The URL can be used to link to this page

19. Petition for Reconsideration off-leash dogs Paul McNultyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 1(300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 C O P E RT I N O TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 • PAX: (408) 777-3366 Summary AGENDA ITEM ~ I AGENDA DATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider the Petition for Reconsideration of the July 21, 2009 City Council decision on item 15, to establish a trial period for a specific time for unfenced off-leash areas for dogs in Memorial Park, Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, and Librar)~ Field, if over 50% of households within 1500 feet and over 50% of the park users surveyed over a 30-day period approve. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration, the Council may: A. Adopt a resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration thereby affirming the original decision, or B. Reverse or modify the original July 21, 2009 City Council decision on item 15 BACKGROUND On July 21, 2009 the City Council received public testimony and discussed a report from a citizens group regarding trial period for afenced-in dog park at Linda Vista Park. Following the testimony and the discussion, Council voted to adopt rules for an off-leash dog facility in a city park whether fenced or unfenced. Council voted to permit a trial period for unfenced specific time for off-leash areas for dogs in Memorial Park, Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, and Library Field provided that over 50% of the households within 1500 feet of the parks and over 50% of the park users survey over a 30-day period approved of the trial. The Council voted that a blue tag program be established and that dog owners ~vho had voice control of their dogs would be required to have a tag and their dogs be required to have a tag if they wanted to participate in any approved trial. The Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Paul McNulty on behalf of Cupertino Safe Parks under the provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096A. Since the petition was filed within thy: time prescribed by the Municipal Code (ten days), a hearing was set for September 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM. A copy of the McNulty petition is attached. CMC Section 2.08.096B requires that a Petition for Reconsideration meet certain specific grounds for the reconsideration. The standards for reconsideration are found in Attachment C. The July 21 staff report and draft minutes are found in Attachment D. The attachments to the ~s-~ July 2] staff report are available for viewing in the City Clerk's Office and online www.cupertino.or~ FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consider the Petition for Reconsideration of the July 2l , 2009 City Council decision on item 15, to establish a trial period for a specific time for unfenced off-leash areas for dogs in Memorial Park, Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, and Library Field, if over 50% of households within 1500 feet and over 50% of the park users surveyed over a 30-day period approve. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration, the Council may: A. Adopt a resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration thereby affirming the original decision, or B. Reverse or modify the original July 21, 2009 City Council decision on item 15 Submitted by: r' NCark finder Director of Parks and Recreation Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment A: Petition for Reconsideration -Paul McNulty Attachment B: Draft Resolution No. 09- ~~~ Attachment C: Municipal Code Standards for Reconsideration Attachment D: Staff Report and draft minutes on July 21, 2009 City Council agenda item 15 19-2 Attachment A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION -OFF-LEASii DOG PARK TRIALS 10183 Riedel Place Cupertino, CA 950142337 July 30, 2009 i ~ l __. CITY HALL - BY HAND Dear City Clerk, I am writing to you on behalf of the group Cupertino Safe Parks, a group consisting of Cupertino residents opposed to off-leash dogs in our neighborhood parks, seeking reconsideration of the dog park Off-Leash Area (OLA) items (new business agenda items#15 a-d in the 7/21/2009 City Council meeting) based on the following criteria: 1. Ethics Law Violations Councilman Mark Santoro should recuse; himself from all discussion on this topic based on personal interest and non-financial g~}in that will come to the councilman as a result of his engagement. I have a number of ex~3mples cited from the book, "A Local Official's Reference on Ethic Laws" published by i.he institute for Local Self Government, which highlight reason for Councilman Santoro's absten#ion on any participation in these conversations. Of specific concern is the active involvement of his wife and mother-in-law in pursuit of the OLAs in C~rpertino. These two were active participants in the Citizens Committee group and this would bring into question Councilman Santoro's ability to pass an unbiased judgement. This is coupled by the fact that he is a dog owner and has a personal interest /benefit in the outcome of this discussion. Under the section, "Summary of types of interests potentialfy affected by disclosure and disqualification rules", l have found the following explanation for disqualification: Other Personal Interests and Biases. You have important, but non-financial, personal interests that could cast doubt on your ability to make a fair decision. Use of Public Resources for Personal Purposes: State law forbids public officials from using public resources for personal purpose. "Public resources" include such things as 1) staff time, 2} office equipment, and 3) office supplies. What is personal use? "Personal" use of public resources includes activities that are for personal enjoyment, private gain or advantage. "Use" means the use of public resources that is substantial enough to result 19-3 in a gain in advantage for the user and a loss to the local agency that can be estimated as a monetary value. The statute penalizes both intentional and negligent violations. What the law is trying to achieve: - The public expects public agency processes to be transparent, which the public equates with having nothing to hide. - The public expects public officials to fairly and impartially allocate the benefits and burdens of public agency regulations and programs, without favoring family, friends or supporters. - Public officials cannot participate in decisions that will benefit their immediate family (spouse or dependent children). - Public officials cannot simultaneously hold certain public offices or engage in other outside activities that would subject them to conflicting loyalties. The Right to Fair and Unbiased Decision-makers: Although California statutes {argely determine when public officials must disqualify themselves from participating in decisions, common (aw and some Constitutional {principles still require a public official to exercise his or her powers free from personal bias-including biases that have nothing to do with financial gain or losses. Under the common law doctrine, an elected official has a fiduciary duty to exercise the powers of office for the benefit of the public and is not permitted to use those powers for the benefit of private interest. Personal interest in the decision's outcome. For example, one court found a council member was biased and should not participate in a decision on a proposed addition to a home in his neighborhood when the addition would block the council member's view of the ocean from the council member's apartment. Factual Bias. An example is information an official might receive outside the public hearing that causes the official to have a closed mind to any factual information that may be presented in a hearing. This is a variation of the "ex parte communications" doctrine, Which suggests that, in quasi judicial matters, ail communications to decision-makers about the merits (or demerits) of an issue should occur in the context of the noticed hearing (as opposed to priva#e meetings with the either side of an issue, for example). When an official sits in a quasi judicial capacity, that official's personal interest or involvement, either in a decision's outcome or with any participants, can create a problem. Typically, having the official disqualifies himself or herself solves the problem.° 2. Disregard of Parks & Recreation recommendations. Councilman Santoro proposed a more aggressive trial option (4 unfenced, off-leash parks) than any recommendation from any group (Parks & Recreation, Don Rosenbaum or David Fung) based on self-interest. 19-4 3. Leading (trapping) questions asked by +~ouncilman Santoro to attempt to cloud public opinion on whether individuals would support other options. This activity demonstrates strong bias towards getting an OLA area in spite of opposition. His personal interests clouds a fair approach. 4. Councilman Gilbert Wong offering the 2lternative option to think outside of the box to accommodate the needs of Cupertin~~ (i.2. Exploring non-neighborhood parks). This was specifically not permitted in the citizen working committee as Julia Lamy highlighted that we must discuss the topic of a trial within one of the existing parks under the domain of Parks and Recreation services. This option would be great if it were within scope and could accommodate the needs of the community in a park like Stevens Creek County Park or in some other area that would not involve the change in leash laws in an existing neighborhood park. 5. Unclear charter for citizens working committee interest group -started with exploring options and then rushed to decision without adequate time to discuss all original 8 points of considers:tion (actually only 2 of 8 discussed). 6. Parks and Recreation misrepresentation of community interest group opinions - specifically omitting opposition to OLA opinion. 7. citizens working committee meetings nE:ver concluded discussions on Linda Vista, Memorial Park nor Library f=ield. 8. Lack of clarity on next steps and how to ensure fair representation in new sub-committee (e.g. How to avoid bias mandating the path forward?). Tf1e new sub-committees are unclear in charter and need #o have specific mandate for how to proceed. 9. Potential Brown Act Violations (obvious that Councilman Mark Santoro and Councilman Gilbert Wong spoke in advance of this meeting. f suspect Councilwoman Dally Sandoval had perhaps conducted discussions with one of them as her stance was significantly reversed from the April City Council meE:ting. It is also unclear whether there were any discussions with Mayor Mahoney prior too this meeting as he also seemed to change opinion on this topic since April. 10, city Liability Inadequately Addressed -Public Safety concerns not specifically addressed and no demonstration of interest in protecting community at large. 11. Success criteria for proposed trials is ambiguous and lends itself to nothing short of a successful trial. 12. Subjective information was accepted as facts without any concern regarding validation of sources and objectivity of data points. Omission of facts and subjective evidence and opinion overroc'e the valid concerns of the community. 13. Blue tag methodology not adequately di:cussed and fees were suggested to be waived by Councilman Santoro. 14. Atrial would logically conclude in one c~~ntrolled location where the effects of the change could be observed and carefully monitored for success or failure. Taking a scientific method approach, there should be a cle~3rly stated hypothesis and objective evidence should be collected to measure success. None of that was apparent in the recommendation from Councilman Santoro. 19-5 Again, thank you for your assistance tonight and look forward to your ongoing advice and support as we flight this significant unwanted change to our neighborhood parks. Thank you for your prompt reconsideration of this issue based on the aforementioned points. Sincerely, ~~~~ Paul McNulty On behalf of Cupertino Safe Parks 19-6 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO.09- ~~f D ~~/~~'~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUI\ CIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF PAUL, MCNULTY SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION TO PERMIT A TRIAL PERIOD FOR A SPECIFIC TIME FOR UNFENCED OFF-LEASH AREAS FOR DOGS AT MEMORIAL PARK, JOLLYMAN PARK, LINDA VISTA PARK, AI`1D LIBRARY FIELD IF OVER 50% OF THE HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN 1500 FEET AND OVl?R 50% OF THE PARK USERS SURVEYED IN A 30-DAY PERIOD APPROVE. WHEREAS, the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission conducted four meetings, two of which were facilitated, with over 300 parti<;ipants to discuss fenced and unfenced ofF leash areas for dogs in City parks WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council received public testimony and discussed the issue of fenced and unfenced off-leash areas for dogs in City parks twice, with over 300 persons in attendance WHEREAS, City staff worked with a morE; than a 60 member citizens group over a 14- week period to develop recommendations to the City Council including rules for off- leash areas, an approved trial period for afenced- in off- leash area at Linda Vista Park and to work with the County for afenced-in area at Stevens Creek Cou~ity Park WHEREAS, the citizens group meetings v~~ere open to all interested persons and had been reported on twice in the Cupertino Courier WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council, after listening to the testimony, approved a trial period for a specific time for unfenced off-leash areas for dogs at Memorial Park, Jollyman Park, Linda Vista Park, and Library Field, if over 50% of the households within 1500 feet of these parks and over 50% of the park users surveyed ov~:r a 30-day period approve WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting WHEREAS, Paul McNulty requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's or~3inance code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the September 1, 2009 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RE;~OLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition i:; defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. ~s-~ 2 2. The petitioners have made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).) 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding permitting a trial period for specific time unfenced off leash dog areas at Memorial Park, Jollyrrfan Park, Linda Vista Park, and Library Field, if over 50% of the households within 1500 feet and over 50% of park users surveyed over a 30-day period approve. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of July 21, 2009 on item 15 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this first day of September, 2009, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 19-8 Attachment C MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS FOR CONSIDERING A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the ~~ity Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts that the City Council failed ~~o provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the ~~ity Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. 19-9 Attachment D CUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. ~ ~ SUBJECT MEETING DATE: July 21, 2009 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 pazk b. 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 pazk at Stevens Creek County Pazk 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 Memorial Park and/or Jollyman Park BACKGROUND The City Council referred the issue of off-leash dog facilities to the Pazks and Recreation Commission in Apri12008 because of community interest in such a facility. Between April 2008 and Apri12009, the Parks and Recreation Commission completed the following: :• Visited neighboring cities dog parks and off-leash areas • Reseazched best practices in other cities • Gathered information from the California Pazk and Recreation Society, The University of California -Davis Veterinary School •3 Conducted two facilitated community discussions • A post cazd 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. 19 - 10 The recommendation from the Parks and Recreat~~on Commission to the City Council was to create a process for establishing asix-month trial period for anoff--leash facility. On Apri17, 2009, City Council adopted the following actions for off-lea:;h areas for 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 are~~ 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 Citi:~ens Group was held April 16, 2009. The group has been meeting weekly for the last 14 weeks. There are over 68 members in the self- selected Citizens Group with new members joinir.~g each week. Between 20 and 40 members attend the weekly meetings. Staff's 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 i:; 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 an off 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 ~~nd properly disposing of all feces deposited by their dogs. o No more than two dogs per handler will be p~:rmitted in the off-leash area at one time. o Dogs in heat are not permitted in the off-leaslZ area. o Puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted within the off-leash area. o Dogs must be vaccinated and free of commuiucable illness and disease. o Dogs must wear proof of current license. o Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the off=leash area. o Dogs must be under voice control of their ha~idler. 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. 19 - 11 o No smoking, food or alcohol allowed in the off-leash area. o All other City of Cupertino park rules apply to use of the off-leash area. o The off-leash area is subject to closure upon determination by the City that there is a reason deemed to be in the public's interest or safety. o Users of the off-leash area do so at their own risk. The City of Cupertino shall not be liable for any injury or damage caused by any dog in the off-leash area. 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-leash 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 dog) 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 Community- In August, Survey Park Group on OLD Park -North West Established Off-Leash 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 Residential Setback of 30-day Pre-Trial Leash Dog Trial Park, Linda Vista Park 150 feet, Exclusion of Notice to Neighbors Citizens' certain areas, Buffer and Park Users for Committee Unfenced: None Zones of 75 feet, comment prior to minimum size 8000 sq. setting trial start date ft. 19 - 12 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 H >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 b.: 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 thi;~ 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 ;~ 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, 7:301~m 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 Jollyman Park Petition 174 Approved and Signed by Dog Owners 100 57% Approved and Signed by Non-Dog Owners 46 26% Not supported or refrained from commentin 28 16% '~ 19 - 13 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 radius 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 that has atime-limited dog area • 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 be 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 Park in 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, only 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, additional enforcement of Cupertino's off-leash ordinances, and the installation of arent-a-fence, signage, and poop bag dispensers in the trial site for a fenced off-leash area. 19 - 14 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 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 subc~~mmittee 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, stafi~ 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 ba~~k 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: I ~-.. Julia Lamy, Senior Recr tion Superviso>~y~ ar Linder, irector of Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager attachments 19 - 15 DE'f~FT C O P E RT I N O DRAFT AZINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, Juiy 21, 2009 ROLL CALL At 6:00 p.m. Mayor Orrin Mahoney called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice-Mayor Kris Wang, and Council members Dolly Sandoval, Mark Santoro, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. CLOSED SESSION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of GC Section - 54956.9 (one potential case}. No documentation in packet. Council was in closed session from 6:00 p.m. until 6:20 p.m. Mayor Mahoney announced that no action was taken. RECESS -Council was in recess from 6:20 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:4> p.m. Mayor Orrin Mahoney called the meeting back to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice-Mayor Kris Wang, and Council members Dolly Sandoval, Mark Santoro, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. CEREMONIAL MATTERS -PRESENTATIONS 2. Adopt a resolution affirming the City of Cupertino's support and partnership with the 2010 census, Resolution No. 09-121. Doris Tse from the U.S. Census Bureau noted that the response rate for the 2000 census nationally was 67%, the California response rate was 70%, the Santa Clara County response rate was 75%, and the City of Cupertino response rate was 77%. She noted the 19 - 16 July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~` . .~ ~ Page 2 challenges of why people don't report anc! also noted what was working well so far with Census 2010. She said that right now they are only promoting the census and raising public awareness, but in March of 2010, .°very household would receive a questionnaire in the mail. Residents interested in more information on the census or in job opportunities can contact her at (408) 202-7156, .i~ ~,_,~ ~ ~~c ~~ ~~~~~u~ _~_~~~, or visit the website at .. , .cii~~~__~,;, Sandoval/Wong moved and seconded to adapt Resolution No. 09-121. The motion carried unanimously. POSTPONEMENTS The Deputy City Clerk noted an updated staff report for item number 11, regarding the Slurry Seal Program bids, asking Council to defer the award of the contract to the Aug. 4 meeting. Wong/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue item number 11 to August 4. The motion carried unanimously. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt distributed the following items at the meeting: • Amended page 8, minutes of July 7, 2009 (item No. 3) • Updated staff report regarding the Slurry Seal Program bids deferring the award of the contract to Aug. 4 (item No. 11) • Draft "Voluntary Contribution Agreement" between the City of Cupertino and ECI Two Results, LLC, regarding transportation system improvements; PowerPoint presentation; an email from Judy ~7Vilson in support of the 5-year extension request (item No. 12) • An additional staff report listing General Plan office allocation for major companies, other areas in the City, and future office demands; PowerPoint presentation; email to City Council from staff regarding General Plan language related to office allocation for major companies (item No. 13) • PowerPoint presentation titled "Trial Period for an Off-Leash Area for Dogs" and 16 emails dated July 21 from various commu~uty members regarding their preferences for an off-leash area for dogs, a fenced area for dogs, and other topics related to a dog park (item No. 15). (Note: City Council received many other emails on this topic earlier in the week). • Memo from Finance Director David Woo regarding the definition of "Private Telecommunication Service" and a PowerPoint presentation (item No. 16) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ruby Elbogen talked about the Relay for Life to be held at De Anza College on July 25. She noted that Council members will open the relay with the staff and members of the relay. For more information visit :~ 1~ ~,-, r a ~ f ~.-, I ~ ~ ~ . ~~~1 ~ _, r~~ t ~, ~_~. 19 - 17 July 21, 2009 __.