Loading...
13. Fenced in dog areasCUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) i'77-319 0 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 STAFF ~~.EPORT Agenda Item No. ~ 3 SUBJECT AND ISSUE MEETING DATE: March 2, 2414 Receive report on possible locations for fenced-i:n dog areas in Cupertino and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND At the December 15, 2009 City Council meeting;, Council directed staff to return with a report on whether or net fenced-in dog areas would work i:n City parks. A work team consisting of staff from Code Enforcement, Sheriff s Department, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation met to perform this assessment. DISCUSSION The following City parks are sites that staff suggested to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. 1 13-1 CITY PARK: Linda Vista Park SITE L~CATI~N: Upper Area, site of former group picnic area PRUS I CONS CITY PARK: Memorial Park SITE LOCATION: Replace Upper Fountain Area • Taking out upper • Next to heavily pond would help used picnic with wild geese area issue • Limited • Restrooms on- parking issues site • High volume • Centrally located activity in park PROS CITY PARK: Somerset Park SITE LOCATION: Under high power lines next to Hwv 280 sound wall • Area already fenced C4N5 • Very limited p~'~g • Not centrally located • Very small neighborhood park • No restroom • Permission to use area needed from PG&E ,.~,f - -- PROS COI~5 '~~ :~ . '~~ ~~ ~ ;_;~~~~-: • Good for • Neighborhood • ~ ~ ;' ~A=~. detemng opposition 4.~''.'s '/ - ~~~: problem teen • Heavy park ~, ~ activity in the usage _ '' area ~.; -~ --~~ ~° • Buffer zone of ~H• culvert to _ neighbors • Multi-use park CITY PARK: Wilson Park • Centrally SITE LOCATION: Back of park next to culvert located • Restrooms on- site 2 13-2 The following City parks are sites that various City Council members suggested to staff to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for 'use as a dog park PROS CONS • Strong • Neighborhood neighborhood opposition watch • Lack of • Light park use on restxoams weekdays • Limited • Stop teens from parking driving across turf • Not centrally from Donegal Dr. located to Barnhart Pl. • Neighborhood group exercises dogs in park PROS CONS • Youth Cricket • Too large of an group wants area entire .field • Maintenance fenced issues with • Restrooms on- these joint use site activities • Centrally located • Limiting dog park hours may have potential site use conflicts 3 13-3 CITY PARK: Hoover Park SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Piace and before soccer field CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: From trash dumpster area to Pacifica Dr. 4 PROS • Good, long, fenced dog run • Open during park hours • Buffer zone of creek and street from neighbors • Restrooms on- site • Centrally located CONS • Parking on-site already impacted • Possible location of futuxe parking expansion 13-4 The following are not City-owned properties that the staff work team assessed. Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino Square North Parking Lots at Cupertino Square next to Highway 280 off-ramp PROS ' • Currently not in use for parking • Centrally located CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • No shade • Cement surface • Maintenance issue with no water on-site • No restrooms on-site PROS • Currently not in use for parking • Centrally located County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department site along Lawrence Expressway PROS • Fence is currently in place CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • No shade • Asphalt surface • No water or restrooms on-site CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • Far distance from on-street P~'~g • Not centrally located • No water or restrooms on-site • Possible environment Council may want to consider for any new park development in Cupertino, that a fenced dog park may be part of the discussion during the park: design stage. 5 13-5 FISCAL IMPACT During the budget process for Fiscal Year 200912010, City Council approved $500,000 for construction of a permanent dog park area, $40,000 for a trial dog park area, and $40,000 for education and enforcement. Estimated cost per site far anine-month trial dog park area: SITE RENTAL FENCING ADDITIONAL TOTAL SITE COST COST MAINTENANCE FOR TRIAL DOG ($1,.25 per linear foot+ lp'-/o COST PARK AREA contingency) (114 time Maintenance Worker) Linda Vista Park $18,100 $17,950 $36,050 Memorial Park $41,900 $17,950 $59,850 Somerset Park Fence On-Site $1 ?,950 $17,950 Wilson Park $15,950 $17,950 $33,900 Hoover Park $12,200 $17,950 $30,150 Entire Libr Field $117,200 $17,950 $135,150 Section of Libr Field $21,500 $17,950 $39,450 M Avenue Parcel $34,980 $17,950 $52,930 Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino $33,200 $17,950 $51,150 S uare North Parking Lots at $58,800 $17,950 $76,750 Cupertino Square County of Santa Clara Fence On-Site $17,950 ~ $17,950 Roads and Airport De artxnent Site PREPARED BY: ~. Zia Lamy Senior Recreatian Super isor SUBMITTED BY: ark Linder Director, Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp City Manager 13-6 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE CC 3� -� /lo 4�l3 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3110 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366 CUPERTINO STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Receive report on possible locations for fenced -in dog areas in Cupertino and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND At the December 15, 2009 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return with a report on whether or not fenced -in dog areas would work in City parks. A work team consisting of staff from Code Enforcement, Sheriff's Department, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation met to perform this assessment. DISCUSSION The following City parks are sites that staff suggested to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. 1 CITY PARK: Linda Vista Park SITE LOCATION: Upper Area, site of former group picnic area PROS CONS F . w "� • Taking out upper • Next to heavily pond would help used picnic with wild geese area 'Ns issue • Limited * • Restrooms on- parking issues S for site High volume enter • Centrally located activity in park CITY PARK: Memorial Park SITE LO CATION: Replace U W & )er Fountain Area ft PROS Aba. -good • Area already +: .* fenced t t f ae • � +h _ a CITY PARK: Somerset Park SITE LOCATION: Under high power lines next to Hwv 280 sound wall enced Dog Area CITY PARK: Wilson Park SITE LOCATION: Back of park next to culvert PROS • Good for deterring problem teen activity in the area • Buffer zone of culvert to neighbors • Multi -use park • Centrally located • Restrooms on- site CONS • Very limited parking • Not centrally located • Very small neighborhood park • No restroom • Permission to use area needed from PG &E CONS • Neighborhood opposition • Heavy park usage N The following City parks are sites that various City Council members suggested to staff to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. PROS CONS • Strong • Neighborhood neighborhood opposition watch • Lack of • Light park use on restrooms weekdays • Limited • Stop teens from parking driving across turf . Not centrally from Donegal Dr. located to Barnhart Pl. site • Neighborhood group exercises • Limiting dog dogs in park Trial Fenced Dog Area with Time Limits CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for use as a dog park 3 CITY PARK: Hoover Park SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Place and before soccer field PROS CONS • Youth Cricket • Too large of an group wants area entire field • Maintenance fenced issues with • Restrooms on- these joint use site activities • Centrally located • Limiting dog park hours may have potential site use conflicts CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for use as a dog park 3 CITY PARK: Hoover Park SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Place and before soccer field PROS • Good, long, fenced dog run • Open during park hours • Buffer zone of creek and street from neighbors • Restrooms on- site • Centrally located CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: From trash dumpster area to Pacifica Dr. PROS • Good parking • Landis currently unused • Centrally located CONS • Parking on -site already impacted • Possible location of future parking expansion CONS • Neighborhood issues • No restrooms on -site 4 CITY -OWNED PROPERTY: Mary Avenue Parcel The following are not City -owned properties that the staff work team assessed. Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino Square PROS • Currently not in use for parking • Centrally located CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • No shade • Cement surface • Maintenance issue with no water on -site • No restrooms on -site North Parking Lots at Cupertino Square PROS CONS next to Highway 280 off -ramp • Currently not in • Permission to use for parking use area would • Centrally located be needed from property owner • No shade • Asphalt surface • No water or restrooms on -site County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department site along Lawrence Expressway PROS CONS • Fence is currently • Permission to in place use area would be needed from property owner • Far distance from on- street parking • Not centrally located • No water or restrooms on -site • Possible environment hazards on -site Council may want to consider for any new park development in Cupertino, that a fenced dog park may be part of the discussion during the park design stage. 