VA 23228 ~:iigLicCiiug rage ~ Noise > Attenuation by,Distance Page 1 of ~ ~- z 9 ~ 8 a ~~~~~~333333 B 5 Home Up Back NOISE ATTENUATION BY DISTA~ICE (Point Source) ~ PRO]ECT DATA (Optional) CA ~ Pro'ed J Cupertino Dog,Park Nnisca Le~~cet Remarks Large Dog Sound Pressu~~e Levels measured by AcousticalSolutionslnc. Your ref 104 #eet 1~altuJation Cli~xtt Cupertino Parks & Retreat' ton Identification Client's ref CALCULATION INPUT Source Noise Levels Octave band centre frequency 31.5- 63 125 250 500 ik 2k 4k 8k Hz Sound Pressure Level {SPL, Lp) at 50 ft from source 50 58 68 70 64 52 48 d6 Reduction by silencing equipment dB Transmission Transmission path: quarter -spherical Atmosperical absorption was taken into account Immission Point (listener) Distance from Source 100 ft CALCULATION RESULTS Sound spectra and 31.5 63 125 250 500 ik 2k 4k 8k Hz overall levels S ource levels overall Sound Power levels Level (PWL) 28.6 28.6 78.6 86.6 96.6 98 6 dB ~ dB Silencing . 92.6 80.6 76.6 101.6 100.9 (A) measures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Silenced Sound Power Level 28.6 2 6 78.6 86.Ei 96 6 dB {PwLj 8. . 98.6 92.6 80.6 76.6 101 s dB 100 9 A ~ ~ http://www.engineeringpage.com/cgi-bin/noise/distance.pl 7/20/2009 Attenuation Attenuation by distance of 32.2 32.2 22.86 m .32.2 322 32.2 3 Attenuation by 2.2 32.2 322 32.2 atmosperical absorption 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 2 0 4 . . 1.1 Immission (listener's) point Sound Pressure Level (SPL, Lp) 46.5 54.5 64.4 66 A -weighting -39.4 -26 2 -16 1 .4 60.3 48 43.4 gg,4 dB . . -8.B -32 A -weighted 0 12 1 -1.1 '~ CJ' ~~.~.,r SPLA, LpA 30.4 4:x.9 g1.2 gg d .4 g1.5 49 42,3 B 88:g (A) Attenuation Attenuation 'by distance of 34.7 34.7 48 m 34.7 30 ~~F•7 34.7 34 7 . . 34.7 34.7 34.7 Attenuation by atmosperical absorption 0 0 0 0 0' 1 4.1 0.2 0.6 1.4 Immission (listener's) point Sflund Pressure Level (SPL, Lp) 44 51.9 61.9 63.9 57.8 45.4 40.6 g8.8 dB A -weighting -39.4 -26.2 -16.1 -8.6 -32 0 1 2 -1.1 ~ ~ ~ ~EE~ A -weighted . 1 SPLA, LpA 27.9 4:1,3 58.7 .83 9 - dB _ __. _ _ . 53 46.4 39:5 66.1 (A} Attenuation Attenuation by distance of 36.6 36.6 1 m 36.6 38 36.6 36.6 . 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 Attenuation by atmosperical absorption 0 0 0 0 0'1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.8 Immission (listener's) point , Sound Pressure Level (SPL, Lp) 42 50 60 61.9 55.8 43.3 38.3 64.9 dB A -weighting -39.4 -26.2 -16.1 -8.E. -32 0 1 2 -1.1 12 5 ~~ A -weighted . , SPLq, LpA 25.8 41.~t 58.8 81 9 dB : 57 44.3 37.2 g4.1 ~ (A) i-i~me wwv/.engineeringpage.cam ~~'HIBIT Save Linda Vista Park People's Voice Kuo-ion Soong Save Linda Vista Park People's Voice Against Support Total Six month trial Six month trial #or fenced dog for fenced dog area in Linda area in Linda Vista.Park Vista Park # of 35 3 38 Residents °Io of 92.1 % 7.9°l0 100°l0 Residenis Survey location: 200m from Linda Vista Park entry & Bel Aire Ct. Survey time: 7/20 6:15 PM to 8:00 PM Fiscal Impact Community Education & enforcement $.40,.000 ~ month Trial Period $ 40, 000 Permanent facility:for fenced dog ~ro~ $500,000 \A~ VM Do we still have money with the State budget cut? Save Linda Vista Park =Save $$$ Communication Over 96% people in the survey learn this issue only from neighbors flyer ~ We need better communication WORLD NEWS reporter David Wang was invited 7/21 /2009 ~~ ~. ,; -,y ~~ Off-Leash Dog Policy Proposal for Cupertino City Parks ACommunity-Focused, Best