~ Cupertino City Council ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ f, ~ Page 3 ~ < ~ ,~ Frank Jelinch, member of the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival Board and resident of Cupertino, noted that the Festival will perform its 27th year of free Shakespeare in the Park beginning Sat., Aug. 8 for three weekends. The performances will be held at the Memorial Pai•k Amphitheater and the play, A Comedy of Errors, will be performed. More information is available at ~ _~_ ~~a; ~ . , _ u;,.. CONSENT CALENDAR Wong/Wang moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item numbers 3 and 9 which were pulled for discussion. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 4. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for July 2 and 10, Resolution Nos. 09-112 and 09-113. ~. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for July 10, Resolution No. 09-114. 6. Adopt a resolution replacing Teen Commission Resolution No. 09-078 to delete Section A regarding ran~ina so that all applicants would be interviewed, Resolution No. 09-11~. 7. Adopt a resolution accepting a Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Puttappaiah Muniyappa and Kavitha Puttappaiah, 10210 Peninsula Avenue, APN 326-22-017, Resolution INTO. 09-116. The property o«-ners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property. y 8. Adopt a resolution accepting a Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Arindam Chakraborty and Pompee Chalraborty, 930 Rose Blossom Drive, APN 3~9-06-028, Resolution No. 09-117. The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property. 10. Review bids and award the contract for 2009 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters. and Sidewalks, Project No. 2009-04, to Maxicrete 111c., in the amount of $418,605.00, and approval of a contingency amount of $40,000 for additional work that may be identified and approved by the Director of Public Works. 11A. Authorize the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City, a West Valley Community Services application for funding a Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program. (HPRPj 19-18 July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~~° Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 3. Approve the minutes from the June 10 an~i July 7 City Council meetings. Deputy City Clerk Grace Schmidt distributed an amendment to the minutes of July 7, 2009, page 8, paragraph 7, to delete the phrase "...shall not create a strategic plan but..." SandovaUWang moved and seconded to defer this item to Aug 4 for staff to clarify that section in the July 7 minutes. The motion carried with Mayor Mahoney voting no. 9. Adopt a resolution approving a Parcel :Map for condominium purposes, Monta Vista Oaks Inc., a California Corporation, 21761 Granada Avenue, APN 357-17-116, Resolution No. 09-118. Approval of the parcel map permits the map to be forwarded to the County for recording, which completes the subdivision. Wang/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 09-118. The motion carried unanimously. 11. Review bids and award the contract for the 2009 Slurry Seal Program, Project No. 2009- 06 to the lowest, qualified bidder contir-gent on staff providing the results of the bid opening at the meeting. . Under "postponements" this item was continued to August 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Consider a major amendment modif~g the Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2008- OS), Use Permit Modification (M-2008-03), Tree Removal Permit (TR-2008-06), and Director's Minor Modification (DIR-2008-32) for the purpose of extending the expiration date of these approvals for six years, :phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval, and modifying the traffic and ~;ignal improvement condition, Application No. M-2009-02, Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners), 1 Results Wav, APN Nos. 357- 20-046, 357-20-041 (continued from June 16). The Deputy City Clerk distributed a draft "Voluntary Contribution Agreement" between the City of Cupertino and ECI Two F:esults, LLC, regarding transportation system improvements; an email from Judy Wilso~i in support of the 5-year extension request; and a PowerPoint presentation. Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Applicant Sandy James explained that they are asking for an extension due to the poor economic conditions. She also noted that they have negotiated with the staff to deal with traffic mitigation as a separate issue. 19-19 f} ~ ~\ July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~~'`~ ~ V{~ Page 5 John Hamilton, Managing Principal of Embarcadero Capital Partners, reiterated the need for an extension and asked for council support. Mayor Mahoney opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Jennifer Griffin said that it is important that this land remain as a tech site and said she is glad that the owner is willing to take a risk. She urged Council to make sure the lush landscaping is maintained on the property. Mike Foulkes, President of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said he supported the extension. Mayor Mahoney closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Sandoval moved and Mahoney seconded to approve the following, and the motion carried unanimously: • The Major Amendment (M-2009-02) modifying the Use Permit modification, Architectural and Site Approval, the Tree Removal permit, and the Director's Minor Modification to extend the expiration dates for five years, phasing construction, clarifying conditions of approval, and modifying the traffic and signal improvement condition • Staff's recommendation to delete Condition of Approval 4b in its entirety from the Planning Commission resolution, since the condition has already been fulfilled • Deleted the following sentence from the second bullet of Condition 3: "The Community Development Director has the authority to approve reasonable, minor adjustments of the plans" • Amended the second sentence in Condition 4a to read: "The improvements may include, but are not limited to, installing new pedestrian signal heads, a new traffic signal cabinet, a new traffic signal controller, new traffic signal loops, and replacing damaged pavement on the Results Way approach, pavement restoration and lane restriping" • Accepted the applicant's Voluntary Contribution Agreement providing $200,000 to reduce traffic congestion and increase pedestrian bike safety within lh mile radius of the project site west of Highway 85 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 13. Consider General Plan Amendments, Application Nos. GPA-2009-O1 and EA-2009-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide (continued from June 2): a. Adopt a Negative Declaration b. Consider increasing the office allocation in the General Plan 19-20 July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~ Page 6 The Deputy City Clerk distributed an additional staff report listing General Plan office allocation for major companies, other areas in the City, and future office demands; a copy of the PowerPoint presentation; and a~i email to City Council from staff regarding General Plan language related to office allocation for major companies. City Planner Gary Chao reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Mahoney opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. Jim Cunneen, representing Hewlett Packard, said he supported staff's recommendation. Mike Foulkes, representing Apple Computer, said it was important for the company to grow in Cupertino and asked for Council's support for the staff recommendation. Barry Chang said that he isn't speaking for growth or anti-growth but asked Council to consider the impact on the housing element while considering the office allocation because it would affect the entire city. Jennifer Griffin said that Cupertino is a n ux of residential, office, and high tech and urged Council to proceed cautiously to be sure there is room for everyone. Keith Murphy said that the City should be prepared and needs to also grow on the housing element side. He urged Council t~~ weigh the two issues together. Tom Hugunin said that he didn't see any information on the major companies in the staff report in the packet and that the public ]lad no way to view the document that Council received this evening on the dais on this issue. He asked what constituted a major company, would the office allocation beneficiaries lobby ABAG on the housing element portion, and how the City allocates the co;~t of the amendment to the beneficiaries. Hari Guleria said that this is one of the only places where property values are maintained, and he urged Council to encourage large companies in Cupertino. Mayor Mahoney closed the public hearing; at 8:48 p.m. Council directed staff to recalculate the square footage of the existing major companies. Sandoval moved and Wang seconded to adopt a Negative Declaration. The motion carried unanimously. Wong moved and Santoro seconded to ~ipprove an office allocation of 483,053 square feet, putting a total of 450,000 square feet into major companies and the rest into other area. The motion failed with Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang voting no, and Santoro and Wong voting yes. 19-21 ~4~~~~' July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~': _ ~ t a t' Page 7 Sandoval moved and Wang seconded to amend the General Plan to add an office allocation of 483,053 square feet analyzed in the 2005 General Plan. The motion carried unanimously. Sandoval moved and Wang seconded that the 483,053 square feet should go into the category of major companies in the General Plan. The motion carried with Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang voting yes and Santoro and Wong voting no. Santoro moved and Wong seconded to take out the word "existing" in the definition of major companies. The motion failed with Mahoney, Sandoval, and Wang voting no, and Santoro and Wong voting yes. Council recessed from 9:20 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. NEW BUSINESS 14. Conduct a hearing and adopt a resolution approving the assessment of fees for the annual weed abatement program (private parcels), Resolution No. 09-119. County Weed Abatement Program Coordinator Moe Kumre answered questions from Council regarding fees, how notices are mailed out, and when inspections were done. Phil Aramoonie said that his property was inspected the second week in April and he did the weed abatement work the third week in April. He said that he would still pay the County's assessment fee. Don Chen said that his property was inspected but he never received a letter. He noted that last year the notice was sent out in June, and in April this year, according to the County. He said that he normally cuts his weeds in May when the rainy season is over and in this case the County had already done the work and assessed the fee. He protested the fee as excessive and unfair and requested a waiver. Mr. Kumre answered questions from Council including a question regarding an appeal process. He responded that if the property owner can show that the County is in error of having done the work or miscalculating the fees, then the charges can be removed. Sandoval moved and Wong seconded to adopt Resolution No. 09-119. Wang offered an amendment to waive the fees for the two people who protested this evening. The motion failed for lack of a second. The original motion carried with Santoro voting no. Council gave direction to staff to agendize in the near future a discussion regarding the County weed abatement deadline date for next year and an explanation of the County's fees. 19-22 July 21, 2009 Sr.__ _ - .- ~ c: p Cupertino City Council Page 8 15. Consider the following actions for a trial >period for an off-leash area for dogs: a. Adopt rules for use of an off-leash area for dogs in a City park b. Authorize a subcommittee from members of the Citizens Group to work with the City and County of Santa Clara 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 Comnuttee, 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 Memorial Park and/or Jollyman Park The Deputy City Clerk distributed copies of a PowerPoint presentation titled "Trial Period for an Off-Leash Area for Dogs" as well as emails dated July 21 from various community members regarding their preferences for an off-leash area for dogs, a fenced area for dogs, and other topics related to a dog park. (Note: City Council received other emails earlier in the week). Senior Recreation Supervisor Julia Lamy reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. The following individuals spoke against ari off-leash area for dogs: Judy Harrison Rok Sosic Anu Srikanth Randy Ong Adina Bidel Vickie Wu Cheng Zhang Chris Copeland Barry Feeley Sophie Wang Hongqing Yi Ardith West Sanjay Sawhney John Xiao Greg Labmeier Lynn Frake Paul McNulty Mary Jo Gunderson John Woolfolk Dan Koren Paul Chan Tamima Koren Sue Copeland Philip Tsai David Fung (also spoke for Cecil Coe, Mehrnaz Hada, Ted Hou, David Klinger, Judy Klinger, Dan Koren, Robert Kroeger, Erin Labmeier, Manisha Puranik, Runping Qi, Premika Ratnam, and Karen Seale and distributed a handout titled, "Off-Leash Dog Policy Proposal for Cupertino City Parks'') 19-23 July 21, ?009 Cupe~~tino City Council Page 9 Ad~~~ait Sathye (distribute-d a petition titled, "Petition against aff-leash doffs in Cupertino parks (especially Jallymall Park)" Kuo-Lon Soong (distributed a handout title-d, "Sa~~e Linda vista Park People's voice'') Their comments included: support of a legal, fenced, off-leash area in Memorial Park or Linda vista Park; issues with wildlife in parks like Linda vista if there is a fenced, off- leash area; too dangerous for children under ~ years old in Jollylnan Park; off-leash dogs would influence park qualit}j; cleaning up dog ~~~aste is costly; complete d1sCUSSloils such as safety issues before going to trial; dogs off-leash can be over-e~uberaz~t; don't use only one particular park for a fenced in area; parking lot «rill fill up and people «rill park in the street; noise issues with dogs barking; there are already fenced-ln dog parks not too far away; t11e proposal is too broad; enforcement issues. The following individuals spoke in suppo~~ of an aff-leash area far dons: Geoff Fong 1I~lc wllsan Betsy Daughel~t}! Jim Black (also Black) I~-aa Guleria. spoke for Barbara Carol. Miller Shea°l'1 Stein Mindy Crant Jeff Hu Alvin Hu Vivian Hu . ,, . .~ ut (! r~1i.l~, ~~1+~~ C~~i.t~ E'~`1°t.'~.1~Jt~~`~ ~. l~t'7'tl~?•d ~.`~~if~l~,t''1". '+Llt.r.~ ~t(' ~"1'L14 tt.(?~ .5~1E~U];`,~,1"tr ;'yt7 ~,1~'~~~:lt~ #i~ ~~1~~~ ~~~~-~r~r~r~~.r~~~~~~r,rr~~. ~~r~~ ~;~~~~~ ~~r,~~r~~.~~~r~.~ ~~~~~~~ ~~-~.~ ~~~~r~ 1~~~~~r:~l~~~~~~~~ i~~~ rIr~ ~~~c~~~~~rr~~~» f~~~~~ ~~~>~~~~.~, ~rr~.~~. c~.~rd ~~~> ~~ ~i.~l~.F ~ t~. ~ ~: r~~~~~,~ rah ~Irc: ~ ~~.~~~~c;lr~r.t ~.~~. ~~ c: r~ ~~.~~ ~.~~~,~~i .. I~1.~' d~?.t;fr~~1" Don Rosenbaum (also spoke for Arlene Rosenbaum and Sherry Fa~lg and submitted a handout titled, "Consider actions far a trial period far an off-leash area for dogs") Hari Guleria (also spoke for Melissa D~~}lsdale, ~'ania Tengan, and Karen McK~.nlay and submitted a petition for aff-leash dogs in Jollyznan Park that was included in the Council packet as Attachment K) Their comments included: parks are almost empt}j at mast times of the day; molly hours could be set aside during the day for an off-leash area without. interfering with other park users; Cupe~~tino pal-ks should be multi-use. to accommodate all users ~~-ithout discrimination; have simultaneous trials for both fenced and unfenced off-leash al,eas; perform sur~~eys of park users and neighborhood residents; Jollyman petition shows active citizens ready to help during a trial; suggested locations for aff-leash areas include Memorial Park, Library Field, and Linda Vista; don't impose setbacks; noise le~rels not an issue; have trials at many parks and not just one specific park. 19-24 July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~ ~~''~, ~~~~"~,~°. Paae 10 Cr~lt.ll[~Ll IrlPnll)eJ ~a)J1(,Jrr _~1Q~~t'~1P~(l t~LClt a ~tPI F,1`~ CI"t'P~. Cut(\%~Il 1)r ~:El+l I'll I%It' ll;+l ~,f an.otl7Pr pla('P tllClt t r7-t7t a J7.P1~171~r,1"11,K,d park, J71fi +a 177['11 LS I77~ Pl7.l,u,eh clad hU~ ~!l1rt7t7er?1 rratfi< c apuc rn rn acromrnndate~ an off-le-ash urea He I~~as irz fay r,r' <il sturtrn a tJ-ral perir,d Irz the n-e.~l ~ 1n 6 ~~ c c->ti ~~ ir? lu, al 1~;.zrks unit re-yuirnz,g spE'clal Il: ; ~ url the u~!n~~ ~ 1(C1JfQ t17.e TJ'~lal Clr"Ft'.l He +1UJ ;+1>1+~~~e'd 1~• tPJli 111£, l1? j,lrl[.~u ~~JSIU PQr~ 1T(IJ /f1~NlYlJI J7 +~il~ ~.1 1'ea.Cr'+ntJl)IP Slte' Il'l1 alJ r.~jt-leUa al"E'u hP!~.([d5e 11 17<l~ 1r~111.E' PliJtl~/'Ql 1)ul"1'Jc+'1 (/1 /JPJ" r li'~lr Pc +x r,u.Ld n7cllLdf~ Jnlh'nllzn '11en1<+rl-ul Pork. HP +x a.5 in fay r,r of >~ilins~ iize llsl try a snJ~lle'r suhcon7nzrttPP to do aJ? in71,ul7ipl surre+ uhr+lct hUl~ll'S. ar7.d it ~1c+le.ld +'c~yulrc +~IPr ,l,Jr.~ appr~„a1 of t17e curl°el 1ukE'rF and he hrPfc=rJPd a y-l? riT.r,nt71 mitl HF "lul rha- 1nr ,r tenc~Pd pur•>` the Cirs sl7ou.ld luol, frir czn urea first derl.dP Ix hul rl ,s ~++rJl~+ 1r, <~u.rt Ltr1d tl7Pn der l.de if r17P Cin ~ uJ1 dc+ it. 1~'icP Mal r~r i~`an~ 5ald cl7e understr,od people c fear nt dr~g.5 ulzd + nrzr'Prn<, ahr,clt anise. tr"alft(~ ~,11E'lls, aJ1d c?117Pr IJn~ai't5 517P 11'x.5 Ill fU+'C+T' L~f M'OrkIr7,Q ,a?tli 117E Cr+lftltl. pE'1"ItQ~I+t nr7 rl1E' ~Ite I11PJ7t1(,1?Pd Clt ~tP1 PTi~ ~ reek Palk 1x'171('17 i1'r,l~.ld 1~P a l~PJ77ZG7r1.PI1t 1f+r7,Y-tPJ"rJ) cnlutlnn un.d +, nJ,,ldn J tnapnsc o11 rl7r,sE pPnple ~1~h.r? are a.frr~ad ,~f ~+E=tlinsr~ hrr .S~h~ ~ac~~E~d 1al>N 1r,17~ tl]e tJ'Tal JJE'T'TC~d if t/7P1"E ~t U5 r,r7e +1 nuld I-!(n .517.[' Bald 11 there 11 e re i<i c~nmplur.nts and t11ur lorattl+n hec~nrrt.PS an off teusla paJ-k pPn17ar7eJZt1s. the reside'nr+~ +reed t0 ~:rlt~lx~ tl2ut ll'r ~Id1 an,'e . A9avnr ti?ahrmel asked If 1'icP .-~?as~or f~%ar1~ ~~°as us?reeable JC, the _,ff-lc•us11 J-lfl(-~. Sh.e replied t17ut tt 11 us nr,t ur;enl a1 t1zi.: hnir7.t. since th.e Cul~ru•II knx~11 •17.Pr pr,srtlun .ShE- sl~ppnrle~~d r,pttnJT B ~:~uth.ori: e a cl~.bc~on7n7it7PP frol7z rnerl7hers of t_17r Citi, E°rz ~ CirnlAp to 11~ork w~itli tI7P Cir1~ a11d C~(,lA.nr1 of Sa.Jita Clara ro cc,l7du.c't a ~~tuds fur a fear Pd d<+.; kfclrk a1 StF1'PrzS Creek Cr+unt~ Park 1, 1•,ut sh.e dial not support C i:4fter 1z.Pt,~17hr,r ar7d l~ar-k J.ISE'r strphnrt 1~, c~htazn.ed hx~ the Cin,.Pns Group CnrriJl7irrPE' auth.r,ri_e a six-month 1r1a1 l~+r a feared r,ff-leaslz area a.r Linda 1'ista Park- or U rCon.tinl~e rl7.e rnrnnz.un.i.n discus.+tF,JZ ~~it1z a smaller. appoilltPd .Qri,ap ,,f c-iti~.erz.< f~,r a trial per-iu~~~ far <a.JJ u.JZfe'J1t ed ,,ff-IE~a~h <n-~~a r;t 4~enz.rn-i.al Park un.d/!,r J.>lh•rirart Park.. Cr,unc~il r11.en7bc-r [~~`one sui.d 17.e 11'aS i.n fa~~or of Izal~ir7,o a enrnln.ittee ctu.dl~ t17e Stc~l~en.5 CCree1: Cr,unrl~ Park area, a.1t17<~u,17 he felt it was too ,fa.r <>uttldE t17e +. itl grad hc~ 11 nuld prefer to snm.ethi~ns; inside tJ7.e c~iTti~. HF t17ou;lza tlxat tenth groups ~~'ere not r,~,hr,.ce~d tc, a fE'T7E"td df,° park.. hlft t17.P dlffiE'ultl' 11'x( fZr7dl17~ t17P I'IQ17.t ln('at7c+J1 Hf S1d1;Qe.5ted aT7r~117.e'T" ar-eu.frrr c~onsiderati~or7.. ,z.or-th of tl7e Oaks Shoppn7,~ CE'ntPr nn ,!~lar1 A~ e acrt>5s the street from ,~lenzorial Park. He suppnr-ted a .fen.red in parr urPU but di.dlz t t1z.iJ7k Iltai Liridir t~rsta 11as ~c,in, to 11'<,rk. HP supported a trial period for- cff lea.el7 areas. 1~ut n7<<re ,fork 11'as 1TPedE'd 11'Itl7 staff a.17.d tl7P 1'It1=.e77.5. He cold 1ZP 11'x.5 lr7 fal'(,r' +,f pdopttn~ tl7e 1"l~tles. Cour7cil nz.en7ber Sar7do~~al asked _for E•lari frcation on the trial period anal it it 11 ol~Jd c,ecvar at th.P .carne time a.s the r?.ei,~h.borizood sl~r1'e~~. 19-25 July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ' ~`~ ~"' Page 11 Seni~~r Rerr-eati<,n Supers isr„~ J~~Ti~~ h~n11ti surd rfle <~ttr-erl c grnlap rec~~~:J1rJJerld~atin-1 ~ as a h-nle~nth trial, urad stuff reEc~nlrJlen.ded that the rr-1u1 take place after r1er,;hhnrllc~od ~u~~pnrt head hE~E-ri ~uth~~rrd h; llt.c ~~tt~-r~ri .~1"r~t~~jl ~ . Cnu.rl~~i1 rJrenlber-Surl~~r~~u/ sand sh.e ~~as i,i-fu~,~- of u.dr~~)tir~r; 111.E=~ T'I,des_ Ir1 tu~or ~,t Ste~~~~r1s C~rE-ek pork gas a lc~catinrl. urldecrdE~d a(~c,ur Lirl~a 1 isra t'ark l?1a.t ~a as ~~ rlllrir to e.~j?]urE art t11f-,~eus{1 ra-11jer1red nl>t~un ir; Llr,;}u t 1,~t,~ l'c.rk ,N1iTJ1.E%rta! Purk_ ur1.d .Ic,11~,~rlu,rri Park :)Yeas ~/1E' Auld 17 ~~~~t!1d /~c~ illEe 1~+u!~!~ItNrr~~r~c~1E r"~,1,1c ~~t'tt~ ~7chf- li, ~;, ~t~ ~.,.~-~, try t1k/t 111E~'~ !`i1r1 r1<3i 117f'1r ~~r,~'S E'Ur~l 117 111E r77.(~r71(rtJ; (iUl ~1"1 E' did ~i~±1 ll~r r/1e II~~E~U ±"il ~Ta111'L' (~~- leu~ll areas start ut ~.U(/ u.rn sn sl1E ,~~~1ald ~)r(~pncE rile ~nn1r11.tttee lank at t~mzr~ :)1 ~~f1 leu~)1 ~;-otars She taus al<<~n ir1 ~a~~cu c,f t/tr ~h~~s ~~-~e~~rnl~~ ;~ sl~errul rag. arul su>~estE~d 1dF771'lflC"allf~ll fC17" nih'JIE'r~ 1C~t~ ~fi 1r wcZc /~1'~l~lt'~UC ~a'171('~2 pE~!l?(E ia11~dUQs wt~E'rE' laStrl~ t11f' t~~- leush urea.. - 'I7a~~~,r a1ail.nn.e~ sand IJe Has 1r1 fQ+c~r u1 t11.E f~~llE,w~irlo 4dnptin,~ rh.e males. f!~llr,~,~in,~ up nr1 Ste~Er1.~ Creek Purk_ E?ursu.tng u.rlferlred nff-lECxsh ureQS ir5 r11.la1tiplE parks ~~itl1 s~CJtY1~E kind ~)f ta,~. Re~urdir~~ ur1/en.ced areas. 11 th.e± are lrrJllted rn a c~ertutrl urea a fe~~ Izr~urs u dQ~ r1 rJ1.as l2a~C' ~a ,Qr)«d E,f~ect ~,r1 IutltYnllinf~ e.xr-~tir1~ heh.u~~i.ln~s cu.ch u.~ d~)~ n~~rl.erc I~etT711~~ t11eIT d~~,Ql r>ff lE`U~~1i l1i ~~t1ZE'i~ ~~ntCAtd(~It~ '7/ fTl7re5_ Tl2U.t r~ n77.E~ ~+f t11E' ])lat~~i±SF.I (-f 111.E tr-iul, and it ,1Jakes it pa.ssrhie fc~r 1~EC~plf- t<~ ati c-I.d the area if rhea dc~n r ~~ unt t~~ be r1Ear t11r~t a-rtlrit~ He rr'rer:t1n11.ed t1i.e ~1a1r1 StreE~r t 1a~)ertlrl.o pr~;er t us alluth.er trial Ic~caru,n. ~?~(.1 t~1.tr1,IPl2t t17a1 tI1.E 1tE'Ie1i-j ~ YEek PUJ`k lu~c7t1r>7, 111.t]t he 111E hESt TE~t sate Santoro moved and Sandoval seconded to adopt rules for use of an off-leash area for dons in a City park; authorize a subcomnuttee from members of the Citizens Group to work with the City and County of Santa Clara to conduct a study for a fenced dog park at Stevens Creek County Park and continue to look at an alternate site; have staff initiate a neighborhood survey for neighbors within 1000 feet in all directions from Jollyman Park. Linda Vista Park, Memorial Park, and the Library Field for an unfea~ced off-leash area and ,0 days of surveys for park users; ~0°Io of those surveyed must agree to an unfenced off-leash area; blue tags are required for both dogs and owners to use unfenced areas; look into increasing either code enforcement or sheriff services to patrol the area; develop an educational program for neighbors and users of the site and include the information on the city channel; add signage to the off-leash sites. Wang offered a friendly amendment to survey neighbors within 2000 feet in all directions from the 4 parks. Sandoval suggested 1500 feet for the sui-s-ey and Santoro accepted the friendly amendment for 1500 feet. The motion catz-ied unanimously. `~.at t11e Crt+ CnunE'il r1l.eetill,; of Au,~ust ~, ?UUy, ~'T.('P 114c1ti-C'r kr-IS 11 an,~ clari~Ed t)zat s/1.e n1.eQrzt to ~>ate r1.n on t11.e Juh ~I 17_)te re,~urdin~~ optic~n> C arld D ra sia-nl.nnth tri.Ql of art ~)ff-lEach QrcQ at L1r1du I~rSta PQT-k a11d C'(~J1.r171.1a1:d dt.~'C'1I..sS]IJT1..S a.l?nUt u'.T2 r`)f f-lEQS11 Q.T'E'Q Q1 hlerJZnrial Park and/nr.Ji)lh~rllan Purk 1. Council recessed from 1:57 a.m. to 2:05 a.m. 19-26 ~"` t ` s t' L' a ~ ~ July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ' ~ `~° ~ L~~ Page 12 16. Consider placing a measure on the November 3, 2009, General Municipal Election to amend the telephone Utility Users TaK (UUT) ordinance. The amendment would modernize the municipal code wording to treat all taxpayers the same regardless of technology used, with no rate increases an3 no changes to senior citizen exemptions: a. Adopt a resolution to place a measure on the ballot at the November 3, 2009, General Municipal Election, Resolution No. 09-120; or b. Defer the matter at this time and direct staff to undertake further study and report back with options regarding such a measure at a future election The Deputy City Clerk dish•ibuted a memo from Finance Director David Woo regarding the definition of "Private Telecommunication Service" and a PowerPoint presentation. Finance Director David Woo reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint. Jim Cunneen, representing Hewlett Packard, supported staff's recommendation. Mike Foulkes, representing the Cuperti~lo Chamber of Commerce, supported staff's recommendation. Jennifer Griffin asked if she, as a private' user, would pay taxes on both her telephone landline and her cell phone, would Cupertino receive the revenue, and she also asked if websites are taxed. Mayor Mahoney res:~onded that she would be taxed on both phone lines and Cupertino would receive the revenue, but there no plan to tax websites. Sandoval moved and Wang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 091-120. The motion cai7ied unanimously. 