5 FISCAL IMPACT During the budget process for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, City Council approved $500,000 for construction of a permanent dog park area, $40,000 for a trial dog park area, and $40,000 for education and enforcement. Estimated cost per site for a nine -month trial dog park area: SITE RENTAL FENCING ADDITIONAL TOTAL SITE COST COST MAINTENANCE FOR TRIAL DOG ($1.25 per linear foot + 10% COST PARK AREA contingency) (1/4 time Maintenance Worker) Linda Vista Park $18,100 $17,950 $36,050 Memorial Park $41,900 $17,950 $59,850 Somerset Park Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Wilson Park $15,950 $17,950 $33,900 Hoover Park $12,200 $17,950 $30,150 Entire Library Field $117,200 $17,950 $135,150 Section of Library Field $21,500 $17,950 $39,450 Mary Avenue Parcel $34,980 $17,950 $52,930 Top Floor of Parking _ Structure at Cupertino $33,200 $17,950 $51,150 Square North Parking Lots at $58,800 $17,950 $76,750 Cupertino Square County of Santa Clara Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Roads and Airport Department Site PREPARED BY: Julia Lamy Senior Recreation Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Mark Linder Director, Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp City Manager EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Cc 44- C. 9ss • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE (408) 777 -3110 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366 3/ X13 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. SUBJECT AND ISSUE MEETING DATE: March 2, 2010 Receive report on possible locations for fenced -in dog areas in Cupertino and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND At the December 15, 2009 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to return with a report on whether or not fenced -in dog areas would work in City parks. A work team consisting of staff from Code Enforcement, Sheriff's Department, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation met to perform this assessment. DISCUSSION The following City parks are sites that staff suggested to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. 1 CITY PARK: Linda Vista Park SITE LOCATION: Upper Area, site of former group picnic area 5nior enter PROS CONS • Taking out upper • Next to heavily pond would help used picnic with wild geese area issue • Limited • Restrooms on- parking issues site • High volume • Centrally located activity in park CITY PARK: Memorial Park SITE LOCATION: Replace Upper Foun Area nced I Fe_ CITY PARK: Wilson Park SITE LOCATION: Back of park next to culvert 2 PROS • Area already fenced PROS • Good for deterring problem teen activity in the area • Buffer zone of culvert to neighbors • Multi -use park • Centrally located • Restrooms on- site CONS • Very limited parking • Not centrally located • Very small neighborhood park • No restroom • Permission to use area needed from PG &E CONS • Neighborhood opposition • Heavy park usage CITY PARK: Somerset Park SITE LOCATION: Under high power lines next to Hwv 280 sound wall The following City parks are sites that various City Council members suggested to staff to assess. These parks are listed in alphabetical order. PROS • Strong neighborhood watch • Light park use on weekdays • Stop teens from driving across turf from Donegal Dr. to Barnhart Pl. • Neighborhood group exercises dogs in park CONS • Neighborhood opposition • Lack of restrooms • Limited parking • Not centrally located CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for use as a dog park 3 CITY PARK: Hoover Park SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Place and before soccer field PROS CONS • Youth Cricket • Too large of an group wants area entire field • Maintenance - = fenced issues with • Restrooms on- these joint use - site activities • Centrally located • Limiting dog Trial Fenced Dog Area park hours may with Time Limits have potential site use conflicts CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for use as a dog park 3 CITY PARK: Hoover Park SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Place and before soccer field PROS • Good, long, fenced dog run • Open during park hours • Buffer zone of creek and street from neighbors • Restrooms on- site • Centrally located CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: From trash dumpster area to Pacifica Dr. PROS • Good parking • Landis currently unused • Centrally located CONS • Parking on -site already impacted • Possible location of future parking expansion CONS • Neighborhood issues • No restrooms on -site 4 CITY -OWNED PROPERTY: Mary Avenue Parcel The following are not City -owned properties that the staff work team assessed. Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino Square North Parking Lots at Cupertino Square next to Highway 280 off -ramp County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department site along Lawrence Expressway PROS • Currently not in use for parking • Centrally located CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • No shade • Cement surface • Maintenance issue with no water on -site • No restrooms on -site PROS • Currently not in use for parking • Centrally located CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • No shade • Asphalt surface • No water or restrooms on -site PROS • Fence is currently in place CONS • Permission to use area would be needed from property owner • Far distance from on- street parking • Not centrally located • No water or restrooms on -site • Possible environment hazards on -site Council may want to consider for any new park development in Cupertino, that a fenced dog park may be part of the discussion during the park design stage. 5 FISCAL IMPACT During the budget process for Fiscal Year 2009/21) 10, City Council approved $500,000 for construction of a permanent dog park area, $40,000 for a trial dog park area, and $40,000 for education and enforcement. Estimated cost per site for a nine -month trial dog dark area: SITE RENTAL FENCING ADDITIONAL TOTAL SITE COST COST MAINTENANCE FOR TRIAL DOG ($1.25 per linear foot + 10 % COST PARK AREA contingency) (1/4 time Maintenance Worker) Linda Vista Park $18,100 $17,950 $36,050 Memorial Park $41,900 $17,950 $59,850 Somerset Park Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Wilson Park $15,950 $17,950 $33,900 Hoover Park $12,200 $17,950 $30,150 Entire Library Field $117,200 $17,950 $135,150 Section of _ Library Field $21,500 $17,950 $39,450 Mary Avenue Parcel $34,980 $17,950 $52,930 Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino $33,200 $17,950 $51,150 Square North Parking Lots at $58,800 _ $17,950 $76,750 Cupertino Square County of Santa Clara Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Roads and Airport Department Site PREPARED BY: Julia Lamy Senior Recreation Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: Mark Linder Director, Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: David W. Knapp City Manager C C ,l- I .; 3/1/2010 SITE LOCATION: Upper Area, site of former group picnic area CITY PARK: Linda Vista Park 3/1/2010 SITE LOCATION: Replace Upper Fountain Area SITE LOCATION: Under high power lines rext to Hwy 280 sound wall CITY PARK: Memorial Park CITY PARK: Somerset Park 3/1/2010 SITE LOCATION: Back of park next to culvert SITE LOCATION: Off of Barnhart Place and before soccer field CITY PARK: Wilson Park CITY PARK: Hoover Park 3/1/2010 SITE LOCATION: Fence entire field with set hours for use as a dog park CITY PARK: Library Field SITE LOCATION: From trash dumpster area to Pacifica Dr. CITY PARK: Library Field 3/1/2010 Not City -Owned Properties • Top Floor of Parking Structure at Cupertino Square • North Parking Lots at Cupertino Square next to Highway 280 off -ramp • County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department site along Lawrence Expressway 5 CITY -OWNED PROPERTY: Mary Avenue Parcel 3/1/2010 Estimated Cost per Site for a Nine -month Trial Dog Park SITE RENTALFENCING ADDITIONAL TOTAL SITE COST COST MAINTENANCE FOR TRIAL DOG csi.zs p.. unr.� r,a u' a COST PARK AREA Linda Vista Park $18,100 $17,950 $36,050 Memorial Park $41,900 $17,950 $59,850 Somerset Park Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Wilson Park $15,950 $17,950 $33,900 Hoover Park $12,200 $17,950 $30,150 Entire Library Field $117,200 $17,950 $135,150 Section of $21,500 $17,950 Library Field $39,450 Mary Avenue Parcel $34,980 $17,950 $52,930 Top Floor of Parking $33,200 $17,950 Structure at Cupertino $51,150 Square North Parking Lots at $58,800 $17,950 $76,750 Cupertino Square County of Santa Clara Fence On -Site $17,950 $17,950 Roads and Airport Department Site -. yy�4 ad✓ PAPERS ON DOG PROPOSAL FOR CUPERTINO COUNCILMEMBERS March 2, 2010 Page No. Description 1 Animal Control Ltr. — 992 Licensed Cupertino Dogs 2 -4 Animal Control List of Cupertino Dogs - - 16 Dog Bites since 1/1/08 5 -7 Sheriff Dept. List of Cupertino Dogs - - 5 Dog Bites since 1/1/08 8 Procedure of how City of San Jose Increased No. of Licensed Dogs 9 Sign in one Vet's Office about the Requirement on p. 8 10 Rough Draft of a Postcard to mail to all Cupertino Residents CITY OF SAN CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY January 12, 2010 Animal Care - & Service Division To Whom it May Concern: Re: Licensed Dogs in Cupertino As of 1 /12/10, our records indicate that there are 992 licensed dogs in Cupertino. As you know, many of the dogs in Cupertino are not licensed so your actual dog population is most likely greater than the nu'nber of licensed dogs. Additionally, since 7/1 /09 until 1 /11 /10 there have been 17 incidents of dog bites reported to our agency from Cupertino. Sincerely, ��g) Dottie Barney, Program Mgr. Animal Care and