Frractices Recommendation Developed and endorsed by members of the Cupertino Off-Leash Dog Trial Citizens' Committee Cecil Coe, David Fung, Mehrnaz Hada, led Hou, David Klinger, Judy Klinger, Dan Koren, Robert Kroeger, Erin Labmzier, Manisha Puranik, Runping Qi, Premika Ratnam, Karen Seale Overview 1) Acommunity-centric off-leash plan must provide benefits for all Cupertino residents, both dog owners AND non-owners 2) We support a legal off-leash exercise option for Cupertino 3) Minimize negative impacts and interactions citywide -recognize "nuisance factor" 4) We identify Memorial Park a~i the optimal location for a fenced OLA Trial 1) Linda Vista Park is an alternate site with some issues 5) Implementation proportional to city size 2Lu12009 Citizens'Committee CLA Proposal v2.0 1 7/21 /2009 It's All About Interactions 1) Animal laws exist because of negative community interactions -noise, intimidation, sanitation -perpetrated by a subset of dog owners 2) Violations are widespread and non-trivial in aggregate a) <30% licensing compliance b) You see dogs off-leash in every park, every day c) Scoop issues in playing fields, parks, and streets are evident 3) Enforcement is non-existent a) No real sense of response by residents 2Lu12009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 3 A "Best Practices" Proposal 1) Compliant with all Best Practices literature a) Meets all guidelines in UC Davis Vet Med Report , AKC and other recommendations regarding siting, construction, maintenance, noise, safety 2) Compliant with dog park managers' input and experiences 3) Compliant with Citizens' Committee consensus decisions to date a) No unfenced trial recommendation; unfenced is a matter for further consideration 21JU12009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 4 2 7/21 /2009 Characteristic~~ for Success 1) Demonstrate understanding o1= both sides' issues and positive actions to meet them 2) Criteria for site selection and administration should be uniform and objective rather than arbitrary 3) Create legal options and strongly sanction illegal behavior to demonstrate proper community balance 4) Joint support by Neighbors, Park Users, and Community is key 21Ju12009 Citizens Committee OlA Proposal v20 5 Issues 1) Safety 2) Noise 3) Sanitation and Maintainability 4) Enforcement 5) Neighborhood Outreach and ~~upport 21Ju12009 Citizens'CommitteeOAProposal v2.0 6 3 7/21 /2009 Addressing Safety 1) We support ONLY fenced dog ark proposals, widely recognized as best practice for off-leash dpog play a) California Parks and Rec Best Practices b) UC Davis Vet Med Report c) American Kennel Society, Establishing a Dog Park 2) We oppose all unfenced proposals a) Voice control is not credible; unfenced OLA depends solely on voice control for safety b) No other cities in Santa Clara County have unfenced OLAs 3) A fence provides full safety mitigation 4) Proper use of a leash provide full safety mitigation 5) 75' Buffer zones provide partial safety mitigation 21Ju12009 Citizens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 7 Addressing Noise 1) Excessive noise is the top neighborhood complaint related to OLAs a) Most noise at opening and closing times -this causes highest neighborhood conflict b) Strong emphasis from local dog park managers 2) A 150' Residential setback reduces neighbor noise conflicts 21Ju12009 Citizens'Co~nmittee OLA Proposal v2.0 8 4 7/21 /2009 Addressing Sanitation and Maintainability 1) Exclusion of dual