17. Consider canceling the meeting of August 4. (No documentation in packet). Council took no action. ORDINANCES 18. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 09-2046: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.06 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to massage establishments and services by replacing it in its entirety." Wang moved and Santoro seconded to reed the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. 19-27 ~' _ July 21, 2009 Cupertino City Council ~- ~ 4 ~' Page 13 Wang moved and Santoro seconded to enact Ordinance No. 09-2046. Ayes: Mahoney, Sandoval, Santoro, Wang, and Wong. Noes: None. STAFF REPORTS -None COUNCIL REPORTS Council members hiQhliahted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 3:07 a.m. Wed., July 22, the meeting was adjourned. Grace Schmidt, Deputy City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the I1lternet at _,_ . • __ :: ~~.:_:~ _~~~ _. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at ,, ~-, ~~ ~uI?citlt,~ .~~r_. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. is-zs EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Cupertino City park should be a peaceful, clean and safe environment for all 50,000 Cupertino residents to treasure, it should not be jeopardized by 900 register dogs and owners. Does "Unleashed Dog Park" qualified as Minority Interest? ~- ~ ~, ~~ -~ ~~ 1. Who is going to make sure the dogs has all the shoots when they are running wild and bites me or licked on my open wounds? I am scare of dogs, does that mean when dogs are running wild in the park, I cannot go to the park to play? Why? Who's going to make sure owners know and clean up the dog poops when the dogs run wild, so I don't step into the Dog poops when I go to play ball? 4. Today, some dog owners does not obey the "LAW", who and how can we make sure they obey the "hours"? 5. My voice did not get heard the last time when they decided to start the Trail, shouldn't the Officials and Adults be representing us and look out for our kids? I~' The decision is based on "Flawed Process, Biased facts" ^ Demographic of the Concerns citizens group: - 50% for Fenced Dog Park - 50% for Unleashed Dog Park - Where is the voice of "No Dog Park"? ^ The decision on trail is rushed in last meeting, the process is not thorough or transparent. It is based on "Biased Facts" from the Concerned Citizens group above. ^ City notification process is flawed, many community members was not notified ^ Survey criteria and process has been pushed into a decision 2 AM without proper thought process behind it. What Are we asking for? ^STOP and REVERSE the decision to start the Survey and "Trial" for unleashed dog park. ^ If unleashed Dog park is a must, put it onto the next Election measure, hear the Community's voice. ~c ~-r ~~ #~~ JULY 21., 2009 ITEM NUl~,~BER 15 VERBATIM ]EXCERPTS STRAW `dOTES MARK: Okay. I have a bunch of notes I've taken. First I'd like to say I understand what you guys have gone through. It's been a long, arduous task and everybody up here respects the time you guys have put into this. It's been 15 months since this last rev and I guess years since this first rev and that's extremely painful. I'd also like to say that a lot of people out there feel that what you're saying is falling on deaf ears and. I know that's a common feeling a lot of times. I can tell you for me personally I have a very different opinion on this than I had 15 months ago when we kicked it off. I kind of thought I knew t>'~e right answer but I kind of wanted to see what the community had to say and I have a very different opinion after listening to the last time plus this time plus reading lots of emails and talking t o a lot of people. I've also gotten to know our city parks quite a bit better by walking around and looking at them. So, first in regards to the list of things, I personally have issues with 4 of there, but if the whole group is okay with them, I think it's a trial as Mark said and I would be oka~~ with going forward with that list. A couple of things that I heard that I think are very important. The first is, is that these are neighborhood parks and this is where I struggle. A year ago I 'was thinking fenced in dogs park areas and so what I've clearly heard is a couple of things. First of all, there's clearly a problem. And the problem is there's a lot of dogs that are off lead right now and I think that we either provide a place for those dogs or we outlaw dogs in the (:ity of Cupertino. I think a young lady said it correctly. Why have dog parks, why have dogs? And so I think we either decide we're going to have dogs and then we're going to have to accornmodate them in some way, shape, or form or we shouldn't allow dogs. Having said that I think there's clearly a problem and people who have dogs are not always as good as they think they are. And there are people who are afraid of dogs. I've seen both sides of it. I've owned dogs. I curr~:ntly have a large dog and I'm aware that being a large dog, she can scare people. I also as a paperboy I was chased about 3-4 days a week you know, 5:30 in the morning by a dog trying to snip at my pants and trying to bite me and I've been bitten by probably a 150 pound dog when I ,vas younger. So, I've kind of seen both ends of that. I'm not a person who's afraid of dogs, but I know friends who are, and I respect that. And I think our job up here is to try and look out for evf~ryone in the city whether you like dogs or hate dogs. I think we're trying to look out for all of yo~a. So, I personally think the way the situation is now, we can do better. And the reason is if you h~rve no place for people to let their dogs off lead they're going to let them off lead and if you're afraid of a dog and you walk around the corner, you have the right to know if there's going to b~~ a dog there off lead. And I think it's hard to spend the money and the time and effort to police the problem if there's no legal outlet for people with dogs so I think we need to provide a legal outlet. Having said that though, I first believed in fenced-in areas. The problem is we have lots of neighborhood parks and as I've talked to lots of people and read all the emails, nobody wants a fenced in dog area in their neighborhood park. When I first started was Hoover people and when I interviewed several people and what I learned is it's okay to have a fi~nced in dog area it's just not okay in my park. In their park. And so pretty much across. One €;entleman I asked specifically he came in and ranted and raved, he lives near Linda Vista and I :;aid what if it was an unfenced area, and he said as long as it's across other people so as not to come to my park. I just don't want you to ruin my park. I personally believe if we go with the suggestion and fence in Linda Vista Park and that's the only fenced in area, we're going to ruin that park, and so I'm against that. I think that at this point I'm in favor of both. So, if we look at things. So, the big issue is that they are neighborhood parks; the second big issue is safety. Third issue is feces. Other issues that were brought up were noise. I think we need to do something about all those and I don't think we should have random dogs running around our parks at random times off lead. I think that's wrong. But, I can't see some lady suggested taking everybody make them put their dog in the car and make them drive 4 miles to Sunnyvale to play in a mud hole either. So, I think it's our responsibility to do something for the dog owners. So, my suggestion would be to. The other thing that I really feel strongly about is I think at this point all of you have gone through enough pain that we need to make, I should make a call. I don't think it's fair to put all these people through more of this. Next time we'll have 200 people in the room that we can sit through again and everybody's going to go through all of this. I don't think we're going to learn more, a lot more. We can either do a trial or not do a trial, but I think we should personally decide. So, I, there's a lot of good things in Dave Fung's proposal, unfortunately, I know it sounds like the particular area isn't going to work. One thing I learned from his proposal is, a dog fenced in dog park needs I think a big space and it needs to be have access from traffic. I think a lot of people were talking about traffic, Linda Vista. So, I would suggest that we continue looking at Stevens Creek or we look for a place that's not one of our neighborhood parks that's big enough and has enough traffic capacity to accommodate an off lead area. I'm sorry a fenced in off lead area rather than put it in our neighborhood parks. Having said that since I'm not currently aware other than Stevens Creek where we'd put that and that's not right now is not an option. I am in favor of starting a trial period in local parks, however, one thing that the proponents of that. I only think a couple of them suggested that but the people against that brought up is that the blue tag thing so my personal thing is I'd like to keep that trial to us so I actually like to, this is Cupertino, so I'd like to say that we require a blue tag for dogs in the trial. To get a tag your dog must be licensed and it's either if we can't prevent people not in Cupertino than it's free for the trial, but if you're not a Cupertino resident than it's you know, $30 bucks or something that really discourages other people from coming in and putting pressure on our parks. The reason for requiring a license is if you don't know if your dog is licensed it's had a rabies shot and everybody's entitled to know that dog has had a rabies shot. And also if the dog doesn't have a blue tag, in conjunction with that I'd like to see us spend some money to step up education so that everybody knows it's a trial and that they know what the rules are, and that we post the rules, and that we increase surveillance so that if people are not, you know the first few weeks they jump on people who aren't in the rules. You need to get a tag, here's where you get it starting next week we're going to be citing you if you don't have a tag, don't bring your dog here. And if people are in those areas when it's not their time, they get dinged and I also believe strongly that we should go out to the neighborhoods and decide what times work well. But I'd like to see a time limit on that. I'd like to see that happen in like 4-6 weeks or something as opposed to dragging it out indefinitely so that people are still going through this. Having said that, I think there were 4, 3 or 4 parks that were suggested and even though I'm against Linda Vista being fenced in, I think it's a reasonable site for an off lead because it has some natural barriers. I actually personally would propose using the grassy area above the par course and I think you can keep it, not use the entire area, can keep it away from the kid's play, but I think the bottom are you do have more issues with wildlife. It's also only about, I paced it off, it's maybe 7500, maybe 8000 square feet just not a big enough area for the trial. So, I would prefer the grassy area up above. For an unfenced trial. I think a lot of people around Jollyman suggested that. All these are assuming that there's going to be a local neighborhood survey done. If all the neighbors are against it then they go off the list. Okay. I think jollyman was also a good choice and then Memorial Park and there was one other one suggested that was a maybe, but ]: think we should take maybe 4 parks. I think somebody had 4 on a list, and put those to a str~aller subcommittee, go out and try and do an impartial survey. In terms of surveys, by the way, I appreciate all the data, but all surveys as people have pointed out are somewhat biased, even the one the city did. But, it's clear whatever the numbers are. I think even David Fung's sug€;estion was there's somewhere between if you back out of his numbers, 4 and 9000 dogs in the city of Cupertino depending on if you believe the 10-30% number. That's a lot of (comment from the audience).Your numbers were only 30%, 10-30% are registered and there's almost a 1000 registered dogs. That says if you believe that number than there's 4-9000 dogs. (comment frcm the audience). Fine, we don't need to talk about it. So, whatever the number is there's a lot dogs, and there's clearly a problem today, so whatever we do, if we do nothing, I think then our problem continues. As somebody pointed out for 30 years there's been dogs going off lead ;end we're getting higher populations and it's becoming more of an issue and so what's unfori:unate is that if all dogs and dog owners were perfect we wouldn't be here, but then that's also not the case so I think we do need a way for both. sides to realize that we need to do something about the problem. So, my suggestion would be to take at least 3 perhaps 4 possibilities for off lead and have the subgroup go and do a neighborhood survey for hours and things like that and kick off a trial. I personally think that a 9- month trial is more appropriate than a 6-month, I'm not sure we collect enough data. I'd like to see almost a whole year, the whole season persor._ally, set of seasons. If we kick off the trial and it doesn't get started until the winter and nobod:~'s in the park, I don't know if we've learned anything so, I'd like to see a little bit of a longertrial so that we know. And then with regards to a fenced park, I'd also, I think there's some good agreements made for fenced in areas, for example, younger dogs that need to be trained that aren't capable of going off lead yet, or people who don't have control of their dogs should take them to the fenced in dog park. But, it's clear the fenced in dog park, there's a lot involved there and I think a fair chunk of money and I think they need to be big enough and I think we need to continue to try and identify a big enough site to do a proper fenced in area. I'm not sure we need a trial, I think that problems understood. I don't think we want to waste money setting up a fenced in area and taking it down personally. I think we should look for an area that we want to co a fenced in trial and decide what it's going to cost and then decide if we can do it. And I'm sure I forgot something. ORRIN: Let me reiterate and I'll ask everybody the same question. So, what I'm hearing you say is you're good with the rules, you're good with pursuing Stevens Creek Park, right? Item B. You're against the fenced in one at Linda Vista Park. You're okay with an off leash unfenced trials in multiple parks. And then we can have ;~ discussion about 6 months, 9 months. How, okay, you're okay with a blue tag, I guess that means. MARK: I actually prefer it because I think it puts people--to get a blue tag you have to know there's a trial program going on. Even though I'm_ not sure I heard that from the pro dog people I think they were against it, but I think it's protecting people who are afraid of dogs and I think that it informs people that if you don't have a blue; tag they know they're in the wrong place. 3 ORRIN: Okay, so and then how in your mind you know when you talk about support. I think there's two levels of support. There's support from the park users and there's support from the immediate neighbors. What level of support, what level ofnon-support would veto in your mind? MARK: Well, you're always going to have some abstainers, so I would say that you'd want over 50% of the people to be okay with it. ORRIN: Okay. All right. That's fair enough. MARK: So, then I presume there would be less than, some abstainers.... ORRIN: Kris? KRIS: Well, I first want to thank the staff and also the citizen group for the last 15 months of working on this topic and I know it's not easy, so many meetings. What I remember when I first heard about this, or the dog owners came forward asking for a dog park area or a trial period here and there, I asked staff if we can work with county, go look into a county site, which the county is willing to work with the city to build a dog park. And one of the speakers answered that no, we don't want to drive, it's too far. And so, what I've--back to today, when I first got my package, I saw this proposal only pick a couple of parks -Linda Vista or Jollyman or Memorial, or you know, Memorial Park. And, I ask what is the next step? If you want 6 months trial, what's the next step? And now I heard quite a few people from the support side of it saying eventually we want to have this dog, off leash dog area to be in every single park in the city. So, today we see so many people come forward protesting mainly from Linda Vista Park some of them, a few of them from Jollyman Park because they are named it. If we open up to all parks we're going to see 10-20 times people going to protest here and this is going to be you know a rather big issue. Just last week we received hundreds, more than 100 emails. I started with like, thank you, acknowledge, receive it and then I said forget it, I can't even do that. And I read them all. I really read every single one of them. I kind of ignore people who say it's going to hurt our property values. I kind of ignore that some of the reason that we all have to compromise, because we live in one community. I do smell, hear people's fear. People are really afraid of it. A lot of people. That's not something you can say forget it. You can't just say put a hand over there, they're not going to be afraid of a dog. It's not a fashion. This is something people really fear. Just like you talk to people who say they allergic to something, you say don't worry about it, just eat it. It's not going to kill you. So anyway, tonight we heard so many people you know giving their input so I want to respond to a couple, some them, you know like Harvey said they're new airlines start flying dogs and hotels and all that, but keep it in mind that they're not, the dog doesn't sit next to the passenger. They're separate. The hotel would not allow the dog to walk in the lobby off leash or sit next to the restaurants. So, that's a separate thing. ORRIN: If you could just tell me how you feel about these.... KRIS: And then people have a concern about noise. People have concern about traffic. People have concern about the smells and all that. People living next to parks, doesn't own the park. They actually suffer from the park because it's not their choice. The park built after they living in there and we often times, I'm on the Council 5-6 years and I've seen so many people so many 4 times the neighbor comes forward to complain, especially at Memorial Park. They complain about the noises, when you have an event over there. People complain about the little league, or soccer, or something they start so early so that's why the City, the Council has set the rules out there that any of the park users or the sports cannot start before 8 or 9:00 because you got to give this neighborhood a quiet morning, especially on the weekend. Or we set a rule, say construction cannot start before 8:00, 9:00 on the weekends because people need the time to sleep in. You can't say well because the morning 5-8:00 a.m. nobody use the park let a dog to bark and let it run around. That affects other people's lives. I just want to make sure people you know need to look from other people's side and see you knout this is going to impact. It doesn't mean that living next to the park so the park has to be utili~:ed 24 hours. They give them some break time. And also I want to say that all the parks were built before they even realized this issue. The park was built for the people, they run, they walk, they jog, the children they go to the playground, the sport they go to practice, or you know, the gathering for picnic, that kind of thing. So, the most of the park, Linda Vista Park, Jollyman Park, or it's pretty packed in the prime time. I don't think there you know you take it away, it's just like the one young lady here saying you take it away the space, you take it away the amenities that we built it in and that's when we build a brand new park. That's why I suggest and I fully support that if we can work with the county and look at the site in the county in the Stevens Creek Park, th~it would be a permanent solution, along-term solution and that way we don't need to worry about you know the people who are afraid or get bit or something and we won't impact because once you give it away the space or people fear the dog, you're going to stop using it, you basically, j ust you know, take it away the people's right to the dogs. I don't want people to label those people who are not supporting the dogs to you don't have loving hearts, you just dislike dogs or sorr.ething that you're just afraid of a dog. We're talking about 1000 dogs in the city, we're also t~rlking about 55,000 people living in the city. I mean the ratio, we want to give everybody their right or we're trying to fulfill all the requests but you know the parties is just not that strong at thi:~ point to me. I also want to ask my colleagues what this purpose, Mark especially, you want you encourage to go for the trial, what's the end of the trial? If we know that you know this going to affect people's lives, those people are still going to be fear have the fear, going to be afraici and this trial, we have to take responsibility. What's the end we're expecting? If we said, oh nothing happened, nobody get bit and nobody complained then we're going to permanent put that site to be the unfenced off leash park like Linda Vista. Is that what we're trying to do? If it's not, and then you tell those people potentially Linda Vista Park is going to be unfenced off leash park and that's where we're going to need to tell them. We can't just say well only 9 months and then let's talk about it after 9 months, that's not responsible, that's total unresponsible for what we're doing here. And then I know something I going to probably miss some of the points, buy: I just want to say that I appreciate all people work hard and I have to say you know please I beg all this off leash park advocates please, I beg, really strongly, I just know that so many people ~rre afraid of dogs and are afraid to have this in their life. I just have this defense I just have to stand up for them. That you know respect them and you know just understand their fear and if vie can think about that and everybody suffer a little bit, there's no way that people can all walk to one dog park in the city. If you use only a small group of people can walk to and most people have to drive over there, you may as well everybody drive to the county park. What's wr~~ng with that? Unless you can you can really make the entire city park have a little area for the dog park, which is I don't believe that's going to happen. You're going to see more protestors coming in. I don't think that's going to happen so you wanted my answer. 