Services Phone: (408) 794 -7204 2750 Monterey Road San Jose, CA 95111 tel (408) 578 -7297 fax (408) 229 -2122 a CUPERTINO DOGS TAKEN TO S. J. ANIMAL CARE CTR. OR KNOWN ABOUT (Unleashed /Stray /Biter Dogs) DATE BREED CUPERTINO LOCATION FOUND 1/5/2008 GOLDEN RETRIEVER CLARKSTON AVE. 1/20/2008 GERMAN SHEPHERD STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & ORANGE AVE. 1/26/2008 CHOW CHOW VOSS & FOOTHILL 2/5/2008 DACHSHUND (LH) BOLLINGER 3/1/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) DE ANZA BLVD. & HOMESTEAD RD. 3/8/2008 YORKSHIRE TERRIER STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & FOOTHILL BLVD. 3/24/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) HOMESTEAD RE). & DE ANZA BLVD. 3/24/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) HOMESTEAD RE). & DE ANZA BLVD. 3/25/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) TANTAU & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 3/28/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & HWY. 85 3/29/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER SEVEN SPRINGS & PINE BROOK 4/13/2008 MALTESE N. BLANEY AVE. 4/17/2008 AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD RODRIGUES & DE ANZA BLVD. 4/27/2008 CHINESE SHARPEI KENTWOOD 5/1/2008 SILKY TERRIER STEVENS CREEK BLVD. NEAR HOMES 6/1/2008 MIN. POODLE S. FOOTHILL BLVD. & VOSS 6/10/2008 GERMAN SHEPHERD UPLAND WAY 6/25/2008 MIN. POODLE STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & GARDEN VIEW 6/28/2008 BOXER HOUSE NEAR CRABTREE 6/28/2008 PIT BULL HOUSE NEAR CRABTREE 7/6/2008 DANDIE DINMONT BOLLINGER & TANTAU 7/17/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER GRENADA & STIELLING RD. 7/24/2008 CAVALIER SPANIEL STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 9/14/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER CRESTLINE /STELLING RD. /RAINBOW DRIVE 9/30/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER BARNHART & JOHNSON 10/3/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER FINCH & CUPERTINO H. S. (2 LABS.) 10/3/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 10/15/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 10/26/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 10/28/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 10/29/2008 SHIH TZU 11/4/2008 BASSET HOUND 11/6/2008 GREYHOUND 11/20/2008 BORDER TERRIER 12/1/2008 MIN. POODLE 12/10/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 12/14/2008 BICHON FRISE 12/20/2008 BEAGLE 12/28/2008 BEAGLE 12/28/2008 TOY POODLE 12/29/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) 1/5/2009 SHIBA INU 1/26/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 1/26/2009 PIT BULL 2/1/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER 2/18/2009 SHIH TZU 2/23/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER FINCH & CUPERTINO H. S. MORETTI & LOREE STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & FOOTHILL BLVD. CARVER & TUGGLE GREENLEAF & STELLING RD. WILLIAMS & MAIRILLA MINETTE & NEWSON PINNATAGE & RODRIGUES BYRNE & ALCAZAR FINCH & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. COLUMBUS & BIJBB RD. PROSPECT RD. (FREMONT /ALDER PARK) LA RODA DRIVE & BLANEY AVE. TANTAU & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. STERLING & CYNTHIA WUNDERLICH & MENHART UPTON WAY & BUBB RD. UPTON WAY & BUBB RD. STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & TANTAU TILSON & CALVE:RT PEARTREE & BLANEY AVE. COMMENTS (BIT SOMEONE) (BIT SOMEONE) CUPERTINO DOGS TAKEN TO S. J. ANIMAL CARE CTR. OR KNOWN ABOUT (Unleashed /Stra r /Biter Dogs) DATE BREED CUPERTINO LOCATION FOUND COMMENTS 2/24/2009 CHOW CHOW CANYON VISTA DRIVE & STEVENS CANYON RD. 2/26/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER FLORA VISTA & TULITA COURT 2/26/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER FLORA VISTA & TULITA COURT 3/2/2009 PIT BULL STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & STELLING RD. 3/17/2009 COCKER SPANIEL DE ANZA BLVD. & RAINBOW DRIVE 3/23/2009 ROTTWEILER STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 3/24/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER JAMESTOWN DRIVE & PROSPECT RD. 3/25/2009 GERMAN SHEPHERD LAWRENCE & SARATOGA AVE. 3/30/2009 POMERANIAN STELLING RD. & ROBINDELL 4/4/2009 GERMAN SHEPHERD ASTER LANE & NEWCASTLE 4/7/2009 BEAGLE COLUMBUS & BUBB RD. 4/12/2009 SHIH TZU WEEPING OAK & SALEM 4/14/2009 GERMAN SHEPHERD JOHANSEN & ME IGGS 4/14/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER JOHANSEN & MFIGGS 4/22/2009 ROTTWEILER STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & JUDY AVE. 4/25/2009 SHIH TZU LAWRENCE & MILLER AVE. 4/29/2009 BOXER RAINBOW DRIVE= 5/4/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER TORRE AVE. & RODRIGUES 5/12/2009 CAIRN TERRIER RICHWOOD & MILLER AVENUE 5/2212009 CHIHUAHUA (SH) SOMERSET SQUARE PARK & STOKES AVE. (BIT SOMEONE) 5/25/2009 BICHON FRISE CHELMSFORD 8, WUNDERLICK 5/27/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER McCLELLAN RD. & BUBB RD. 6/13/2009 DACHSHUND HYDE MIDDLE SCHOOL 6/19/2009 SHIH TZU BUBB & McCLELLAN RD. 6/20/2009 PIT BULL PRADO VISTA & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 6/27/2009 BORDER TERRIER BUBB & STELLING RD. 6/27/2009 BORDER TERRIER BUBB & STELLING RD. 7/2/2009 McCLELLAND RD. 7/8/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER LA PALOMA & COLUMBUS AVENUE 7/12/2009 GERMAN SHEPHERD SAN FERNANDO AVE. (BIT SOMEONE) 7/14/2009 McCLELLAN ROAD 7/15/2009 ROSE BLOSSOM DRIVE 7/17/2009 BORDIE COLLIE RANCHO VENTURA STREET (BIT SOMEONE) 7/19/2009 (UNKNOWN STREET) (BIT SOMEONE) 7/21/2009 BRET AVENUE 7/21/2009 PENDERGAST AVE. 7/27/2009 P. RUSSELL TERRIER PENDERGAST AVENUE (BIT SOMEONE) 7/30/2009 PIT BULL ARATA WAY (BIT SOMEONE) 8/8/2009 KOMONDOR FARALLONE DRIVE (BIT SOMEONE) 8/11/2009 DOMESTIC SH DUNBAR DRIVE (BIT SOMEONE) 8/13/2009 HOMESTEAD RE). 8/20/2009 JOHN DRIVE 8/31/2009 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 9/4/2009 McCLELLAN ROAD 9/4/2009 HOMESTEAD ROAD 9/5/2009 MELLO PLACE CUPERTINO DOGS TAKEN TO S. J. ANIMAL CARE CTR. OR KNOWN ABOUT (Unleashed /Stra /Biter Dogs) DATE BREED CUPERTINO LOCATION FOUND COMMENTS 9/23/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER OAKVILLE AVE. (BIT SOMEONE) 9/24/2009 BUBB ROAD 9/28/2009 DOMESTIC SH STERLING BLVD. (BIT SOMEONE) 9/29/2009 OCTOBER WAY 10/13/2009 VOSS AVE. 10/14/2009 CAMINO VISTA DRIVE 10/15/2009 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 10/22/2009 BUBB ROAD 11/1/2009 HYDE AVE. 12/10/2009 AMERICAN BULLDOG LINDSAY AVE. (BIT SOMEONE) 12/10/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER E. ESTATES DRIVE (BIT SOMEONE) 12/12/2009 SIBERIAN HUSKY MILLER AVENUE (BIT SOMEONE) 12/16/2009 W. ESTATES DRIVE 1/2/2010 PRUNERIDGE AVE. 1/2/2010 PRUNERIDGE AVE. 1/2/2010 CULBERTSON DRIVE 1/5/2010 ALVES DRIVE 1/8/2010 AUSTR. CATTLE DOG STERLING BLVE). (BIT SOMEONE) Ev OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Calls for dog bites & dogs off leash in SANTA CLARA COUNTY Cupertino for 2008 to current. SHERIFF LAURIE SMITH RT T;)T CITY �IQN DISP .. 2/12/2008 4:16 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 2/28/2008 2 :16 PM CU Dog Off Leash THREE OAKS PARK No Report 5/5/2008 6:46 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 5/26/2008 4:04 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 10/18/2008 9 :18 PM CU Dog Off Leash WILSON PARK No Report 11/15/2008 3 :35 PM CU Dog Off Leash HOOVER PARK No Report 11/15/2008 3:57 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 11/15/2008 4:13 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 1111712008 4:10 PM CU Dog Off Leash LINDA VISTA PARK Citation Issi,Pci 11/20/2008 7:35 AM CU Dog Off Leash LINDA VISTA PARK No Report / Citation issuec 11/20/2008 4:52 PM CU Dog Off Leash WILSON PARK No Report 11/21/2008 5:05 PM CU Dog Off Leash HOOVER PARK Citation Issued 11/22/2008 11:06 AM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 11/22/2008 3:48 PM CU Dog Off Leash THREE OAKS PARK No Report 11/23/2008 10:56 AM CU Dog Off Leash WILSON PARK No Report 11/23/2008 2:22 PM CU Dog Off Leash WILSON PARK No Report 11/23/2008 3:30 PM CU Dog Off Leash LINDA VISTA PARK No Report 12/11/2008 4:14 PM CU Dog Off Leash LINDA VISTA PARK No Report 12/12/2008 4:19 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report/Warning 12117/2008 4:45 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK Citation Issued 12/18/2008 4:20 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 12/20/2008 11:10 AM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 12/20/2008 4:10 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 12/21/2008 9:05 AM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 12/2312008 1:35 PM CU Dog Bite LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Citation Issued 1/9/2009 4:14 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 1/10/2009 4:28 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 1/10/2009 4:34 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 1/10/2009 4:53 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 1/29/2009 2:37 PM CU Dog Bite RALYA COURT Citation Issued 2/27/2009 4:24 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 3/11/2009 4:30 PM CU Dog Off Leash MEMORIAL PARK Citation Issued 4/3/2009 7:23 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 6/6/2009 7:40 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK Citizen's Arrest 6/7/2009 6:37 PM CU Dog Off Leash HOOVER PARK No Report 6/8/2009 5:03 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 6/21/2009 5:45 PM CU Dog Off Leash JAMESTOWN DRIVE AT PROSPECT ROAD No Report 7/9/2009 7:13 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 7/10/2009 6:58 