use with sports fields, playgrounds, picnic areas, and programmed use areas addresses both maintenance and sanitation issues 2) We advocate for properly maintainable surfacing as part of the plan 3) Maintenance plan and costs should include addressing marking/urine in approach and parking areas 4) One site reduces total maintenance cost 21Ju12009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 Addressing Enforcement 1) Creating a legal off-leash option should be paired with reduced tolerance of illegal usage a) Leash law violations should tie raised to $100 infraction with step up -reducing penalty sent a wrong message to the community 2) Most fenced OLAs report good results with user self-policing, so enforcement here should not be the primary focus 3) Enforcement efforts should focus on citing leash, scoop, and licensing violations in the parks and city at large, including OLA access paths 21Ju12009 Citizens'Committee CLA Proposal v2.0 10 5 7/21 /2009 Demonstrating Neighborhood Support 1) Proper notice of any change to park usage is necessary a) Proposed changes must have reasonable review and comment period for neighbors and park users 2) Show of neighbor/user approval is necessary a) Changes affecting the community should demonstrate consensus support b) Neighbors bear burden of negative interactions (noise, traffic, sanitation) and should have a greater weight in decisions 21Ju12009 Citizens'Commlttee OLA Proposal v2.0 11 Site Selection Criteria A uniform "building code" approach make site selection objective and fair across Cupertino. Together, these elements create a "filter" that identifies the most suitable sites for an OLA. 1) Residential Setback = 150' 2) Exclusions -sports fields, playgrounds, picnic areas, and other programmed use + environmentally sensitive areas 3) Buffer zones = 75' from excluded areas and access path to OLA 4) Physical Site -Minimum = 8000 sq ft, level ground with adequate drainage 5) Minimize length of access path to OLA 211u12009 Citizens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 12 6 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Application Examples Examples applying the Site Criteria to qualify fenced OLA trial sites. Example 1-Memorial Park -Optimum fenced OLA site Example 2 -Linda Vista Park -Acceptable alternate fenced OLA site with mitigations Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 1 Adjacent Residence Line 21Ju12009 Cit ixens' Committee OI.A Proposal v2.0 7 Northern Park View Only Residence boundaries (in yellow) 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 2 Residential Setback 211u12009 Citizens'COmmittee OlA Proposal v2.0 15 Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park/ 3 Excluded Areas -:~ ~ , :. . 211u12009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 16 8 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) Excluded areas (in blue) -tennis courts, baseball field, 2 picnic areas, Quinlan Center 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park/ 4 Buffer Zones 21Ju17009 Gtirens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 1] Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 5 Potential Site Map 21Ju12009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 16 9 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue) Map with all exclusions 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #1-Memorial Park / 6 Site Recommendation Proposed fenced OLA site (white). Area = 10,000 sq feet