5 ORRIN: Yes. KRIS: You getting it, taking the notes now. ORRIN: Okay, on the rules. KRIS: On the rules. ORRIN: If we have off leash are you okay with those rules? KRIS: I don't think it's urgent at this point because you know my position. I support B. I don't support C. I don't either support D. ORRIN: Okay, fair enough. Gilbert. GILBERT: As you know in the last Council meeting unfortunately, I had food poisoning so I wasn't able to participate so none of my Council colleagues, staff, or the public didn't really know my views. First I want to say thank you to staff, both Mark Linder and Julia. This is something that the City Council asked you to do, you didn't volunteer, this is part of your job and I know this is a very tough job. I've seen a lot of land use going through the Planning Commission where Steve Piasecki even his staff went through a lot and I think that, also thinking the citizens group on both sides, it's really hard on staff. And I think that this is a very hard issue and I think we have to say thank you to our staff for doing a good job and trying to represent both sides. Thank you. So, in regards to that, one of the reasons why I moved to Cupertino was not because of the education. I came here about in 1990 and the reason why I moved here is because my parents had a rental house and that time I had a very small dog, it was a pug and I was living in an apartment and it wasn't really feasible for the dog and I to stay there because I wanted to walk the dog. We had a 3-bedroom 1-bathroom house in north Cupertino and it had a very large backyard and that's sufficed for me. Yes, there's beautiful hills here in Cupertino and education but the reason why I moved to Cupertino was because I had a large house and I was able to use my parent's place. Now, did I ever have a chance to walk my pug to a public park and I didn't really have to because the neighborhood that I lived in off of Homestead Road on Barranca had very wide streets and that was enough for me and my dog to walk around. I think as I lived longer, I eventually got married, had 2 kids, my younger daughter had a chance to meet my dog, but my wife was very scared of the dog and every person has a different reaction to dogs. Even when I was a young child, I was also chased by a dog when I was walking to school and I was almost bitten so I can really respect both sides about the fear of having a dog and also that some people get over it and some people will not get over the fear of a dog or any pet or whatever fears that he may have. But one thing about Cupertino is that we are a very inclusive community in that maybe we come here for the education, or we come here for the open space to live in the hills area or because of you work in some of our good companies that we have here including Apple and HP. So, we should not, I think that this is democracy at work where you can have both groups coming together. We can have survey after survey saying you know this side this way, that side that way but I think that it's really important that we make a decision tonight vs. prolonging this issue and then we'll just get more and more divisive. So to answer some of 6 the staff recommendations, I'll start with the easy ones. I think that yes, I think that we should have a committee in regards to studying the Stevens Creek County Park area. My only concern about that is that it's a little bit of a distance outside the city. I prefer to see something that's inside the city. I think that both groups is not real''.y opposed to a fenced in dog park, it's just that how can we find the right location. Okay. I hf;ard people that would like to have it in the neighborhood parks and people that don't want it in the neighborhood parks. And one thing that staff didn't say or even my colleagues up here didn't say, is that listening outside the box and having it outside the neighborhood park. I'm going to suggest one particular area which I hope the citizens group as well as staff can take seriou:~ly. I'm not sure I'm going to have any support up here, but maybe you can help me with my colleagues up on the Council is that I have tossed this area before, is that there is an area north of the Oaks Shopping Center on Mary Ave across the street from Memorial Park. This area was proposed for housing. It was defeated because a lot of folks opposed housing, there is plenty of parking on Mary Ave, you would not have to remove the parking, it is belongs to the Caltrans right of way and I think that it can easily fit a medium sized dog park. You are separated by 3 lanes, M~uy Ave from the Glenwood Apts. you're close to Memorial Park but you're not impacting Memorial Park. And I think that if that location doesn't work, I'm just trying to think outside the lox and think outside of the neighborhood park because I heard a lot of concerns about it and I think that we should strongly consider that. So, yes on Stevens creek County Park and I hope that the citizens group can also consider the Mary Avenue area as well too. There was a lot of pa;~sion regarding the Linda Vista Park. Again I support a fenced in park area but I don't think that Linda Vista is going to work so that's a no. Now for the harder issues is that, I do support you know, a trial period, for off leash areas, but I think that we need to work with staff and work with the citizens of Cupertino. I think that we should not impact one particular park area and there's been suggestions made by staff, but I think that it needs you know, let's see how we can, there's other suggestions, like councilmember Santoro suggested the blue tag program to kind of mitigate some of those concerns. Other than that, I think that would wrap it up because it's getting pretty late and we still have other agenda items to cover. ORRIN: So you were on Linda Vista, you were a no. Okay. GILBERT: And good on the rules. ORRIN: Okay. Dolly. DOLLY: Thanks. Julia and Mark, can you give me a little clarification, a little bit more. In terms of a trial period, is that occurring the same time as the group that's going around talking to the neighborhood and taking a survey? Or separate these items for me, or give me the timeline. Roughly. JULIA: What we said in the staff report was from the citizen's group recommendation for doing a 6-month trial that staff would recommend that ai'ter neighborhood support has been gathered by the citizen group. So, since that step in the process is still to be obtained, we need to have that done by the citizen group before we can commence a 6-month trial. DOLLY: And you're suggesting that to occur only in the Memorial and Jollyman park areas at this point? Well, that's how the recommendation came to us at least. JULIA: That's how the recommendation came to you. DOLLY: Okay. Thank you. I'm yes on the rules. I think we need to have rules. I, like Mark, would probably change one or two or have a tendency to wordsmith to tighten them up but I'm okay with them going forward as they are. I'm absolutely yes on Stevens Creek. I think I've been a huge proponent of continuing to explore that option over the last few years. I am torn on Linda Vista not because of the area itself, but because originally, I don't have a dog. I have fish. Fish take a particular amount of space if you know anything about fish and you've got to have them in there and as they grow I've had to get bigger tanks. And, what I originally thought with a fenced area is that that would be good because you've got dogs contained in a particular public place. And of course the more I thought and talked to neighbors the more of course I heard about we want fenced dog parks too, but not in my particular park. And so, I am in favor of exploring an off leash unfenced option as this goes forward in Linda Vista as well as the Memorial Park and Jollyman Park areas. I think there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed on the front end of the exploration survey that you're going to continue with if you get the votes here. while I would love to say we would love to accommodate people who have to go to work so that they can run their dogs early in the morning frankly I am not thrilled at all frankly by the idea of having off leash areas start at 5:00 a.m. for a number of issues. And so I think we have a 7:00 a.m. start time on major businesses that's what I would propose the committee look at the earliest to starting any off leash hours. I think we absolutely have to have dogs, have a true effort to license more dogs in this city and I would suggest that that little dog license, that tag, be clearly identifiable to people close by, that it be, I think the color was blue mentioned, I could, blue's a nice color, I love blue. I think if you tie it more into our logo, the morion helmet then it kind of brings the idea that this is a City of Cupertino item. But I would also ask that the committee and my colleagues here consider tags on people too and I don't mean that in a funny way, but if you're a dog owner and you're in an off leash area, somebody asked earlier how do you know which dog goes to which owner. Well, you may not know that specifically but you'll know who are the dog owners that are bringing their dogs to the off leash area. You know we do this with CERT and our Block Leaders. We have a mechanism to take pictures of people. Maybe you take a picture of the dog and the person has to wear that tag when they're taking their dogs to the off leash area if we get that far. So those are a couple of ideas that I think might help suffice matching up problem dogs with problem adults or something of that nature and maybe calm some of the fears of not being able to identify which dogs are belonging to what neighbors. I think education is a huge effort that we need to indulge in with our without going forward with any unleashed off leashed areas and I believe I've answered all your questions that you want to hear about Mr. Mayor. ORRIN: Okay, so let me ask staff a couple of questions before I weigh in. I'm weighing in with, so let me go through that first. So, I'm okay with the rules, sounds like we're all going to be good on that. I'm okay with following up on Stevens Creek Park and I'm okay with pursuing unfenced off leash in multiple parks with some kind of blue tag thing. So I think we've got enough traction on those 3 things. The issue on the fenced, I mean having said that, that's where I am now, that's definitely not where, like a lot of people where we started. You know so 8 obvious at the beginning that fenced was going to be better, you know it's safer and all that. The reason I've, the arguments against the unfenced area, the biggest arguments that I heard were people are doing it anyway and that's bad so we shouldn't control it which is what we're trying to do. What we're trying to do is kind of corral some behavior that's already going on, right or wrong. And saying that if we limit it to a certai~i hour a few hours a day, at least in the other hours we can expect better behavior. We'll see acid that's what the trial's going to be about. But the idea is if you know that those are the hours when something that you don't want to be involved with is going to be there then you know that it's not going to be there, where as now it can be anytime of the day is what I'm hearing. ['m coming to it with that sort of practicality. There's an analogy that I don't want to use about ciriver's licenses. DOLLY: Don't use it. ORRIN: Don't do it. But in this case I think w~;'re going to get overall better behavior and I think people are going to feel better about it. That's how I feel about it. So going into the fenced thing. The out of the box thing is kind of interesti~ig. And I can think of places but they wouldn't be long-term places. There are a number of projects that we've approved in big old empty areas. Main Street Cupertino is a big area you know and it's going to take a while for that to be built and if we wanted to try something but the problem is if it was successful what do we do. Turn the square into the dog park so you know I don't know what that would buy us. I think you've got to have something that if the trial is successful you know what the next step is. If you go oh this is successful but they're building it and no~v what do we do, so that's where I think the Stevens Creek may be our best test case for that. So having said that I think I'm ready for some motions. SURVEY KRIS: What about Dolly asked a question earlier and since you didn't answer that, before you put the trial start you have to get the neighborhood support, right? You have to obtain that support. ORRIN: Yes and why don't we poll ourselves here like I asked Mark. What does that mean? Because Mark said that means about 50%. GILBERT: Can I ask a question of Mr. Linder. I:c that when you said that doing the outreach for these parks that we're picking, what is the proces:~ for doing the outreach that you envision? I'm not holding that to you. CINDER: Let me sit down and work with our citizens group and if you want us to go with the proposal of having a smaller group self-selected by the others we could to that and then we work out a strategy for that. It's going to have to be face to face conversation, possible community meetings in the immediate area, lots of notification using the Block Leader network, but I think the only way that I would be satisfied is I have a pretty good face to face information, legitimate 9 information that this is the number of people who are supporting. I think that we've heard a number of people lay out ways to do that tonight and I think we can build on those. ORRIN: What's in your mind a reasonable hurdle? You're not going to get 100%. CINDER: I'd like to get over 50. ORRIN: Okay. KRIS: No, but I think that's something Council can set. CINDER: I agree. ORRIN: That's what we're talking about. KRIS: Right, I understand that, so I would be fair, I would suggest that we do a either a 1/2 mile or 1/3 mile, 1/4 mile you know radius in every single neighborhood around that park, like Linda Vista Park and see how many support you get from there. ORRIN: I think, so here's my view of that. There are two different constituencies. There's the park users that may you know you saw the one map there where they lived all over the place, they were kind of grouped as you would expect them to be in neighborhood parks. So, I think you need a method for surveying park users. KRIS: Right, all of the park users going to say yes, go over there and they all come to that park and says yes here, to Linda Vista. Everybody goes to Linda vista be the users and says yes, because that's not their backyard and then that won't be fair, right? They're the ones that suffer with the noise, the traffic and all that. ORRIN: Let me finish. There's two things. On the park users you want a view of them because no matter where they live so they're not. KRIS: Oh, they can randomly pop in, I mean they can come from Florida and be a park user. ORRIN: But the park user is not going to be worried about noise in general, I mean they're going to be worried about other things. Then there's the neighbors, the immediate neighbors and I don't think that's a 1/2 mile away. If something's a 1/2 mile away and they don't use the park. KRIS: Well, they can give an opinion on it. ORRIN: We don't want to hear their opinion. If they're a 1/2 mile away and they don't use the park, what value is their opinion? KRIS: How do you determine they are regular park users? I think that would be my question. You tell me how do you [do that]. 10 MARK: I think Kris has a valid point with that one and the point is really if, well really, the question is a traffic question. If you think you're going to generate traffic then how far away do you look? I think you should look more than cer~:ainly the people touching the park, I think you should go a reasonable distance away, but I also think you need to do the people who use it. KRIS: Because what you're saying... MARK: I agree those are the two most important people but I think a little further away then. ORRIN: And I think that's fine. KRIS: The idea is to extend the park area in every single city park then you should not go with users because that's impact every single park neighborhood and traffic issue would be gone if eventually every single park city park has the dog area, then why you care about traffic? Traffic's not going to be there. Noise is the one that's going to stay there. ORRIN: No, I agree that's why the neighbors have a high, but not a 1/2 a mile away. DOLLY: I think I understand your point about wanting to talk to the actual users of the park now are you talking about organized users or. ORRIN: Random sample, like some people have done. Are you saying we don't care about the users? KRIS: I do care about it I'm just saying it's really hard to determine whether this is a regular park user or a onetime park user only. DOLLY: How often do you come to the park? KRIS: Who's going to do the survey? ORRIN: Let's not create the survey. Do we feel comfortable because we have to send them off with some criteria? KRIS: I think it's immediately neighbors is important, right? 1/4 mile or 1/3 mile, it's important because they're the direct impact. Most likely they are the park users, they go there to jogging, they go walking, they are the park users. ORRIN: So we definitely want the neighbors, riglrt? Is a 1/4 of a mile reasonable? KRIS: From the park and not the area. MARK: Well, from the cell phone tower to I think we made it 1000 feet so that should be at least. KRIS: 1000's not far enough because usually the :parking. 11 MARK: 1 /2 mile. You said 1 /4 mile. KRIS: Let it be a 1/2 mile. DOLLY: A 1000 feet from the boundary of a park and that way you're not counting the boundary of the parking lot. It's the same thing we do for any major development. 10 houses deep. That's pretty deep. ORRIN: You don't hear anything, you don't see anything, you don't smell anything. KRIS: But the reason I said to go farther is because you cover more park user. Park people. DOLLY: That's why Orrin brought up the idea of actually surveying people who use the park because then you get the people who live further than 1000 feet. If we're going to take action on before we all melt into our chairs incoherently, then let me ask us to take an action on this and ask staff to bring us back some criteria to help guide us because writing criteria at 1:50 in the morning is not us at our best. ORRIN: I wanted a general feel. DOLLY: I'm not sure you're going to get a general feel. ORRIN: Then let's have a motion. KRIS: Wait, wait. So we're not going to do anything until we receive staff's recommendation and the criteria and then we're going to go from there the neighborhood support has to be obtained and before the trial even starts. ORRIN: We can have it come back. The group will create some criteria we can stamp, discuss, change it, and then they'll use that criteria to go do the work and come back with the result. KRIS: Wait a minute. We're not going to decide. We're not even going to review it? DOLLY: I think it depends on the motion that Mark is about to make. GILBERT: Let's listen to the motion first. MOTION MARK: - I motion that, let's see, that we approve the A, whatever it's called, the list outcome A. DOLLY: The rules list. MARK: Adopt the rules A. 12 ORRIN: Okay. MARK: That we also adopt B, even though in addition to B that an alternate site be looked for because there is a six dollar parking fee at the county park and it's a bit of a drive so I agree with Gilbert that we continue to look for an alternate fenced dog site out of the box, as it were, that we have the staff initiate a neighborhood survey for the following four areas: Jollyman, Linda Vista, Memorial Park and library field; and that that ;search they can adapt the parameters but our recommended parameters are initially that 50% of the people that they survey agree, that they survey 1000 feet away from the park in all directions and 30 days of park users. Also that we require blue tags for both dogs and people to use the unfenced areas, that we have staff look into also increasing the sheriffs or code enforcement to patrol the areas and that they put together an education program. I think we should include things like TV ads on the Cupertino channel and things to inform people what they are doing - si~;nage and information given out to everybody who applies for a blue tag. ORRIN: Anybody want to second that? MARK: Did I miss anything? DOLLY: Second. KRIS: Can I make a friendly amendment to ext~:nd the 1000 to 2000, please? Please? 2000? That's how far people goes to parks. People goes to parks. Please. That's how far people go to parks. ORRIN: We are going to survey people. KRIS: I know still. Just extend it a little more. Just extend it a little more. So more people are aware of it. Not, it's just near, you know. Shhhh. DOLLY: Excuse me, excuse me audience members, thank you. KRIS: It's not just the immediately 7-8-10 houses far. Because you know that if you live close by park, 20 houses, 30 houses far you still go. DOLLY: I'll split the difference at 1500. How's that? How's that? KRIS: I'll take it. DOLLY: There you go. KRIS: There we go. DOLLY: Deal. 13 ORRIN: Can you accept that? MARK: You guys can accept that? Alright, fine. ORRIN: Okay. Any further discussion? GILBERT: Even when we do, I'm sorry, if when we do the survey, citizens does have the right since we are notifying that we are looking at four different parks that if they didn't get the survey they can always write an email or letter to City Hall voicing their concerns as well, too, right? DOLLY: They can walk in the park and get a survey. GILBERT: Exactly. KRIS: I was just going to say why can't we do even beyond that, is what Gilbert said, look outside the box and maybe we'll look even more park, not just this four, find another 2, 4. ORRIN: They already did a lot of work. GILBERT: So, Kris, do you have a suggestion of more parks that you want to... KRIS: Well, Wilson Park? It's pretty big. ORRIN: They already did all of the work on this. DOLLY: I think the reason why they came up with that list of parks is because the other parks are more programmed in, maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but one of the first questions I asked was how did you get to the assessment of just putting forward these parks for us to discuss this evening and part of it is baseball, soccer schedules, T-ball. KRIS: Well, every park has that. Jollyman Park has a lot of baseball, soccer and all that. Creekside would be a good one, how come they don't look into Creekside? You know. MARK: I think they looked into all of them. Those would not have been my four picks, personally, but since those are the ones that seemed to be leading from the community, that's why I picked those four. They wouldn't have been my, I spent a lot of time looking at our parks, way more time than I ever spent in parks in my life and I would not have picked those four, but the community seemed to pick those four. KRIS: Well, I'm with you because I was shocked to those four parks. They are so close to neighborhood, like Creekside or Wilson, actually is not that close to it so I was really surprised that those two parks didn't get picked. MARK: I don't know why. DOLLY: I'd like to call the question. 14 ORRIN: I think we are ready to vote. AUDIENCE: Are you sure you guys don't want some input on why these parks were picked? DOLLY: Positive. ORRIN: We're sure. AUDIENCE: Can I have a quick ... ORRIN: No, you cannot. Okay. Are we ready to rote? DOLLY: Yes. ORRIN: Okay. It's passed. DOLLY: Okay. ORRIN: Thank you all. 15 CC `~-~~ y ~ ~~ Linda Lagergren From: Tracy Chang [tracy@achronix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:23 PM To: City Council Subject: Unleashed dog parks Regarding unleashed dog in park; am a dog lover myself, however, I found this is unbelievable unfriendly to public. No dog should be unleashed except it is inside of owners' housE~ or back yard and this is to respect general public. No one should feel uncomfortable or scared while he/she is in the public: area especially a park. Regards, Tracy Chang Accounting Manager Achronix Semiconductor Corp. 333 W. San Carlos Street #1050 San Jose, CA 95110 Tele: 408-889-4104 Fax: 408-286-3645 Skype:tracy.chang.office ~ ~~~ Linda Lagergren From: Denise de Harne [ddeharne@yahoa.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:29 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Support for OLAs Dear Mayor Mahoney, I support the process that the city council enacted to study this issue and the actions the city council has taken to proceed with off leash area trials. My family lives outside 15.00' of the trial parks and will not be able to express our opinion in the survey. Our 15 year old dog died recently. Our neighborhood walks often included a walk through Memorial Park. Thank you for your support of the process and the OLA trial period. Sincerely, Denise de Harne 20832 Dunbar Drive c~c. q ~, (a`7 ~~ ~~ y Linda Lagergren From: De Carli, Jan [JDeCarli@cbnorcal.