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 7/27/2009 8:40 AM CU TWO Dog Bites PENDERGAST AVE. (2 Citizens were bitten.) Citation Issued 7/30/2009 4:10 PM CU Dog Bite ARATA WAY (Citizen taken to Hospital) Citation Issued 8/6/2009 11:42 AM CU Dog Off Leash RANDY @ MERRITT No Report 8/6/2009 7:22 PM CU Dog Off Leash PENDERGAST @ CULBERTSON No Report 8/9/2009 3 :Q5 Pr!! CU D Ou Lea; ; S T EVENS CREEK BLVD. @ HWY 280 No Report 8/9/2009 7:31 AM CU Dog Off Leash LINDA VISTA PARK No Report 8/11/2009 10 :38 AM CU Dog Off Leash RAINBOW DRIVE @ WEYMOTH No Report 8/16/2009 8:01 PM CU Dog Off Leash SEVEN SPRINGS PRKWY @ SEVEN SPRINGS No Report 8/25/2009 8:17 PM CU Dog Off Leash BITTER OAK @ SWEET OAK No Report 8/29/2009 2:21 PM CU Dog Off Leash MILKY WAY @ DERBYSHIRE No Report 9/4/2009 7:52 AM CU Dog Off Leash MONTA VISTA H. S. No Report 9/4/2009 1:39 AM CU Dog Off Leash HOMESTEAD H. S. No Report 9/4/2009 7:20 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 9/5/2009 7:37 PM CU Dog Off Leash MELLO PLACE & PRICE AVENUE No Report 9/16/2009 5 :34 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 9/22/2009 8:05 PM CU Dog Off Leash MONTA VISTA H. S. No Report 9/24/2009 2:39 PM CU Dog Off Leash KENNEDY MIDDLE SCHOOL No Report 10/4/2009 3:09 AM CU Dog Off Leash MIRA VISTA AVE. & JANICE AVE. No Report 10/6/2009 9:13 PM CU Dog Off Leash UPLAND WAY & SEVEN SPRINGS DRIVE No Report 10/18/2009 5:59 PM CU Dog Off Leash JOLLYMAN PARK No Report 10/24/2009 1:12 PM CU Dog Off Leash HOMESTEAD RD. & NEW BRUNSWICK AVE. No Report 10/29/2009 9:19 PM CU Dog Off Leash STEVENS CREEK BLVD. & BIANCHI WAY No Report 11/4/2009 4:31 PM CU 11/6/2009 5:15 PM CU 11/25/2009 5:31 PM CU 12/13/2009 4:56 PM CU 12/19/2009 10:00 AM CU 12/22/2009 11:40 AM CU Dog Off Leash Person Attacked -no bite Dog Off Leash Dog Off Leash Dog Off Leash Dog Off Leash BROOKWELL DRIVE & ALDERBROOK LANE WOODRIDGE COURT & MCKLINTOCH LANE HOOVER PARK LILY COURT & LILY AVENUE WILSON PARK McCLELLAN ROAD & BUBB ROAD No Report Field Interrogation Card No Report No Report No Report No Report 0 HOW THE CITY OF SAN JOSE INCREASED NO. OF LICENSED DOGS 1) The City of San Jose (most likely their city council) changed one or more of their ordinances (or added a new one) in July, 2008, in order for the following procedures to be put in place. 2) When a Vet. gives a dog a rabies shot, the `Jet is required to submit the information (dog's name /gender, dog owner's name /address /phone no. etc.) to the San Jose Animal Care & Services office. (See attached sheet for explanation of this, which was in one Vet's office.) 3) That information is keyed into their data bank. Someone then checks to see if that dog has been licensed or if they have a record of it at all. 4) If the dog has NOT been licensed with them, then they send a letter to the dog owner explaining that the S. J. law requires that all dogs be licensed. 5) After two weeks, if they haven't heard back from the dog owner, then they send another letter, explaining what the penalty is for unlicensed dogs. 6) If the dog owner still doesn't license the dol; (within a certain period of time), then the S. J. Animal Care & Service office notifies .a dept. at City of San Jose and an "Administrative Citation" is issued to the clog owner. For questions on any of the above steps, please contact Dottie Barney, Program Mgr. at San Jose Animal Care and Services (Ph: 408 -794- 7204). ATTENTION SAN JOSE RESIDENTS: We are being required to send your name, address, phone number and pet's information to the City of San Jose after we administer a rabies vaccine to your pet. The city is enforcing the code: and requiring veterinarians to comply or risk losing their California Veterinary License. This change is effective immediately as the city began enforcing State Health and Safety Code 121690 (e) and (h) as of July 1, 2008. 61 TO ALL DOG OWNERS: Cupertino has a Leash Law, which prohibits unleashing your dog on public property (parks, sidewalks, school property, etc.). This law also requires that you pick up any dog waste after your dog. Cupertino also requires that you license your dog (S.J. Animal Care & Services— phone: 578- 7997). Citations will be given to any /all dog owners who violate this law, which include the following fines: 1) $100 for first offense 2) $250 for second offense 3) $500 for third or more offenses (State and court penalties will be added on to the above amts.) If you haven't trained your dog, we highly recommend doing so. When walking your dog, please restrain your dog when approaching others. For more information on our Leash Law and other things pertaining to dogs, please refer to our city webpage: www.cupertino.org and key in `Leash Law" in the search box or go to www.cupertino.org /dog If you don't have access to a computer, you may call City Hall (777 -3200) and ask for an informational