This position is optimal because it is immediately adjacent to parking, reducing access conflicts. Memorial Park is centrally located in town and already has high traffic activity ,,,., , ,_ ~=3 Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 1 Residential Setback ~ ., ~'~; . `~: ., ~ ~ +~~ 211u12009 Citizens'Committee OlA Proposal v2.0 20 10 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 2 Excluded areas (in blue) - 2 playgrounds, 2 picnic areas, 1 parcourse The large field is not identified as a programmed use, so not highlighted 211u IZ009 Citizens' Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 3 Buffer Zones 111u17009 Citizen s' Cemmittee OLA Proposal v2.D 11 Excluded Areas 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue) OLA excluded from blue zone 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 4 Potential Site Map .. -` ~~ ~ .'.~' ~a ,, fly. Map with all exclusions. t ne west picnic area disqualifies the site that has been under discussion, leaving only a small OLA area, but relocation of a picnic area is a possible mitigation. L , .., ~u, C r ,.. ~ _.i v- .. Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 5 Picnic Site Relocation ~~ ,, ~~ ,~ . ~. H ~~:~~. 23 Under this proposal, relocation of excluded zones are permitted. Here, the west side picnic area is released by creation of a replacement space elsewhere in the park. This removes the buffer zone restriction ~~ , fpm the "lower" area , , 12 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 6 Site Recommendation ~. With the relocation of the west picnic area, the Lower Linda Vista site now meets all criteria and is suitable as a proposed OLA site (in white) Site Criteria Example #2 -Linda Vista Park / 7 Access Path Mitigation OLA access path (red) is adjacent to a playground and parcourse, violating the buffer zone. Fences along the path (white line) mitigate this issue. Access path length is over 700', non-central location, and the park currently has low traffic, so Linda Vista is an inferior site relative to Memorial Park. ~, ~_.., ~ ~ ~ n ._~ 13 7/21 /2009 Meaningful Trials 1) Pre-trial public outreach and comment period is critical a) Minimum 30 day comment period 2) Neighborhoods must be given ultimate approval for any OLA site 3) Analyzing trial results meaningfully is a huge challenge a) On sanitation, equally clean or better is a "pass" b) But on noise, it will never be quieter -how much more noise is a "pass"? 4) Anew trial is required for any change in hours, rules or restrictions 2Liu 4U0y Cinzens'COmmittee OlA Proposal v2.0 27 Trial Recommendations 1) We identify Memorial Parkas the best site for a fenced OLA trial and identify an acceptable alternate trial site at Linda Vista Park 2) Public notice and neighbor/user show of approval must be obtained before enacting trial 3) No unfenced OLA recommendations a) Not recognized as a best practice b) No other cities in Santa Clara County have unfenced OlA c) Entire safety plan is unproven "voice control" 211u12009 Citizens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 28 14 7/21 /2009 Future Focus Recommendations 1) Support the plan for a fenced OLA in Stevens Creek County Park 2) Support integration of OLA specs and requirements into the planning process for future parks and public works projects a) Including consideration of Oi.As in planning for future projects will allow for better fenced and unfenced implementations with reduced conflict b) Purpose-built facilities can easily meet criteria which are challenging for existing parks (siting, access path, parking, etc.) zi~~.,vuoa c~i~;_~~~,~~~,~.,.,.,.