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:38 AI~I To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; m:;antoro@cupertio.org; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; manager@cupertio.org; Mark Linder Subject: WE OPPOSE OLA'S IN OUR PARFCS We oppose OLA'S for the following reasons: 1. DOG EXCREMEIVTIS DEFINITELY NOT SANITARY TO OUR CHILDREN 2. SOME DOGS ARE NOT SAFE TO BE AROUND CHILDREN (IF UNLEASED DOGS WERE IN A FIGHT SOMEONE CAN GET HURT) 3. ARE YOU PREPARED TO TELL US THAT THERE IS NO COST TO A L~4 fi :5'1 ~77'FOR SOMEONE BEING BITTEN? 4. I DO NOT WANT OUR VERY PRISTINE CITY'TO HAVE EXPENSIVE LAWSUITS FOR THIS FRIVILOUS, UNNECESSARY IDEA 5. OUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT FOR THESE BEAUTIFUL PARKS WERE NOT INTENTED TO ACCOMMODATE PETS..... JUST HUMANS 6. WE COULD END UP WITH MORE DOGS TH~-N HUMAN IN OUR PARKS We want you to CLEAR UP THE CONGESTION ON BUBB ROAD during the school year We have NOT had a huge increase in the number of homers in our bubb road area in the over 30 years that I have lived here. Yet.......we have 1 child per automobile being dropped off at schools. This Creates a 15 to 20 minute backlog of autos to get from Regnart Road to McClellan.....less than one mile..... SOLUTIONS: 1. A SCHOOL BUS PICKING UP AND DROPPING: OFF AT RAINBOW AND STEELING 2. DROP OFF POINTS AT REGNART AND LIND~~ AND SOME OTHER SUCH POINTS SO THAT AUTOS ARE DIVERTED FROM BUBB. 3. YOU MUST STOP THE 1 CAR PER CHILD.....V~'HAT EVER HAPPENED TO CAR POOLING AND BUSES...? WE WILL MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO VOTE YOU OUT UNTIL WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT REALLY REPRESENTS OUR INTERESTS. MOST CORDIALLY, ,~AN~ iLA2~GI 1164 01 ~ E ~ NA ~' ~A ~ 1 / rYO N ~D 2 ~ , 252.9125 ~SI~ENI'SINCYE 1972 B~,vc~ ~o~~~c 1111 T 1;INtDA ~IS~A 2S7 4584 ~SI~D2',~V~Z'SINCYE 1971 Linda Lagergren From: Jena schmalenbach [Iena0303@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 10:54 AIVI To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Off-leash dogs I have lived in Cupertino for over 40 years and would really welcome an opportunity to let my 2 small dogs run free in our parks. I would encourage the City Council not to vote against having off-leash dogs in Cupertino Parks, but to consider having them in a FENCED area with aseparation -- one for small dogs and one for large dogs. I am in agreement that not having a fenced area is a bad idea. Too many people cannot voice control their animals. But I strongly believe that we should have fenced off-leash areas in one or more of our parks. Lena Schmalenbach L~ ~-r-~y ~yti ~ r 9 Linda Lagergren From: James Sr John W [johnejames@m~~.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:24 AIVI To: Kris Wang; Orrin Mahoney Cc: Gilbert Wong; Santoro Mark Santoro; Dolly Sandoval Subject: In Favor of Dog Parks I am in favor of an off leash dog park. I feel the dog owners will police themselves and control their dogs. Knowing that if they don't they might loose they privilege. John James ~~ ~' Linda Lagergren From: Heather Taylor [heathertayl@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:43 PPJI To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mirk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: OLA Trial - Please oppose Dear City Council, My name is Heather Taylor-Miesle. I live with my husband and two small children (Isaiah, age 6 & Elia, age 2) directly across from the library and City Hall at 10281 Torre Avenue, Unit 814. When I was my son's age, I was attacked near my home by an off-leash dog. The dog, one I had played with on several prior occasions, attacked me in full view of its owner. The owner was a family friend and had trained the dog (a mutt) so no one ever thought that there was any danger. Today, I bear the scars (both physically and mentally) of that attack. That attack has changed how I live my life. I never went around dogs after the attack. We lived on a farm so trying to avoid our own dogs Haas difficult but I seemed to do it. After the kids were born, I learned to control my fear a bit better since I didn't want to pass my uneasiness onto them. My daughter, Elia is especially fond of dogs so I allow them to pet leashed dogs after I have asked the owner's permission. That being said, allowing unleashed dogs to run free will greatly change our lifestyle. Right now, we take full advantage of Cupertino - you can often find me and my kids at the fountain in the library courtyard or in library field flying a kite. I taught my son to ride his bike in that field and had hoped to do the same with my daughter in a few years. You can find Isaiah and me walking to school each day (hey just started 1st grade and goes to Eaton) and my entire family riding bikes most evening. On Fridays, we always walk to the Red Mango to celebrate the end of the week and we frequent Memorial Park on a regular basis for picnics and play. I work from home most days so you can probably walk out of city hall right now and see me on my porch with my laptop. I can't imagine doing that if I know that there are dogs - who I do not know and are not on a leash - nearby. If Cupertino decides to do fenced areas for off-leash dogs, that is fine with me. I am fully supportive of giving dogs and opportunity to run and socialize. However, by allowing them to run free in unfenced areas, you are putting my family at risk and limiting where we will be able to go in Cupertino. Although you may have great judgment when it comes to your pet, others do not. They will hope and pray that their dog is well-behaved but there are never assurances, as seen by my personal story. I will not vote for anyone who votes for this trial or its ultimate implementation. In fact, I will show my scares and do all in my power to tell my story to everyone who will listen if this progresses any further. I feel passionately that my children's safety is at risk. I welcome the opportunity to talk to all of you. This is a very important issue to me. Sincerely, Heather Taylor-Miesle ~~ ~ ~~~ Linda Lagergren From: jclin@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:14 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: opposing off-leash area trials in Cut~ertino parks Dear Mayor and councilman, like to voice my opposition to trials for OLAs (off-lea:~h areas) voted on 7/21/2009. I live near by Linda Vista Park and I walk my dog in the park with IE~ash. I want to be able to continue to go to the park without I or my dog feeling being threatened by ether dogs. Please reconsider the decision on trials for OLAs. Thanks and best regards, Jing Lin GG 9~~~~~i „u ~ ~ `l Linda Laaeraren From: Bob Colloton [bcolloton@micruscorp.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 1:34 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: OFF LEASH DEBATE Orrin, as a 20 year member of the Cupertino community I am appalled at the negative tactics the anti-off leash supporters are using. It seems as if they feel they are losing and have now turned the debate tc threat and innuendo. We received a flyer in our mailbox, the back page of which had these ~auotes: Tell the City Council you OPPOSE OLAs in our parks (their caps') Defeat the trial survey Vote 'em Out (you and Sandy cited in this paragraph) They use words as "incompatible" and "unfriendly"; "AGAINST", "sn•ong opposition" and more. It conflicts the community and togetherness that we animal owners feel - we have been brought toget}~er by the "puppy parties" far more than school activities or other community forums have done. I hope you see and understand the fundamentals the anti - OLA supporters feel -which are restriction, avoidance, cancellation and elimination -are precisely the fundamentals that divide us as a community. Please maintain support of the positive, community building yet community sensitive OLA approach being considered today. Thanks for your attention. Bob Colloton 408-865-0193 Cc~ a -l -c~`~ c..~-t-ct,~ f~l ~1 Linda Lagergren From: Judy [judyandwes@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 3:25 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Dog Issue at 9/1/09 Council Mtg. Attachments: Letter to Council Members-Dog Iss~ae.doc Dear Council Members, This letter is to urge you to RECONSIDER your vote on the dog proposal and to vote against having unfenced/unleashed dog areas in our neighborhood parks. That idea would create a very unsafe/unhealthy environment for anyone wishing to use our parks. Our neighborhood parks are MULTI-USE PARKS, not just for dogs! It's not fair that everyone else must "stay away from the parks" when it's time for the off-leash dog hours, just so that they don't get attacked by the dogs! People who want to practice golf, shooting or archery must go to special places for those activities. (They're not allowed in our public parl~:s.) What's different about dogs? All dog owners can take their LEASHED dogs to every city park to enjoy the facilities. The dog owners have two very nice/fenced-in dog parks to use, both of vvhich are located less than 4 miles from City Hall: Las Palmas Dog Park (Sunnyvale) and Saratoga Creek Dog Park (San Jose). Plans are under way now for a large, fenced-in dog park at Stevens Creek Count;/ Park, JUST FOR DOGS! As taxpayers who are paying for all of these amenities, we strongly urge you to reconsider and vote AGAINST the dog proposal at the 9/1/09 Council Mtg. Respectfully, Judy Harrison GG- ~-I-l1y Linda Lagergren From: Robert Kroeger [kroeger57@yahoo.comj Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 4:58 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: Upcoming election Mayor Mahoney and Council Member Mark Santoro, In a previous email, I suggested you put the OLA in Cupertino parks on the ballot. I still believe this would be the best thing you could do to halt the divisiveness of the i.>sue and for your own benefit. I would hope you have noticed the ground swell of support against OLAs in ~~ur parks. I voted for both of you in the past, but due to your support for OLAs and especially the way the issue was proposed and voted on completely ignoring the work of the committee, I will not vote for you in the upcoming election and I will do everything I can to convince my neighbors to do the same. Sincerely, Robert Kroeger ~~ ~ Linda Lagergren From: Debi Chessen [auntiebee7@yahoo.com) Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:27 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Gilbert'iNong; Dolly Sandoval Subject: Fw: dog park: Do not bend to- Misleading flyers & Scare Tactics Attachments: Support facts_Aug26, 2009.pdf Honorable Council Leaders, No citizen, or groups, should in any way be encouraged. to threaten council members for their stand, nor any council leader decision succumb to, or encourage, <<ny such threats. In fact we look to the council to reject any segregation groups that use fear as their only process and argument • Please continue to support a'FAIR TRIAL' so vve can collectively take a decision based only on FACTS • On July 21st Council took a unanimous decision for surveying a 6 month trial for off leash dogs. A team was put in place consisting of 3 participants from each side, i.e. the citizens group • It is becoming more and more apparent that the statements, made by the opponents, inside weekly meetings, are totally contrary to the action they dirc;ctly take once outside. This shows a total disrespect to the whole process and guidelines • The opponents have distributed vicious and misleading flyer's that are based on one aspect alone - FEAR • Fear is a strong emotion and we look forward to the council not bending to their fear tactics. • The opponent flyer's have clear council member names, with directives, threats and segregation advice, they hope will instill fear in the readers and council members • We have council members who are apparently not :in total support of this unleash process, but that is an absolutely acceptable democratic 'bell-curve process. We do not think it appropriate that any citizen must threaten a council member because of their st;~nd -that is our democratic process We look forward to your leadership Best regards The Chessen Family ---------------------------UNQUOTE -------------------------------------- Council member emails marklCa~cupertino.orR julial@cupertino.org omahonev(~cuoertino.ore kwan~@cupertino.org ~won~@cupertino.orR m sa ntorO~il CU pefLlnO.Or(; dsandoval@cupertino.or~ citvcou ncil@cu perti no.orR Great decisions comes ,_,~~. FAIR TRIAL JUDGEMENTS History has proven that judgments without a fair trial are mostly erroneous www.cupertinodogs.com DOGS HELP HUMANS From all terrors Rescue in buildings Q Rescue in fires Q Hunt and find thieves Q Sniff for explosives Sniff for Drugs Q Help blind people Q Help assistance people Q Be friends to families Q Win medals for Bravery Q Doqs risk their lives for us limination of random events and lacin them into a fixed ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ bil SEPT 7, THE C/TY W/LL POST A SURVEY TO YOUR FA I R J U D G E M E N T ALL RES/DENTS W/TH/N 1,500 ~~EET FROM SELECTED PARKS MATTER 5 Off-leash dogs -Fixed Time & Place' only JUDGE ONLY AFTER A FAIR TRIAL Fact is Dogs help soldiers In the Vietnam war alone over io,ooo veteran lives were saved by dogs. The war on terror- dogs; War on ~ ~ „ drugs- dogs; War ontheft-dogs. Is there any war in which we don't have sergeant dog on our side. They even get med- als ofhonor Fact z: Doas save lives In 7/ii the first life-savors to go into ground zero were dogs. In Oklahoma dogs again were sent to track people trapped. Buildings, ava- lanchesand other situations Have accompanied soldiers, campers, house residents to ~~lert against imminent at- tacksand threats. It would not t>e untrue to state that daily F~undreds of lives are saved t~ecause of an action of a dog Fact 4: Hidden Jewels f~ssistance dogs help blind ~~eople lead normal lives, and keep humans with special disabilities away from harm. l'herapy dogs give company to seniors. Recently autistic children have started special reliance on trained dogs to pro- tectthem from danger to their lives. While dogs assist patents to take medica- tions intime by altering pat- ents. This list can go on an on but the facts remain that dogs are mans best friends. That in- cludeswomen too. The question before us is one concerning • Due Process • Fair Trail • Fact based decisions Vote for a fair Trial Don't judging 'marls best friend' without a f air trial Throughout history we have had manyjudgments that have been taken due to the color of a person, tainted evidence, or strong opinions of a group of people who either had the maximum power orthe loudest voice. Everyday we read of stories where people after years of imprisonment are released due to new evidence. daily call on dogs to save lives. Fact 3: Human Safety F"rom time immemorial dogs Dog saves man in ti'heelchair from fire .. ~ Ccnver nGG I~r.15 ExOfltln Z. l'he singular attribute ,both of the initial wrong conviction and the judgment to release is -empirical fads. On the other hundreds of parks that for the last io years have had no instance to back the alarmist stories. ~;o now the ball is in your court. THE CHOICE BEFORE YOU 1'ou get to be a part of a de- rnocratic process. Un one side of the scale you F~ave alarmist stories and fear rnongering. They are designed to be scary to influence you. i. Take decision without a fair trial judge and exe- cutioner without trial z. Let a fair trial guide my decisions safe enough to assistpatents The areas below are the planned areas that will be used for unfenced, off-leash dogs FAIR TRIAL PROCESS Fixed TIM! Fixed LOCATION Fixed PARK Fixed SUPlRV1810N Safe BLU! TAGS www.cupertinodogs.com Therapy Dogs Parks listed below were selected by the Cupertino Council as the trial ~ By defining a strict framework all users of pFU•k parks for the 'Unfenced- unleashed Dog TRIALS (Jul ~s,'og) Y Hero dogs do Magic use parks within predictable frameworks Z .Very much like during soccer times all users TRIALS will be approved by a ~ Memorial for Dogs MAJORITYACCEPTANCE by respondents know there is a soccer match. Same goes for DOgs Wjth iabs cricket or baseball MEMORIAL PARK LOCATION: The proposed location is close to the Park- ingand behind Quinlin center. It is away from the immediate parking so provides the normal traffic a relative dis- tance from the general park paths. It is away from the tennis courts and the picnic benches. TIME: Summer: gam to llama 7pm to 9PM Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm €;r i JOLLYMAN PARK (proposed) LOCATION: The proposed location is far frorn all activity areas in Jollyman park. It is away from the immediate parking, chil- dren's play area and walking paths. It has a natural boundary on three sides of fences and houses TIME: Summer: gam to llama 7pm to 9PM Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm ~, LINDA VISTA PARK (proposed) LOCATION: The proposed location is far from all activity areas and at the back of the Linda Vista park. III It is away from the immediate parking ,children's play area and walking paths. It has a natural bound- ary on three sides with fences and a hillside. ', TIME: 'i Summer: gam to 11am; 7pm to 9PM ICI Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm Therapy dogs cheer up sick children it cni'n?r3D [ a 1n~1~ .rl-~ilni ~~; N~ ii .~ ~i ... .. ei.._as ma<<an ba r3u,rw- 8a harry Jack,aa J~ rn_~ r~E ~,~ , a~.eo ti~ - _ . ~ . ..~,. , .. - r! LOUiS P„_i Gi-~~.fCh =o fa>c ~accd w m o--. tleg tl~ac n n -re-ari. ] n. _. ..,F a i,. r, i .; ,f . . to s[f3ti 1. ha. le(75 nlma5f i~i V'..eenf moc Pubhshed: October 23.200812:O1AM LIBRARY FIELD The proposed location is an open area that is currently used once a week for Cricket, and is scheduled for construction. However it is a potential site for the future and the trial It has lots of parking, has no play grounds and is scarcely used. It has a natural boundary of trees and roads and all times are before and after library times TIME Summer: lam to gam; Police dog saves pensioner's life Winter lam to 9am• • ^ °°""''°y''°' °`°"''°"°'"' ~ h.. nrf,.r „n„~ny ~ ,.,, (r. r.nnnnyl. ,.rn~:innnr wi.r. I.nA I.tinn inixsiny fnr ryrv.~.ral l.nnr~.. .r..l.. r~ .....V I.. '4~_F :,ICi Li~si Dog Sa~~r~s '~1<ul With Do~sn S~~ndrorne From \e~arh Fatal Scizuic~ :, .I ,,.~-,,,, .. c;-~ ~ -~ - G `i ~~~~ Linda Lagergren From: Nancy Chapman [nancy_ea_chaprrian@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:31 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Off-Leash Dogs in Cupertino Parks I just received a flyer stating that trials were to be conducted allowing dogs to run off leash in several unfenced Cupertino Parks. I hope that this; is not true. What a dangerous and stupid idea! This will ruin the use of those parks for all children. No responsible parent should allow their children in an area with free running dogs. E-ven the gentlest dog will bite if startled or frightened. I appreciate that dogs love to run and a fenced dog park might be something to consider, but please don't ruin our parks and city l/~y allowing dogs to run at will. Anyone who votes for this insane idea will not be receiving my vote in the future. Nancy Chapman 30 year resident. C~ ~ 7 ~~ -u~7 ~ ~~w Linda Lagergren From: Judy Klinger [jcholla@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:00 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: no off leash dogs in Cup Parks...fr J Klinger Dear Kris, I have been somewhat removed from the, no off leash dogs in Cup parks, due to family concerns that have taken me out of the area. I arri wondering what response you are continuing to hear from Cup residents in regard to off leash, unfenced in the parks? I assure you, we are very appreciative of your position against off leash unfenced dogs in Cup parks. So many residents continue to emerge, shocked by the position of the Council in regard to this matter. The lack of notification for the Memorial, Library Field and Linda Vista neighborhoods is unbelievable. In my estimation, the movement against the off leash unfenced dog lobby grows by leaps and bounds daily. Do continue in your quest to protect our parks, Your position is not unnoticed by the citizens of Cup! I really wonder what the rest of the Council is thinking? All they have to do is look at the cities in MA that have tried this maneuver. Cup deserves better than the MA debacle. with thanks, Judy Klinger 1 C% c- ~ -~ -~-y ~~ ~. Linda Lagergren From: Janie Morris [iloveebony@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:07 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: NO to unleashed dogs in our parks Dear Sir: We are totally opposed to any unleashed dogs in our neighborhood parks. Its NOT safe and is very dangerous to other dogs on leash, children and seniors. We use Jollyman park on a fairly regular basis walking our dog on leash. She is NEVER off leash and I cannot tell you how many dogs are already violating the law of keeping dogs ON le~lsh at all times. We have met several agressive dogs that were off leash with our dog on leash. I was VERY worried. I had to yell at one of the dog owners to come and get their dog as he was a german shephard and OFF leash, the owner said oh he wont hurt your dog, excuse me he was already showing signs of agression toward our dog, I had to yell at the man again to come get his dog!! HE reluctantly came and got his dog. WE are all for FENCE] areas for dogs but there is already insufficient enforcement in the parks with dogs already off leash! I love to walk our dog but do not appreciate those in violoation of the code of having theer unsafe dogs off leash.. We as a family have not been informed ~vhat so ever until we got the flyer on our front porch from Cupertino Safe Parks. Its SO unsafe to have dogs running all over and unleashed as MOS7~ of the dogs have not been properly trained for instant recall to avoid problems. The city is putting themselves in a bad position of law suits and who kno~~vs what else if people start getting bitten by dog who are agressive off leash! Please STOP and DO not go any further with this Unleashed dog in parks ideas. IT IS NOT SAFE at all. The Morris Family G C q~~"4~' Linda Lagergren From: Henna Bash [hennabash@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:02 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mirk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Cc: tcarney@community-newspapers.a~m; mwilson@community-newspapers.com; Itaaffe@community-newspapers.coim Subject: NO off-leash dogs in Cupertino parks! Importance: High Hi Sir/Madam, i am shocked by the news that the city of Cupertino will be allowing off-leash dogs in the Cupertino parks and has already started conducting trials in some of our parks!!! i live in the Hoover Park neighbourhood which is a quiet and lovely neighbourhood with lots of seniors, parents and kids walking everyday and playing in the park. I have clients coming home and feel that UNLEASHED DOGS will pose a huge treat to my clients! and children. I have 2 kids and they are afraid of hearing this news! So please, i kindly request you to stop encouraging this crazy crazy idea of letting dogs without leash in the public parks If you want, you can have one central area in Cupertino that can be fenced and used only as dog park by ALL the residents of Cupertino. I lived in Santa Clara opposite to a dog park a decade ago and i thought that was a reasonable way to have one location for the entire city, for people to bring tYieir dogs and have them play. But this idea made by the Cupertino council is ridiculous and unsafe for the Cupertino comrunity and neighbourhood. Please think before you act! Will you do that in your own neighbourhood park??? Don't you see the problems staring right on your face????!!!!! Thank You for reading and (hopefully) considering! Roopa Raman. c c~ g-l -v4 ~,_,.~c~ #- ~ 9 Linda Lagergren From: Virginia Puzar [vvpuzar@comcast.r~et] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:44 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Cc: Dolly Sandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Dog Parks think it's a great idea to have an area where dog owners can IE~t their dogs off leash. Appropriate hours can be set up by the council. I do not have a dog; however I do believe that most dog owners are very responsible. Linda Vista is not a park that I visit. I attend Memorial Park on occasion and there is plenty of room to set aside an area for dogs. Now, the Library Field is another matter I'm very familiar as to what goes on. Children do not use the field for playing there are a couple of joggers that jog around the perimeter once in a while. It is used for soccer, cricket and freebee games (although I haven't seen any lunch games this year). I really don't know what it meant by "insufficient enforcement of violations". Nothing has been decided and already a group is stating there are violators. I am for allowing off-leash dogs in specific areas and see how it works out. Virginia Puzar G c ~l -1-v~~ -~:~~~ Linda Lagergren From: cupertino.eric@gmail.com on behalf of eric Wilson [eric@wilsonshome.net) Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:48 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; Julia Lamy Subject: Mark's involvment in the Dog Park vote It is ridiculous to have Mark's involvement discounted. TI~e vote would have been 4-0 even if Mark hadn't voted. Isn't that still a "pass"? As a side note: Should everyone with a child, grandchild, niece, nephew or god child recluse themselves from all votes regarding parks and schools? What about anyone who reads not voting on library issues? How about anyone with a car not voting on street concerns? Do city council members who own a bicycle need to reframe from voting on bike lanes? It seems to me that since Mark's vote wouldn't have made ;~ difference you shouldn't waste any time on frivolous flatulence. Eric Wilson ~e~ ~ Linda Lagergren From: Lori Christofferson [lorigina@me.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:56 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: OLA's Mayor Mahoney, I oppose the proposal of the OLA's in any Cupertino Park. I live behind the Cupertino City Hall. I voted you into office. You have absolutely LOST my vote and that of my husbands and my daughter if you approve OLA's for Cupertino! Lori, Brad and Claire Christofferson 10388 Normandy Ct. Cupertino, CA ~Q-+~. ~ 9 Linda Lagergren From: LDDean@aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 3:04 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Dog Park proposal and extremely objectionable tactics Hi, I know most of you and appreciate your service to our community. I also value your judgment and fairness. As many of you know, Larry and I have been strong supporters of our community also. I feel compelled to write this email after receiving a yellow flyer on my doorstep distributed by 'Cupertino Safe Parks'. Owning a dog, I have been very much in favor of the proposed trial of off-ease hours at Linda Vista Park. The process has been fair, with opportunity for people to give input. But the flyer I received indicates that a particular group is using fear and strong-arm tactics to sway opinion. I am totally disgusted that this group would dare to insinuate they would target Orrin and Mark in a 'vote 'em out' campaign if they do not vote their way. Is this the same group that tried to oust two ~~USD board members when they didn't like how they voted, or successfully fired our FUHSD superintendent because they didn't like some of the things he said? If Cupertino becomes the type of community where a small group can get its way through threats and fear, then this is not where I want to live. I strongly believe in the democratic process. This flyer and the group behind it seem to believe in rule by tyranny, fear and threats. What is happening here? At this point, I am hoping that the council will admonish such tactics. I would very much like to have the names of those in the above organization. They should be ashamed. Laurie Dean G ~ ~-~ v~ Linda Lagergren From: Julie ma [jma981 @gmail.comJ Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Orrin Mahoney; Kri:~ Wang; Dolly Sandoval; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Cc: safeparkfriends@googlegroups.com Subject: The Emperor Has No Clothes Dear Orrin, Dolly, Kris, Gilbert and Mark: I intend to only write a casual, friendly message to you, bearing in mind that you, like most of us, are perhaps enjoying this beautiful end-of-summer weekend with your family before returning to the not-so-casual or friendly world of business, or politics for you. I took some time today to read your bios on the web. Nice stuff! I was clearly impressed with your educational background and your previous careers as a high tech guru, an educator or an entrepreneur. What I liked best about you was that most of you are family folks with children, and a lot of you have been tireless school volunteers and devoted contributors to our communities. See, you were just one of "us" -the 50,000 residents in Cupertino! Beyond your successful careers in the past, you had a higher codling to become public servants. I applaud you for that. As we all know, in this country, democracy generates politicians from people, and in return they serve the people - to help them pursue their happiness in life. Perhaps you sometimes feel that you don't receive enough credit for all the good decisions you made, and criticism always seems too fast and unforgiving. But you know what, for the most part, the City of Cupertino is doing well, and undoubtedly you have done a grE:at job serving this community. That said, as we are all humans, we make mistakes too. Allow me to finally point out the obvious: many of you made a mistake by voting YES on July 21st to support trials that allows off-leash dog hours in our neighborhood parks. Why did you make that mistake? Perhaps because you entrusted a citizen process for a recommendation, but with twists and turns what got in the vote was neither produced by the process nor s~inctioned by the citizens? Or perhaps you had underestimated the huge controversy over this issue -that so rriany citizens would be against the idea once they realize what it would do to our communities? Whatever mistakenly led you to the 7/11 decision, with our dem~~cratic political process, you know it is NOT too late to reverse the wrong course! It is to be expected that we make mi~~takes from time to time. But what distinguishes a great man, a great leader, from one who is on the other side, the darker, smaller side of the spectrum is that a great leader has the courage, the confidence and the character to admit a mistake, and furthermore he or she has the foresight, the wisdom and guts to correct a mistake. President Obama did that more than once in his young presidency already. Why can't we?! Let us ask ourselves, is Cupertino the kind of city that's suited for having off-leash dogs in its neighborhood parks? It doesn't take a Ph.D from Stanford (no offense, Mark) to arrive at a simple, straightforward answer - "No"! From all the email messages you've read till your eyes grew we;~ry and all the speeches you've heard till the arguments turn into a monotone for you, you know best the answer to that ctuestion. After all, it is your city, it is your people, and you know better than any of us that Cupertino is one of the most poK~ulated and culturally diverse cities in the Valley. And you don't need any convincing that we are best known for our vibrant neighborhoods and our outstanding schools. It's a place for high tech heros and entrepreneurs like yourselves and for their families. It's a place for children aspiring to do even greater things than their proud parents -some of whom travelled from afar and endured great sacrifices so they could become a privileged Cupertino resident. And last but not least, i~:'s also a safe haven for many seniors who help babysit their grandchildren so two salaries can be made to afford the hic!h mortgages on their children's homes. Don't you see it, Orrin, Dolly, Kris, Gilbert and even Mark?! Let's; face it. Let's admit it -The OLA idea is plain WRONG! The Emperor Has No Clothes! Off-leash dogs running at any hours in our neighborhood parks will undoubtedly jeopardize the safety of children and seniors, risk the health of the public, and endanger the quality of our communities. With your already high achievements in the past, I trust that all of you bear higher aspirations for your political career despite the challenges and difficulties that come with the job. You may or may not want to recognize this, but this OLA issue may well turn out to make or break your future political career! If you can handle this "People v.s. Dog" issue well, your voters may trust you to handle other issues that bear even more controversies and higher stakes to the glory of mankind. You won't be saving the world if you don't even know where you stand in this fight between the majority of people and the minority some among dog-owners. After all, I only intended to write a casual, friendly message. If this letter in any shape or form made you angry, please go grab a cup of coffee or tea, and I beg you to take a deep breath and read it one more time before you hit the Delete button. If it touches even a tiny bit of your unbiased, unpretentious, unguarded good conscience, my afternoon by the computer, away from my screaming young children, was well w~~rth the effort. Have a great week! And don't forget, at the Tuesday, 9/1 council meeting, please vote YES on Reconsideration of the 7/11 decision. I will be in the audience, along with my children and my neighbor's grandparents, applauding your courage, your character, and most of all, your ultimate leadership that thi:~ great city of Cupertino deserves. Cheers! Julie Ma ~~~~ Linda Lagergren From: Saurabh Verma [saurabh16@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Opposing Unleashed dogs in Cupertino Hi I am a Cupertino resident and this is to register my strong opposition to the unleashed dogs in Cupertino Parks. I am afraid, this issue will severely affect my ability to support you in the next elections. P1 stop this proposition rightaway. Thanks Saurabh 1 e~ 4-I-o1 ~~~~ ~~ Linda Lagergren From: Srinivas Nallamotu [snallamotu@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 9:15 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Off-Leash dogs in Cupertino parks... Dear Mayor Orrin Mahoney and other distinguished Cupertino City council members, Good Evening. We are residents of Cupertino City for over 6 years and use the city parks with kids. Our old parents also go for walk in the city parks every evening. We came to I;now of the plan to allow dogs roam free in the city parks recently. We are really concerned on this development, as some of us are afraid of dogs. Most importantly old people will not be able to freely come to the park if dogs running around freely in the park. My parents barely walk and if a Dog comes near them they will bE~ very worried and try to move quickly which can land them into serious problems. Dogs are friendly in general but can be very scary for people who are not used to them. In fact, I am one such person. Though I am not worried about dogs my self, it can lead to catastrophic consequences for some of the old people that use the parks on a daily basis. I hope that the city council realizes this issue and take appropriate measures to avoid such a situation. We strongly oppose these trials and any such resolution for the above rea~~ons. Its like Dogs Vs. Old People -the current status is co-existence but if the city allows off-leash dogs, I am sure my old parents and old parents of several Cupertino families need to avoid using the parks. It really seems absurd decision to go forward with such a plan. We sincerely hope that this can be avoided. Best Regards, Srinivas Nallamotu Sakunthala Nallamotu m Tel. +1 408 873 8623 g Fax. +1 510 892 2974 ® Snallamotu(a~gmail.com Linda Lagergren From: Robert Lin [bobblue88@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:41 PM To: City Council; Orrin Mahoney Cc: john.xiao@oracle.com Subject: RE: Agaist Off-Leash Area for Dog:; in Park Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Not sure what's the next move regarding the dog off-leash plan now after the last council meeting. I have some comments regarding neighborhood survey. I don't think city needs to waste money to pay professional people to create survey questions. A simple question below will do: Are you against dog off-leash in the four public park? (Yes) or (No) As long as people don't use ambiguous "Do you love dog?'' (or something like that) as evidence and indication for supporting dog off-leash in the park, there should not be any confusions on this issue. However, it is important for city to hire impartial people to collect the survey results from neighborhood so that the result is not rigged and we won't have any disputed survey results similar to Iran's election result. For example, city should not encharge the dog off-leash supporter's wives or friends to do such a survey. And city will also need to prepare to allow a quick public auditing of survey result in case the dispute does arise. Thank you for your attention. Regards, -Robert --- On Sun, 7/26/09, Robert Lin <bobblue88 a~yahoo.com> wrote: From: Robert Lin <bobblue88@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Agaist Off-Leash Area for Dogs in Park To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, "Orrin Mahoney" <orrinmahoney@comcast.net> Cc: john.xiao@oracle.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 9:16 PM Thanks, Mayor Mahoney. However, I may not agree with your assessment. Even though, there are people that doing off-leash illegally. But these are small percentage of people since majority of folks are law binding citizens. And we should encourage people to report them and have police enforce the law to cite those doing offleash illegally. Many times there are people even running dog off-leash in schools. But if you open the door, you will then see significantly in~;,rease of dogs running around with potenitally dog poo everywhere. And you may even attract more people from other neighboring citites coming over to potentially make city less safe. We don't really want to torn the nice little Cupertino to an unsafe dog city, right? Thank you. Regards, -Robert --- On Fri, 7/24/09, Orrin Mahoney <orrinrrtahoney@co~mcast.net> wrote: From: Orrin Mahoney <orrinmahoney@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Agaist Off-Leash Area for Dogs in Park To: "'Robert Lin"' <bobblue88@yahoo.com>, citycouncil~~cupertino.org Cc: john.xiao@oracle.com Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 12:38 PM Robert, Thank you for your input. I can only speak for myself, but here are the key points that I hE~ard. 1) None of the possible fenced areas in current City parks seemed attractive. We did ask the Citizen's group to continue to explore a fenced area in Stevens Creek County Park. There were also concerns that since a fenced area would be more costly and usage restrictive, that we would only have one in the City and it would therefore cause more traffic, noise and other neighborhood impacts. 2) Much of the testimony on unfenced OLAs cited the fact that irany of the parks were being used for off-leash (illegal) activities today. It seemed that having certain hours for these activities might improve both sides of the issue. Dog owners could act legally at certain times. People concerned about safety, etc. would have hours (most of the time) where they would feel more at ease. At least it seemed worth a try. The other advantage of unfenced areas is that the impact would be spread out more throughout the City. The sites fo further review are Jollyman, Linda Vista. Memorial, and the Library Field. 3) The Council did not approve a blanket trial period for any sitE~. What we approved was for the citizen's group, or a subset of that group, to gather neighborhood support for the implementation of the unfenced OLA in their area. We even recommended the areas to be polled for neighborhood input and the rough level of approval that we would expect. With regard to "approvals", we set 1500' from each park for notification and recruitment of input. We also think that the users of the parks should be surveyed. We do not expect "unanimous" approvel. We discussed a rough level of 50% support. I'm sure there will be lots more input on this before any action i:~ taken. Regards, Orrin Mahoney Mayor, City of Cupertino Home: 408-725-1767 Cell: 408-621-0073 email: orrinmahoney@comcast.net From: Robert Lin [mailto:bobblue88@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:24 AM To: orrinmahoney@comcast.net; citycouncil@cupertino.org Cc: john.xiao@oracle.com Subject: Agaist Off-Leash Area for Dogs in Park Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am a Cupertino resident and am strongly agai~zst creating off-leash area for dogs in the park. Everyone knows that dogs can bite and can be d<~ngerous when running freely, especially for children. Even such a risk is one in a mi:Llion, it is a crime if we let it happen. When there is conflict between dog's interest <~nd human interest, human win. There is no equal right here, unless we can get the dog thE~ same right to vote. Till that happens, I am hoping council members take people's intere;~ts ahead of dogs'. Dog lovers should consider creating off-leash <~rea in some remote places where their freedom will not infringe other people, especi<~lly child-loving people's freedom. Thank you for your attention. Regards, -Robert start: 0000-00-00 end: 0000-00-00 3 c. G ~~-~ oy Linda Lagergren From: Nirmalendu Das [nirmalendu.das@~~mail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:07 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang; Mark Linder; Gilbert Wong Subject: unfenced OLA for dogs Respected Mayor, Vice-Mayor, City Council Members an~~ Officers We are Cupertino residents for past 5 years. We have 2 young daughters (7 year and 4 year old) and we all love the City parks. We are very proud of our City. We wanted to express our concern about the recent City decision on OLAs for dogs in Cupertino neighborhood parks. We (including our children) believe that this will make this Cupertino parks and neighbourhood unsafe. It will be good for the dogs as well as for the City residents if the City introduces fenced OLAs for dogs instead of unfenced OLAs. Hence we request you to reconsider this decision of introducing unfenced OLAs anti keep the City park safe for everyone. Thanking you Nirmalendu Das Sagorika Das (408) 887 4761 G~ Q~~'~ ~e~~ r~ Linda Lagergren From: Taru Hartikainen [tarutha@yahoo.c~am] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:18 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder; info @cupertinosafeparks.org Subject: dogs in Cupertino parks Dear everyone, We won't be able to join the meeting about the issue of off-leashed dogs in Cupertino parks. However we wanted you to hear our opinion about i.t. Most certainly not all the parks should be avail~~ble for off-leashed dogs. I would feel very unsafe to take my child to any park from now on, because not everyone has trained their dog well enough to listen to them. Also already as it: is I have to watch out for the dog poop while driving my wheelchair everywhere. If the dogs were off-leash, there would be much more dog poop everywhere since the owners would not sE~e it, and driving a power wheelchair I am not able to watch the street constantly, and perP~aps not able to avoid driving over the poop. It is unsanitary in the park, but most definietly I DO NOT WANT TO GET IT INTO MY HOME WITH MY WHEELS, which I cannot clean before I go into my home. Besides I know many people that are afraid of all. the dogs. Please think of us with (physical) limitations ar~d children, and keep the dogs off-leashed only in the fenced areas for dogs to run around, not everywhere. Thank You. Sincerely, Mahmoud Alborzi and Taru Hartikainen 1 G~ `r-i~~ ~-(~n,~ ~r i' Linda Lagergren From: Taru Hartikainen [tarutha@yahoo.c~m] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:18 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder; info@cupertinosafeparks.org Subject: dogs in Cupertino parks Dear everyone, We won't be able to join the meeting about the issue of off-leashed dogs in Cupertino parks. However we wanted you to hear our opinion about i.t. Most certainly not all the parks should be avail~~ble for off-leashed dogs. I would feel very unsafe to take my child to any park from now on, because not everyone has trained their dog well enough to listen to them. Also already as it: is I have to watch out for the dog poop while driving my wheelchair everywhere. If the dogs were off-leash, there would be much more dog poop everywhere since the owners would not sE~e it, and driving a power wheelchair I am not able to watch the street constantly, and perl-~aps not able to avoid driving over the poop. It is unsanitary in the park, but most definietly I DO NOT WANT TO GET IT INTO MY HOME WITH MY WHEELS, which I cannot clean before I go into my home. Besides I know many people that are afraid of all. the dogs. Please think of us with (physical) limitations ar~d children, and keep the dogs off-leashed only in the fenced areas for dogs to run around, not everywhere. Thank You. Sincerely, Mahmoud Alborzi and Taru Hartikainen 1 Linda Lagergren From: Babu Turumella [babut@yahoo.comJ Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:03 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Opposition to Off-Leash dogs in cuE~ertino parks Dear Mayor Orrin Mahoney and other distinguished Cupertino City council members, Good Evening. We are residents of Cupertino City for over 6 years and use the city parks with kids. Our old parents also go for walk in the city parks every evening. We came to know of the plan to allow dogs roam free in the city parkas recently. We are really concerned on this development, as some of us are afraid of dogs. Most importantly old people will not be able to freely come to the park if dogs running around freely in the park. My parents barely walk. and if a Dog comes near them they will be very worried and try to move quickly which can land them into serious problems. Dogs are friendly in general but can be very scary for people who are not used to them. In fact, I am one such person. Though I am not worried about dogs my self, it can lead to catastrophic consequences for some of the old people that use the parks on a daily basis. I hope that the city council realizes this issue and take appropriate measures to avoid such a situation. We strongly oppose these trials and any such resolution for the above reasons. Its like Dogs Vs. Old People - the current status is co-existence but if the city allows off- leash dogs, I am sure my old parents and old parents of several Cupertino families need to avoid using the parks. It really seems absurd decision to go forward with such a plan. We sincerely hope that this can be avoided. Best Regards, Babu & Usha Turumella 11567 Copper Spring Ct Cupertino, CA 95014 1 X19 Linda Lagergren From: Tracy Chu [tracykoyichu@yahoo.corn] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 9:15 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office; M~~rk Linder; tracykoyichu@yahoo.com Subject: Oppose OLA in our Cupertino parks Dear Cupertino City Council, I am writing this email to express my strong opposition to the unfenced off-leash plan in our Cupertino neighborhood parks. My nieghbors and our family use the park often. We respe~;t the right for everyone to use the park. However unleashed dogs are not welcome. My sons is afraid of the clog because he was chased by an unleashed dog and was almost bitten by that dog. Do you still remember the news happen in San Francisco that a furious dog bit the nieghbor? Who is going to be responsible for this kind of injury if you allow unleashed dog in our park? dog owner, Cupertino City or Cupertino City Council? I am very disappointed about the lack of public notice of this issue. It reminds me the way city changed the boundary of Kennedy and Lawson couple years ago. We need the councilman/counciwoman that can represent the majority interest of Cupertino residents. Please do not ~ipprove Off-Leash Areas for dogs in our Cupertino neighborhood parks. Your attention on this issue is very appreciated. Tracy Chu Neighbor of Jollyman Park cc ~-i-e ~ ~i 9 Linda Lagergren From: Adolfas Melinauskas [adolfas@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Cc: Dolly Sandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Subject: OLA's in our parks Since we cannot attend the meeting on 9-1-09, we like to object to the policy of having dogs