~eu~n~>o;,os.;i .. ., ~~ Site Criteria Example #3 - Jollyman Park / 1 Residential Setback i i~ 271W2009 Citizens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 30 15 150' Residential Setback (in yellow) OLA excluded from yellow zone 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #3 -Jollyman Park / 2 Excluded Areas ,; 2llu12009 Citizeni Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 37 Site Criteria Example #3 -Jollyman Park / 3 Buffer Zones is .~ ~ ~ _ ;'~~ ,4 ,.~ ~ ! ~~ +~ ?, ~ a ~ ~ ~-- y• _. _,r ~ i~ s i < _~'f .~ ~ '~w ~ ~ 75' Buffer Zone from Excluded Areas (light blue) OLA excluded from blue zone 2tJu12009 Citizens'Committee OLA Proposal v2.0 32 16 Excluded Areas (in blue) - 2 soccer fields, 1 baseball field, 2 playgrounds, 1 picnic area 7/21 /2009 Site Criteria Example #3 -Jollyman Park / 4 Potential Site Map - No Candidates s ~ '~~ - _' .~ ~.__ ~„~I 17 Only one small area (<3000 sq feet) meets critieria. RECOMMENDATION - No OLA at Jollyman Park cc ~ z~~9 ~~~ Petition against off-leash dogs in Cupertino parks (especially ~ollyman Park) We are opposed for the following reasons: ,. .~ ~_ . • Health & Safety of park goers, especially children - • Park cleanliness ~ ~, • The popularity of the park among the neighborhood children Printed Name Signature Address Date :~ ~ L~~1 ~ .S~l - ~~ y i~ ~7G c ~ i=ce ~ ~; :~°w ~~` ~ /~/0 9 ,, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 6~ . Cv~kIIN~~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~~.. ~rfi~r4~ c~- ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~I ~ l ~~ i ~ ~~'a ~ ~a.v ~- ~j c~~- r ~+z c~ ,~~-, ,2 ~C ~~ ~ ~~ ~ `ls ~~" ~~~~~ l ~,~/~ ~u~,~2~,~t~ Gra Printed Name Signature Ad d re ss Date ,/~ ` ~ C~ ~ ' ~' ` L' I ~ ~: ~7 ~ ~/i n- v I -~ L',Ir-z~. ~.d'~~,.n.. ~ ~- Cam. ,~ - s~ ~ ~%~ r~ ~"~~ y y ~,~'~Uv~ ~ z'U~ ,~ ~,~~ t~ h -~~`~ ~ ~ Y~cti kc cal ~ ~~ ~1~~~~ ~:~,~ ~~Y c~ ' c .. ~ Y /.~ _ ~ ~' iJGi t ~ ~, ~ c' /~ 1'~ M ~7~ SA~As ~A B ~! 1~i~ t ~ ,~ ~ 1 10~~~ N ~ i'~..1, i rv C ~~ , l , ~ti~ ~ ;~ 15v ~~-~~ ~ } /, _ . P~ ~-(~ NC ' (~ BS L v " c i~- ., _ , 7_._ ~ r 1 ~ ~ • ~ l ~ ~ 1. Ll l `/ ~~~ <~t / ~~ \~~..~ ~~. ~tt3 ~~~ ~~ ~ I Printed Name Signature Address Date i .> ~f~il~~°J k~~f ,~, ,~ : , r-- ,a, . ,~, ~a ~I _ fi'r' ~~ 11 ~~1 Qa ~~ N,,,~,,Z ~ ~c,~. (..r~,~ ~-~r,. r _ ,-,. fK: arc ~ J/Jf Vit' 1 '' "'~` ~ _- , _ /4' ~' j'C / 7 //~" ///Z ~i .~~~%l~ /-~~-'~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~u,~,,, ~.~. ~~j~~~~T- Jam, - ~i~~ ~~~cJ '' 1..~ - ~ ~ ~~'S ~ r ~~`>~ i~~l~ ~ln~~ ~ f~ 1 Cti. „4t wy ~ ~ 4 '" 1~ C /_~ C. S L~ ~~ (,~ {/~ 7 i /G' (~.~ `~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ^a v ~t ~~~d~L /6~' "~r'~I:LJ %~'~~~ ~ ~~~ Printed Name Signature Address Date ~ al ~/~ C ~-~ \ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~') ~' ~~ ~ ~,~ t o4~3 ~ m~~y ~ ~~~ - -<-~vW C A- `~ ~b i ~ C-~Giv~c.~~ ~~- 9 S'~nk~Y Jo3 ys -~~c ~G~~ 4J ~ ~ ~ r~ q ~- ~ ~ ~u /~ ` ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! , ~ ~ ~ / \ cy'~,~~ ~ ~ Lv~ ~ 1 tL U ~ v O lT'~ ~ i ^ X J ~ e ~ ~ -- l ~ ~ .~ c~ ~ c l ~~ ~ ~ ~a~l~~ ~ti1e~~ >> ~~~ ~l~ t ~~ Cv~~ l~~e~,t~~~~ ~J~~ : #3 C~- ~,`,Lc ~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~s ~~~~ ~ , - ~ v 111 ~_ y ~- ~ w~--~l~Z~-., ~~ ~~ ~, 7~~,'~ t~e.u~~~~y~~a~'~ -~Y' _ r -, ~_ ~~ ~ ~ ' tc~ ~ ~ ~. ~ l S n J ~~ ~. .,