off leash in Jollyman. This park is for children, adults & dogs on leash. When we walk, we enough dog poop left all over the place. When dogs run around free, no one will pick up anything. How do you know whose dog did the business. The noise dogs will generate will not make plea~;ant walk in Jollyman. People from other areas will also come. The park is crowded as is during evening hour:; and also in the morning. We live with 1500 feet of park and want to receive a survey to vote against OLA's. Remember election is coming up for some City Council members. This will influence how we vote in the future. Al & Vicky Melinauskas 7605 Elderwood Ct. Cupertino, CA 95014 c: c ~ - i ~--~ ~ Linda Laaeraren ~ ~ 9 From: John Lucas [jlucas73@yahoo.comJ Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:35 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Opposed to Off-Lease Areas I am opposed to Off-Lease Areas in Cupertino parks, unless those areas are fenced. I believe this is a rash idea that will have tragic results, when an unleashed dog bites a young child. The City of Cupertino might even be seen as having some responsibility for that action. urge you to reconsider the Off-Lease Areas in parks, and look at creating a fenced off-leash area instead. Thank You. John Lucas 7535 Waterford Drive, Cupertino Home Phone 408-446-3396 Linda Lagergren ~ ~ 9 From: SMITHHALINDA@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:55 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Off Leash Dogs Dear Mayor Mahoney, I would like you to change your mind about having unfenced dog parks within our city parks even for a trial period. Dogs may need a place to run free lout it should be in a fenced area where others are not imposed upon preferably not a park. Voting f~~r something that is such a bother or hazard to the general public is not using common sense. When I voted for you that was one thing I really liked - that you seemed like a man with good sense. Small children can be knocked over by a group of ~~ogs romping. I use a walker and the same could happen to me. I enjoy walking in Linda Vista and Memorial park. I would not feel safe there if dogs were running loose. A leash law is a good thing for public areas and should continue to be used. I hope you will reconsider approving of something 1rhat would benefit a few and be a problem for the majority. Sincerely, Linda A. Smith 10686 Par Three Drive Linda Lagergren ~ /9 From: Erin Labmeier [gelabs@sbcglobal.n~t] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:59 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Re: council decision Dear Mr. Mahoney, Thank you for your response. With all due respect, how can this be the right decision for the city when it completely disregards expert opinion and best practice guidelines that all indicate that a fenced dog park is the safe and accepted solution for off- leash dog exercise? How can this be the right decision for thE~ city when it ignores widespread concerns about safety, noise, sanitation, and degradation of our neighborhood parks in favor of the convenience of small group of dog owners? How can this be the right decision for the city Hrhen it excludes other park users from enjoying our neighborhood parks? Why are you wasting time and resources to gather approval for a radical, unproven solution, when there are other safer, proven, and less divisive options'? You have indicated that the main reason you support unfenced OLAs is to help corral a problem that is already present. This line of reasoning is based on a huge assumption: that people who are already breaking the law will suddenly change their behavior just because you malke it legal for a few hours. But what if these designated hours and areas are not convenient for all of these scofflaws'? Do you actually think they will inconvenience themselves for the sake of "following the rules" when their current behavior will continue to have no consequence? Today's enforcement of the leash law is laughable. There is jut not enough man power to cover the unfenced OLAs as well as all the other parks. Therefore, this proposal has a :strong potential for making the problem worse, not better. The bottom line is that you are supporting a solution that rewards the law breakers, and punishes the innocent. It's as ridiculous as allowing speed limit violators or drunk drivers to have designated hours on the road. It is a disaster waiting to happen. As for Mark Santoro's conflict of interest, it's not the mere presence of one that concerns me. The problem arises when a council member fails to be impartial, and influences the outcome of a decision for personal benefit. Mr. Santoro owns dogs, his wife and mother-in-law are stroncl OLA advocates, and he lives very close to Linda Vista where one of the OLA trials is proposed. It is also apparent to those of us involved in the citizen's committee process that he has manipulated it from day one in favor of dog owners. This alone should have been sufficient basis for his recusal. Add to it his leading questions and biased comments at the 7/21 meeting, and his introduction of a radical motion opposed by the citizen's group, and the abuse of power is undeniable. The good news is that there is an opportunity to rectify this poor decision. I sincerely hope that you make the right choice on 9/1, and vote YES on the reconsideration. Thank you, Erin Labmeier On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Orrin Mahoney wrote: Erin, I am sorry that you feel that we didn't do our job on Tuesd~iy night (actually Wednesday morning). Just to clarify a few things. The Council did not approve a blanket trial period for any :;ite. What we approved was for the citizen's group, or a subset of that group, to gather neighborhood support for the implementation of the unfenc:ed OLA in their area. We even recommended the areas to be polled for neighborhood input and the rough level of approval that we would expect. I feel that this certainly meets the spirit of "continued community discussion". As to the issue of Councilmember Santoro's "conflict of inl:erest". If we didn't vote on any item where our spouses had a strong opinion (positive or negative) on the issue, we wouldn't be voting much. I encourage you to stay involved to insure that the reports eve receive back on the community input are fair and balanced. Thank you for hanging in on the long meeting. We did try ~to incorporate all we heard, and make the right decision for the City. Regards. ********************************** Orrin Mahoney Mayor, City of Cupertino Home: 408-725-1767 Cell: 408-621-0073 email: orrinmahoney~a,comcast.net ********************************** -----Original Message----- From: Erin Labmeier [mailto: eg labs cr,sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:11 PM To: citycouncil cr,cupertino.org; gwong_cr,cupertino.org; msantoro(a,cupertino.org; dsandovalna,cupertino.org; kwang_(a,cupertino.org; omahoneyncupertino.org Subject: council decision Dear City Council Members: I am extremely concerned about the breakdown of democracy that occurred at the city council meeting last night. I am flabbergasted that an agenda item that suggested "continued community discussion" of unfenced OLAs was twisted by the council into an approv<<1 to begin trial procedures! What exactly was the point of the citizen's committee and all the time and painstaking effort we put ir.~to it? Just so you could ignore all our recommendations? An unfenced OLA was NOT agreed upon and proposed by the committee. It was proposed solely by the OLA advocates, and vehemently opposed in committee. What happened to supporting the best interests of the community? It seems to me the only ones being considered here are the special interest OLA advocates. Which brings up the point that Mark Santoro has an obvious conflict of interest, with his wife being an active member of the OLA advocate's group. I question his ethics, and believe he should not have been allowed to reside over and vote on this issue. I aim one of many who believe the council's decision should be invalid~ited, and Mr. Santoro should recuse himself from any further proceedings on this issue. Sincerely, Erin Labmeier Email secured by Check Point cc ~-~-~9 Linda Lagergren ~~ ~ From: Xiaopeng Xu [xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 8:50 PM To: David Knapp Cc: City Council Subject: RE: opposition to unfenced off-leash plan Dear David, Thanks for your reply. One question that has been asked among neighbors here concerns whether our city would be held civilly liable if a person was bitten by an off-leash dog in our parks. I hope this question will be addressed at the meeting. Sincerely, Xiaopeng --- On Mon, 8/31/09, David Knapp <Davidk~acupertino.or~> wrote: > From: David Knapp <Davidk@cupertino.org> > Subject: RE: opposition to unfenced off-leash plan > To: "Xiaopeng Xu" <xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.net> > Cc: "City Council" <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 1:51 PM Dear Xiaopeng Xu, > Thank you for your email and concern. I am forwarding your email on > the Council, because it will be considering the issue tomorrow night > as Item # 19. You are welcome to come and participate or view the > meeting on cable TV. > Thank you for your comments. > Sincerely, > David Knapp i Linda La er ren ~ ~ y From: Tmima Koren [tmima@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval Subject: Mood swings Dear Mayor, Mr. Mahoney, and Ms. Dolly Sandoval I read the letter that was sent by Heather Taylor on how she was bitten by a dog she knew and played with in the past. In her words: When I was my son's age, I was attacked near my home by an off-leash dog. The dog, one I had played with on several prior occasions, attacked me in full view of its owner. The owner was a family friend and had trained the dog (a mutt) so no one ever thought that there was any danger. Today, I bear the scars (both physically and mentally) of that attack. When you read about such an incident, do you think: Am I going to cancel this idea of unfenced off leash just bf;cause some kid might get scarred for life? I am a peaceful person, most of the time in a good mood. F3ut occasionally I get upset about something and I might say or do something that usually I regret I did afterv~~ards .. I bet dogs are the same: even the peaceful ones may have ~~ bad day. Why endanger the kids by exposing them to this potential danger? I had dogs in the past so I'm not afraid of them (as long as they are not close to my size :) But I'm terrified of snakes. Some people have snakes as pets. Sometimes I had a chance to touch someone's snake pet, but my fear was not reduced: if a snake approaches me in the park I'll probably freeze to death. To understand other people's fear of dogs I think of myseli~ with regard to snakes. I'm sure you can also find something you are scared of so you can relate to people sc,~red of dogs. Children are smaller in size: for a young child a large dog approaching him will feel like a big bear approaching me -this is very scary even if that bear only wants to sniff me. I hope you reconsider and reject this unfenced off leash idf~a that will change our peaceful environment into something that depends on luck. Thanks Tmima Koren ~c ?-i-~q Linda Lagergren ~ ~ y From: tina [smece1972@yahoo.comJ Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mirk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Opposition to having dogs not on le:3sh in our parks Dear Cupertino city representatives, I am writing to oppose the proposal for allowing dogs which are not on leash in our city parks. (My brother was bitten by one of those dogs when we were kids, despite the claim by the owner that the dog was trained and has never done it before). I would support a proposal to create a fenced dog park, but having dogs run around our parks without being leashed would endanger our kids, and I cannot imagine an~~one with little kids supporting it. I hope you will reconsider your plans for the OLA trial (cancel it please), and instead focus your energy on creating a proposal for a fenced park. At minimum, you sh~~uld have public hearings and let Cupertino citizens voice their concerns. Thank you for listening, Tea Gebbie Mike Gebbie Roko Gebbie Romano Cerkvenik 10450 Flora Vista Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 «~-~~9 Linda Lagergren `~~ 9 From: AJScottie@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:52 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mirk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Subject: July 21 City Council Meeting I did not attend or watch the July 21 City Council McE~ting as I did not know that the Dog Park was to be discussed. Since that time I have heard many comments on it and decided to watch the whole meeting on my computer yesterday. The whole meeting was a farce! Mayor Mahoney gave the whole meeting to Council Member Santoro. Mr. Santoro's carefully asked questions steE~red the answers to his cause. In the past, I have admired Mr. Santoro and his way of breaking down a problem to simple terms, but I have no admiration for the way he conducted the meeting. His feelings were obvious. Since his wife was one of the chief proponents of the Off-leash Dog Parks idea, Mr. Santoro should have excused himself from the meeting. It was definitely a conflict of interest on his part. The other members, especially Mr Wong, gave very little input into the meeting, asking few questions. It was obvious that they all had made up their minds well before the meeting. Another problem was starting the discussion at such ~~ late hour. By the time the vote was taken, it was well into the wee hours and Mr. Santoro had mo~~ed the Council to his desires. I don't remember if there was even a second to the motion presented by Mr. Santoro. The Council was so anxious to vote. I personally have two neutered dogs. One is licensed, the other will be as soon as he gets his three year rabies shot next month. I am in favor of a fenced dog park. Because of my concern for the safety of my dogs, I would not use it. I have been actively involved with Scottish Terrier Rescue (501c3) for the past sixteen years. I know that no matter how nice a dog is, they can take a dislike for another dog and start a bloody fight. Often both the owner and the dog get injured. I saw an incident at Vasona Park on Saturday, where a woman had two unleashed dogs and they went after a woman walking her two dogs. The dog owner tried to call them off, but only one responded to her voice. The other continued to harass the woman until the owner finally was able get to the dog and put the leash on. Although the park ranger was called, the episode was over before she arrived. I hope that at the meeting on September 1, 2009, tl'ie Council votes to reverse their decision on the vote taken on July 21, 2009. The entire city needs to be better informed about whether we have no dog park, a fenced dog park, or an unfenced dog park. Everyone I have mentioned the options to have been negative on the unfenced dog park. Fenced dog park yes -unfenced no. Sincerely, Alice Ramsauer 10531 Castine Avenue 4018-738-4656 Linda Lagergren ~~~ From: AJScottie@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:52 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Subject: July 21 City Council Meeting I did not attend or watch the July 21 City Council McE~ting as I did not know that the Dog Park was to be discussed. Since that time I have heard many comments on it and decided to watch the whole meeting on my computer yesterday. The whole meeting was a farce! Mayor Mahoney gave the whole meeting to Council Member Santoro. Mr. Santoro's carefully asked questions steE~red the answers to his cause. In the past, I have admired Mr. Santoro and his way of breaking dc-wn a problem to simple terms, but I have no admiration for the way he conducted the meeting. His feelings were obvious. Since his wife was one of the chief proponents of the Off-leash Dog Parks idf:a, Mr. Santoro should have excused himself from the meeting. It was definitely a conflict of interest on his part. The other members, especially Mr Wong, gave very little input into the meeting, asking few questions. It was obvious that they all had made up their minds well before the meeting. Another problem was starting the discussion at such ~~ late hour. By the time the vote was taken, it was well into the wee hours and Mr. Santoro had moored the Council to his desires. I don't remember if there was even a second to the motion ~~resented by Mr. Santoro. The Council was so anxious to vote. I personally have two neutered dogs. One is licensecl, the other will be as soon as he gets his three year rabies shot next month. I am in favor of a fence~J dog park. Because of my concern for the safety of my dogs, I would not use it. I have been actively involved with Scottish Terrier Rescue (501c3) for the past sixteen years. I know that no matter how nice a dog is, they can take a dislike for another dog and start a bloody fight. Often both 'the owner and the dog get injured. I saw an incident at Vasona Park on Saturday, where a woman had two unleashed dogs and they went after a woman walking her two dogs. The dog ~~wner tried to call them off, but only one responded to her voice. The other continued to hara;~s the woman until the owner finally was able get to the dog and put the leash on. Although the park ranger was called, the episode was over before she arrived. I hope that at the meeting on September 1, 2009, the Council votes to reverse their decision on the vote taken on July 21, 2009. The entire city needs to be better informed about whether we have no dog park, a fenced dog park, or an unfenced dog parkk. Everyone I have mentioned the options to have been negative on the unfenced dog park. Fenced dog park yes -unfenced no. Sincerely, Alice Ramsauer 10531 Castine Avenue 4018-738-4656 Linda Lagergren ~~ 9 From: Carol Shaw [cshaw@merkle.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:59 PNI To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Mark Linder Subject: Vote no on Off-Leash Areas in city ~~arks I am opposed to Off-Leash Areas for dogs in Cupertino city parks. I frequently walk around the outside of the Library Field, and I would not want loose dogs there. There are also children bicycling by there. Voice command can't be relied on to keep dogs under control. I lived in Smyrna, Georgia for a few years, and had a big problem with unleashed dogs there. The law stated that dogs did not have to be leashed or behind a fence, as long as they were on the owner's property. One time, four of us were walking along in the street, because there was no sidewalk, and a very large, vicious-looking dog came out in the street and approached us. The owner eventually called the dog off, and we were unharmed, but my friend said she literally feared for her life. We reported the dag to animal control. I had a number of other incidents with loose dogs there, also. I was never actually bitten, but I have a fear of being bitten. Once while walking in Sunnyvale, a large German Shepherd jumped up on me and scratched the sunglasses that I was wearing. If I hadn't been k~earing sunglasses, I might have been injured. You have lost my vote for re-election unless you oppose OLAs in Cupertino parks. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Shaw E-mail: cshaw(~merkle.com 1 Cc ~-~~~ Linda Lagergren ~ ( ~ From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:34 PM To: Bob Colloton Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Dear Bob, Thank you for your email and concern. Council will be discussing this issue at tomorrow's Council meeting as Item #19 am passing your comments on to Council Members for their consideration. Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, David From: Bob Colloton [mailto:boolloton@micruscorp.com] Sent: August 29, 2009 1:40 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: David, as a 20 year member of the Cupertino community I am appalled at the negative tactics the anti-off leash supporters are using. It seems as if they feel they are losing and have now turned the debate to threat and innuendo. We received a flyer in our mailbox, the back page of which had these quotes: Tell the City Council you OPPOSE OLAs in our parks (their caps') Defeat the trial survey Vote'em Out (citing the city council and mayor) They use words as "incompatible" and "unfriendly"; "AGAINST", "strong opposition" and more. It conflicts the community and togetherness that we animal owners feel - we have been brought together by the "puppy parties" far more than school activities or other community forums have done. I hope you see and understand the fundamentals the anti - OLA supporters feel -which are restriction, avoidance, cancellation and elimination -are precisely the fundamentals that divide us as a community. Please maintain support of the positive, community building yet community sensitive OLA approach being considered today. Thanks for your attention. Bob Colloton 408-865-0193 Cc ~-i-r~9 Linda Lagergren #~q From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:09 PM To: Larry Lai Cc: City Council Subject: RE: I am against OLAs plan Dear Mr. Lai, Thank you for your email and interest in this issue. City Council will be considering this issue at tomorrow night's Council meeting as Item # 19. You are welcome to come and participate or to view the meeting on cable TV. In either case, Council will have the benefit of your position, as I am forwarding this to them now. Thank you for your involvement. Sincerely, David Knapp -----Original Message----- From: Larry Lai [mailto:wlai100~yahoo.com] Sent: August 31, 2009 10:49 AM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: I am against OLAs plan Dear Mr. Knapp, I have two small children, one is five-year old and the other one is one-year old. I live very close to 7ollyman park and both my children play at the park almost every day. I learn that Cupertino City is planning on OLAs in our neighborhood parks including 7ollyman park. This OLAs plan inevitably puts the lives of small children IN RISKS. Can Cupertino City guarantee that no one will be attacked by any dog in ANY condition once the OLAs is implemented? If not, this is a completely irresponsible act. lust not long ago, there was a tragedy happened in San Francisco. A dog attacked a 12 year-old boy and took away his life. We definitely do not want this happening in our city. I believe you understand that no one would like their children hurt by any animal. Please help enforce a safe environment for our children in our neighborhood by voting against the OLAs plan. We appreciate your dedication and contribution to our city. Best Regards, - Larry Lai 2 Linda Lagergren ~ r'9 From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:58 PNI To: Janie Morris Cc: City Council Subject: RE: NO unleashed dogs in our parks!! Dear Morris Family, Thank you for your email and interest in this issue. I am forwarding the email to City Council for its consideration. Council will be considering the issue again tomorrow night as Item # 19 on the agenda. You are welcome to come and participate or view the meeting on cable TV. In any case, Council will have the benefit of your comments. Thank you for your involvement. Sincerely, David Knapp From: Janie Morris [mailto:iloveebony@sbcglobal.net] Sent: August 30, 2009 11:45 AM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: NO unleashed dogs in our parks!! Dear Sir: We are writing you to tell you we are totally oppposed to any UNLEASHED dogs in our parks. ITs not safe for other dog owners who leash their dogs, children playing in the park, and seniors who enjoy walking in the park. We have used Jollyman park for over 20 years as a family and we walk our dog ON leash in the park often. There needs to be more enforcemnt of violations of dogs running loose there acid for owners who do not pick up after their dogs!! I have encountered several dogs OFF le~~sh who showed signs of agression toward our dog! One older gentlemen with his german shephard was walking his dog off leash and his dog came up to our dog, I had to YELL at the man to get his dog(I am not a yelling type person), his comment was oh he wont hurt your dog, well his dog started to take a more agreesive stance toward our dog and I had to YELL at him again to come get his dog now as I did not want a dog fight and reminded him ;>trongly of that there was a leash law in our park--get your dog back on leash. He reluctantly came back and got 3 his darn dog!! WE like to enjoy walking our dog to the park, but its very troublesome at how other dog owners legit their dogs run loose then half the time the dogs are not well trained so they do not respect theer owners recall to come back and stay out of trouble! We are extremely dissppointed in the total lack of public notice and meaningful hearings that should have tal~en place concerning this. I hope you will cancel the idea of allowing off leash dogs to run loose in our parks! IT is not safe. WE are in favor of MORE fenced areas in our parks to turn dogs loose in an enclosed area but NO to off leashed do€;s in our parks. The Morris family 4 Cc ~-i--oq Linda Lagergren ~ ~ q From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:47 PM To: Denise de Harne Cc: City Council Subject: RE: support for OLA trials Dear Ms. De Harne, Thank you for your email and interest in this issue. I am passing your thoughts along to Council which will be considering this issue tomorrow night as Item # 19. The survey involves people using the park as well as homes within the 1500' radius, so as a park user, there is a good chance you will come across a DeAnza student with a clipboard during one of your visits. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely David Knapp From: Denise de Harne [mailto:ddeharne@yahoo.com] Sent: August 29, 2009 9:41 AM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: support for OlA trials Dear Mr. Knapp, I support the process that the city council enacted to study this issue and the actions the city council has taken to proceed with off leash area trials. My family lives outside 1500' of the trial parks and will not be able to express our opinion in the survey. Our 15 year old dog died recently. Our neighborhood walks often included a walk through Memorial Park. Thank you for your support of the process and the OLA trial period. Sincerely, Denise de Harne 20832 Dunbar Drive Cc ~-(~-a9 Linda Lagergren #~ q From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Knapp, Larry Lai [wlai100@yahoo.com] Monday, August 31, 2009 1:51 PM David Knapp City Council RE: I am against OLAs plan I will be there in the meeting tomorrow and express my position. Thanks, - Larry --- On Mon, 8/31/09, David Knapp <Davidk(~cupertino.or~> wrote: > From: David Knapp <Davidk@cupertino.org> > Subject: RE: I am against OLAs plan > To: "Larry Lai" <wlai100@yahoo.com> > Cc: "City Council" <CityCouncil~cupertino.org> > Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 1:08 PM Dear Mr. Lai, > Thank you for your email and interest in this issue. City Council will > be considering this issue at tomorrow night's Council meeting as Item > # 19. You are welcome to come and participate or to view the meeting > on cable TV. In either case, Council will have the benefit of your > position, as I am forwarding this to them now. > Thank you for your involvement. > Sincerely, > David Knapp > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Lai [mailto:wlai100@yahoo.com] > Sent: August 31, 2009 10:49 AM > To: Cupertino City Manager's Office > Subject: I am against OLAs plan > Dear Mr. Knapp, > I have two small children, one is > five-year old and the other one is one-year old. I live very close to > Jollyman park and both my children play at the park almost every day. > I learn that Cupertino City is planning on OLAs in our neighborhood > parks including Jollyman park. This OLAs plan inevitably puts the > lives of small children IN RISKS. Can Cupertino City guarantee that no > one will be attacked by any dog in ANY condition once the OLAs is > implemented? If not, this is a completely irresponsible act. > Just not long ago, there was a tragedy happened in San Francisco. > A dog attacked a 12 year-old boy and took away his life. We definitely 1 > do not want this happening in our city. I believe you understand that > no one would like their children hurt by any animal. Please help > enforce a safe environment for our children in our neighborhood by > voting against the OLAs plan. We appreciate your dedication and > contribution to our city. > Best Regards, > - Larry Lai 2 C C ~~-- x--05 ~rR Linda Lagergren From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:52 PM To: Xiaopeng Xu Cc: City Council Subject: RE: opposition to unfenced off-leash plan Dear Xiaopeng Xu, Thank you for your email and concern. I am forwarding your email on the Council, because it will be considering the issue tomorrow night as ]:tem # 19. You are welcome to come and participate or view the meeting on cable TV. Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, David Knapp -----Original Message----- From: Xiaopeng Xu [mailto:xiaopengxu@sbcglobal.nE~t] Sent: August 28, 2009 8:56 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: opposition to unfenced off-leash plan Dear David, I am writing to express my strong opposition to t:he unfenced off-leash plan. There is no doubt in my mind that the life style and quality of the city residents will be affected if this plan is applied. Please help to defeat this plan. Thanks, your name Cupertino resident for 12 years 1 Linda Lagergren ~ ~ From: Bob Colloton [bcolloton@micruscorp.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:57 PM To: David Knapp Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Thanks for the indulgence. Community is the basis for the entire discussion and proposal. I get frustrated when I hear that dog owners are "only 20% of the population", like we area `minority". The last I checked, Cupertino was a haven for "minorities" and our ability to assimilate cultures and personalitiE~s was our key to success! Bob Colloton From: David Knapp [mailto:Davidk@cupertino.org] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:34 PM To: Bob Colloton Cc: City Council Subject: RE: Dear Bob, Thank you for your email and concern. Council will be discussing this issue at tomorrow's Council meeting as Item #19 am passing your comments on to Council Members for their consideration. Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, David From: Bob Colloton [mailto:bcolloton@micruscorp.com] Sent: August 29, 2009 1:40 PM To: Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: David, as a 20 year member of the Cupertino community I am appalled at the negative tactics the anti-off leash supporters are using. It seems as if they feel they are losing and have now turned the debate to threat and innuendo. We received a flyer in our mailbox, the back page of which had these ~auotes: Tell the City Council you OPPOSE OLAs in our parks (their caps') Defeat the trial survey Vote 'em Out (citing the city council and mayor) They use words as "incompatible" and "unfriendly"; "AGAINST", "strong opposition" and more. It conflicts the community and togetherness that we animal owners feel - we have been brought together by the "puppy parties" far more than school activities or other community forums have done. I hope you see and understand the fundamentals the anti - OLA supporters feel -which are restriction, avoidance, cancellation and elimination -are precisely the fundamentals that divide us as a community. Please maintain support of the positive, community building yet community sensitive OLA approach being considered today. Linda Lagergren ~ ~ ~ From: Larry Lai [wlai100@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:32 Ah1 To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: I am against unfenced off-leash do~as in our neighborhood parks. Dear Mayor, I have two small children, one is five-year old and the other one is one-year old. I live very close to Jollyman park and both my children play at the park almost every day. I learn that Cupertino City is planning on OLAs in our nE~ighborhood parks including Jollyman park. This OLAs plan inevitably puts the lives of small. children IN RISKS. Can you guarantee that no one will be attacked by any dog in ANY condition once the OLAs is implemented? If not, this is a completely irresponsible act. Just not long ago, there was a tragedy happened in San Francisco. A dog attacked a 12 year-old boy and took away his life. We definitely do not want this happening in our city. I believe you understand that no one would like thE~ir children hurt by any animals in any condition. Please help enforce a safe environment: for our children in our neighborhood and against the OLAs. We appreciate your dedication rind contribution to our city. Regards, - Larry Lai 1 ~l~ Linda Lagergren From: Jay [itsjay_98@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:48 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; M~~rk Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Kris Wang Subject: Please vote against unfenced off-leash dogs in Cupertino parks. To: City Council members Please vote against unfenced off-leash dogs in Cupertino parks. We appreciate that dog owners need to be accommodated with their pets. In public places, however, off-leash dogs should be allowed only iri specific areas fenced off for that purpose. Thanks for your consideration, ]ay & Ellen Israel Cupertino 1 ~ I ~ u~! q-(-oq ..._.:. _~ '~ Sc rn $ l ack. THESE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT OFF-LEASH DOGS IN CUPERTINO PARKS THE CURRENT PROPO:~AL FOR A TRIAL PERIOD: - Fixed time: Two hours in the morning and two hours in the evenings at multiple city parks. Final times will depend on feedback from bark users. - .Fixed location: Away frorri high-traffic areas. - Only Cupertino residents with licensed, non- aggressive dogs will be allowed to participate. - Trial Period will be monitored by Animal Control. Why fixed times? Public Parks are community spaces and should be shared. Why fixed areas? Not all park users want to be around off- leash dogs. VERIFY THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF! Go to the City of Cupertino website (www.Cupertino.org) and watch the following meetings to get. the FACTS: City Council meetings: 4/1/08, 4%x'/09, and 7/21/09 Park & Rec. Commission meetin±~s: 6/5/08, 10/2/08, 11 /6/08, 1 /8/09, 2/5/09, 3/5/09 AGAIN, IT'S JUST A TFZIAL. Signed by Cupertino residents Jim and E3arbara Black, Betsy Dougherty, Hari and Gauri Guleria, Alvin Hu, Vivian Hu, Carol Miller, Arlene and Don Rosenbaum, Eric. Wilson. If you wish to contact us please visit: wvvw.cupertinodogs.com -~~~-1 cr./q-l-o9 Stvv. $la~ ho Off-leash Dogs in Cupe~ino Parks! Stop The Cii11 Council Plan to AllewOff--Lush Dogs (n gar Neighbe~hoad Parks Proposed trials target Jollyman, library Field, Linda Vista & Memorial Parks Join the Cupertino Safe Parks Opposition Reilly at City Hall, 9/1 /2009 ~i:15-6:45 4'M What Is Happening? On Juiy ? l 2009, the Cupertino City Council voted to conduct trials that would create Off--Leash Areas COLAs) for dogs in our Cuper- tino neighborhood parks. These trials would create rrn~~nced OLAS - dogs would rein loose in the park without leash and unenclosed by a fence or other physical barrier. 1'he trials target .loliyman, Library Field, Linda Vista, and l~iemorial Parks. The specific locations and hours for the trials have not been set, but the Council calls for the OLA area to extend over the entirety of Library Field, and approximately 1 /3 of Jotlyman and Linda Vista Aarks. Why Is This Bad? This plan is poor public policy on multiple levels. First, unfenced OLAs are a very uncommon practice and raise serious issues of safety for other park users, particetlarly our children and seniors. There are NO cities in Santa Clara County that allow unfenced, unleashed dogs. Unfenced OLAs depend solely on voice conlrof for safety -the expectation that dabs are effectively trained to obey the owner's voice commands. There are NO expert standards defining effective voice control. Second, there has been no meaningful public notice that a change in Ieash law was under consideration. Proper notice is a necessity for a public safety issue that changes existing use of our parks (and may affect property values for adjacent homes). Even today, there are no official published specitics about how any OLA trial or permanent program would be conducted. Although this issue has been under discussion since April 2008, neighbors of Linda Vista Park had only 6 days notice that they had been targeted for an OLA trial? Neighbors at Jollyntan, Library Field, and Memorial Parks had NO public notice that their parks were targeted. OLA issues were studied by a citizen's committee created by the City Council in April 2009. The citizen's group consensus and Parks & Rec Dept. sloth recommended only Fenced dog park solutions, citing further discussion was required before an unfenced option could be proposed. Despite these recommendations, the City Council decided tv eliminate consideration of fenced OLAs in Cupertino, and created the unfenced proposa[ of their own volition. Wlrat Do Other Caties Do? Our neighbors in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, have reported great successes with a single fenced dog park, widely viewzd as the accepted practice for off-lush do, play. Fenced dog parks are recognized as a best practice by experts, including the American Kennel Club, California State Parks, and others. Why Is This Happening ? Who Is Behind This? 1?rom the start, the OLA. issue has been driven by a small group of c)t~--leash activists, who demonstrate little regard for good practice send no consideration for the 80% of Cupertino residents that do not own dogs. The advocates of unfienced OLAs have clearly stated that they want unfenced OLAs established in ALL Cupertino barks. This is an unjustifiable position that serves only their own convenience while creating citywide impact, nuisance, and enforcement prob}ems. 'Che dog owners have failed to make a valid case for OLAs on merit, but the issue has continued to move forward despite increas- ing community opposition. This has been driven by Councilman lViark Santoro who launched the unfenced dog option as a personal agenda, systematically disregarding city staff' and resident input, and manipulating the parliamentary procedure to introduce leis own preferences after public comment was closed. At the 7/21 t~ity Council meeting, there were only fenced dog park trial recom- mendations on the agenda, which were eliminated by Santoro and :substituted with four unfenced OLA trials that had never been discussed publicly. At that time, he also stated that he felt that the trials should start immediately with no further discussion -even though his proposal never hud uny opportunity ,ror public comment. tvlayor Orrin Mahoney had stated on 4/15!2008 that he supported investigating fenced options but was opposed to unfenced OLAs t~ecause of liability and community concerns. On 7!21/2009, he voted in favor of the unfenced OLA trials although his concerns were not mitigated by any part of the trial plan. Councilwoman i)olly Sandoval raised concerns about a lack of restrictions on aggressive unleashed dogs on 4/7/20G9, but on 7/21/2049 voted in favor of the unleashed OLA trial. Her concerns about aggressive clogs were not addressed. This information provided by Cupertino Safe Parks A city-wide grassroots organization of Cupertino residents opposing off-leash dogs in our neighborhood parks ____ info@cupertinosafeparks.org www.cupertinosafeparks.org What You Can Do To Stop This? 1) Tell the City Council you OPPOSE OLAs in our parks -Write or call the City Councilmen individually and demonstrate ;dour strong opposition to this unfenced ot~=leash plan. Raise your concerns about • unfenced vs. fenced OLAs • insufficient enforcement of violations • sanitation • noise • the total lack of public notice and meaningful hearings 2) Defeat the trial survey -The city will conduct a surve~~ of house- holds within 1500 feet of trial park boundaries to demonstrate approval before any trial begins. Make sure that you vote AGAINST the trials, and encourage your neighbors to do the same. If there is less than 50% approval from neighbors, the trial willl be cancelled at your park. 3 j Tell your friends, neighbors, and schoolmates -Raise: awareness of this problem with everybody you know. This is a divisive policy, but poor public notice has kept the majority of residents in the dark. Spread the word even if the city won't, and let City Hall know that Cupertino is united in opposition. 4) Vote `Em Out -Orrin Mahoney and Mark Santoro art; running for re-election in November 2009. Tell them that they have lost your vote unless they oppose OLAs in Cupertino parks. City Council elections are regularly decided by margins of just a few hundred votes, so your vote and opinion will make a difference. 5) Join with us -Cupertino Safe Parks is a city-wide gras~~roots organi- zation of Cupertino residents who oppose OLAs in our neighborhood parks. Creating unfenced or fenced OLAs in our existing parks are an incompatible and unfriendly change in the use of our shared public spaces. We support proposals to create a safe, non-residential, fenced dog park, including a proposed project at Stevens Creek County Park. Say"No''To Unlea;shed Dogs in Neighbarh~~od Parks!!! City Hall Contacts Write or call to make your voice heard! Mayor Orrin Mahoney omahoney c~cupertino.org 777-3195 Dolly Sandoval daandoval@cupertino.org 777-3192 Mark Santoro msantoro@cupertino.org 777-3193 Gilbert Wong gwong@cupertino.org 777-3191 Vice-Mayor Kris Wang kwang@cupertino.org 777-3194 David Knapp City Manager manager@cupertino. org 777-3212 Mark Linder Director of Parks & Recreation markl@cupertino.org 777-3268 Join Our Rally On 9/1 ! ! On Tuesday, 9/1/2009, Cupertino Jaje Parks will hold a second family rally in opposition to OLAs in our Parks at City Hall Plaza, 10350 Torre Ave, from 6:15-6:45, immediately preceding the City Council meeting. Our first rally on 8/4 was attended by over 100 people. Children are welcome. Help us show the City Council that opposition to their OLA proposal is alive and active in Cupertino. For more details, visit www.cupertinosafeparks.org. This information provided by Cupertino'.~afe Parks A city-wide grassroots organization of Cupertino residents opposing off-leash dogs in our Neighborhood Parks ',, info@cupertinosafeparks.org www.cupertinosafeparks.org `When you face yOUrfedr (W tri T~3r Iii, n,o<; ~,t Ci1~ t 1~E_ y., , ~~/ii iii ,. ,~i'~i tn~~l t .~, ~ ~;~'. i< <~II'y ~~~ ~~ :~ UNFENCED, OF-LEASH DOG TRIAL AT 4 DESIGNATED PARKS DON'T BE INFLUIENCED BY LIES DO NOT TAKE ANY ~CISION ON FLYERS V~/.ZT AUTHORS ~- w inodogs.com ~ p O- ~~ ~.. O- ~~ ~ if lies on some e an author as Maybe its not even from a Cupertino Resident DO NOT SUPPORT * UNSIGNED FLYERS * INSIDIUOS LIES * FEAR TACTICS * SEGREGATION OF FACTS LETS GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT Experts alloverthe country confirm that unfenced, unleashed dogs do not rep- resent adanger tothe park or its visitors. In fact all data indicate that they add the factor of security, and har- mony to parks and neighbor- hoods WE ONLY WANT TO FO- CUS ON THE TRUTH & NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TRUTH: Trials will be con- ducted only at fixed time and fixed location away from other park users, and only for dogs approved to be friendly Only licensed, non- aggressivedogs will be is- sued aspecial tag to partici- pate in the trial. Animal Control Services will monitor the trials. TRUTH: Public parks are shared neighborhood spaces to serve all citizens; parks should be multipurpose, to accommodate needs of neighbors and park users. TRUTH: The proposal was put forth not by any individ- ualcouncil member but by a volunteer citizen's commit- tee of both dog owners and non-dog owners who have worked jointly to come to an acceptable consensus. Cur- rentmembers consists of.- lim Black, Cecil Coe, Hari Gu(eria, Wes Harrison, Tmina Koran, Greg Labmeier, Paul McNulty & Don Rosenbaum. All deci- sions are guided by their rec- ommendations to Staff. TRUTH: The off-leash trial was public since April 2008. There were three public hearings at the Park & Rec. Commission in 2008 and three in 2oog. There were three public hearing at these council meetings: 4/1/08; 4/7/09; 7/21/09 (council voted 5:o to pre- pare for off-leash trials and collect usage data.) Please visit www.cuprtino.org for recorded meetings. FACTS: HISTORICAL EVIDENCE: A Foster City expert came to our July 1 meeting and confirmed that for the last 1o years they have had no people-dog incidence in 3 unfenced /unleashed dog parks in their neighbor- hood. FIXED TIME ONLY: From gam to 11am in the morn- ingand 7pm to gpm in the eve- ning only, except Memorial park from lam to gam. FIXED LOCATION: Unleashed dogs will only play in clearly demarked fixed loca- tions, away from traffic and children play areas FIXED PARKS: Unleashed dogs will only play in approved parks as defined. SAFETY: Only Cupertino dogs who are licensed, non-aggressive & proven to be well behaved will be allowed into the program. They will need to earn a `BLUE TAG'to be able to participate. All play areas are away from children play areas and high traffic park areas. UNDER FULL SUPERVISION The trials will be held under full supervision of San Jose Animal Control Signed by: Jim and Barbara Black, Betsy Daugherty, Hari and Gauri Guleria, Carol Miller, Don Rosenbaum & Eric Wilson. LET ONLY TRUTH GUIDE YOU DESIGNATED PARKS AND LOCATIONS MEMORIAL PARK (proposed) JOLLYMANcontd..... The proposed location is far from all children play areas and high traffic areas at Jollyman park. It is away from the immediate parking and has a natural boundary on three sides with fences . The occupancy in this areas has been consis- tently under 5% of park population during checks. TIME: Summer: gam to llama 7pm to 9PM Linda Vista contd... TIME: Summer: gam to 11am; 7pm to 9PM Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ LIBRARY FIELD (proposed) LOCATION: The proposed location is close to the Park- Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm ing and behind Cluinlin center. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is away from the immediate pa rki ng so ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ provides the normal traffic a relative dis- tancefrom the general park paths. LINDA VISTA PARK (proposed) It is away from the tennis courts and the LOCATION: picnic benches. The occupancy in this areas has been con- sistently under 2% of park population during checks. TIME: Summer: gam to llama 7pm to 9PM Winter: gam to llama 4pm to 6pm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The proposed location is far from most activity +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ areas and at the back of the Linda Vista park. JOLLYMAN PARK (proposed) LOCATION: It has lots of parking, has no play grounds and is scarcely used. It has a natural boundary of trees and roads and all times are before and after li- brarytimes The occupancy in this park is random and un- quantifiablefor traffic purposes. It is away from the immediate parking , chil- dren's play area and walking paths. It has a TIME natural boundary on three sides with fences Summer: lam to gam; and a hillside. Winter: lam to gam; The occupancy in this areas has been consis- tently under 3% of park population during random checks WITH PLANNED PREDICTABILITY Lost I)o~ 4a~~es J'lnn ~'tiith [)o~cn ~~-ndroute hroru Nearly Fatal Seizure Assoerei^tl ~Vre.-s ITY Police dog saves pena~ioner"s life A r,a1Ha ~a° na< ~aa., hA„~., .., _,~, - .. naw nt,a• °nu1nU a ~nwuly 1 t Fesman+,~l, PansWnar whr:, I,avl Iwen mIMNnY ,,n cavwal I,.,u, y. roc raha- ,me uri w ~ w~ w 1. ii i~Nnn ,-.... ., Therapy dogs cheer up sick Children ,r ~«.1 ,t,~,t~. ,~ McLi¢di,iA3v KMg8M,2p,YlY „.ozr 4 Mr. aow ~ ~_~t+#,y t~lmr,nn tPai~xr,'s »nryKai m atrettT nm tit rcwatizr .. ~xEr.T.M mx taa ne aar,na. $yNarr}~Jar+sorJr, ~ weer,~,wakealMgmtre.a;zw,,.,aGIAd¢n,ets,evel„~n,aen~..Kewx~,bx~aw SC. Louis Post-1'ilSPalLh so rasrnatea w,m me nog Mat a,e rmeGarxa u>e pan. mx cnrsKal mratmx wzn atue to .~'Nilt her Ipgy .ytPp~ iG GNte'~d. mo(e. Published: tktober 13. Z00812,DIAH LOCATION: The proposed location is an open area that is currently used once a week for Cricket, and is currently scheduled for construction. However it is a potential site for the future and the trial HELP REPLACE A RANDC