brochure to be mailed to you. JAMES W. BLACK 11691 REGNART CANYON DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408 - 996 -2713 * FAX 408 - 9'96 -8300 e -mail: jameswilsonblack @me.com February 28, 2010 Mayor Kris Wang City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 -3255 Re: Fenced Dog Park Areas Dear Mayor Wang, I am aware the Fenced Dog Park issues will be before you & the Council Tuesday night to establish a trial period for several dog parks. I just had an opportunity to read the staff report. I would appreciate your serious consideration and support for the trial period, which is set forth in the report. We have been pursuing this trial period for almost three years with many committee meetings and public hearings without results. It is past time to collect the data and measure the results. Based upon the success of hundreds of existing and new dog parks throughout California & the Country, we are confident our Cupertino Fenced Off -lease Areas (OLA's) for our dogs can be successful too. As you remember, we. as the advocates for off -lease dogs in the parks presented a number of facts for consideration including successful OLA's in adjacent Cities. The opponents mainly presented emotional stories with scant facts as reasons to deny off -lease ELreas within the parks. Further they distributed misleading flyers in an attempt to sway the survey votes. The council voted to proceed with a survey, which was done & the Un- fenced Off -Lease Area trial proposal was rejected. We want to have areas where our dogs can exercise off -lease and we are here to present facts to support our request. During the presentation by the opponents, a number of the speakers suggested that while they opposed un- fenced off -lease areas, they could support fenced off -lease areas within our Fenced Dog Areas Page Two multi -use parks. I have several suggestions for your consideration, some of which are not in the staff report, but may be presented and discussed at the Tuesday public hearing. The following general rules should apply for any fenced dog park: 1) The OLA's should be available only for specific limited times such as 6 to 9 AM & 2 hours before sunset in the evening. 2) Any Dog use times would be superseded by scheduled events, including athletic activities. 3) The Dog use areas, OLA's, should be restricted to Cupertino Residents. 4) Install attractive permanent green or black- coated vinyl 4 feet high fence including top rail with simple gates that can be left open and only closed during dog use, rather than temporary fencing. Permanent fencing installed now will cost reasonably more than temporary fencing, however, the permanent fencing will be installed at the end of the period rather than returning; rental fencing with no cost benefit to the City. Library Field is a perfect example of choosing a site for permanent fencing to accomplish security for the Soccer, Cricket and other athletic activities and which could be used as a fenced Off - Lease Area for our dogs with specific use times. 5) Post the rules clearly and require users to police themselves. That is, clean up as necessary and remove excessively noisy dogs, for example. Where this has been done, the response has exceeded the expectations of the respective Parks & Recreation Departments. New York, Portland, Santa Cruz are examples of this and there are many more. Benefits: 1) Restricting the time and the use to Cupertino Residents will limit driving & minimize parking requirements and the number of dogs. Most individual dog exercise periods are less than an hour. Most OLA's and parks are used by adjacent members of the neighborhood. With several parks identified for the trial, driving, parking & the impact on the turf will be reduced as well Fenced Dog Areas Page three 2) Athletic activities or scheduled use would take priority over dog use. This concept is used many places; Incline Village, Lake Tahoe, shares a soccer field with dog activity, for example. Soccer schedules are posted and dogs are not allowed during those times. 3) Select and install fencing with gates whose visual impact is minimized and with gates that can stay opened for other uses during the day, Specific Comments: The following are specific comments following the staff report outline. We are recommending the selection of specific parks with minimal fencing cost impact and/or where there are additional benefits to install permanent fencing rather than temporary fencing: 1) Linda Vista Park: It would be possible to install permanent fencing dividing the upper area from the lower area where the bottom empty pond, below the waterfall is located. Two gates could be located on the existing asphalt path and remain open except when dogs are present. The permanent fencing cost should be similar to the cost set forth in the table on page 6. 2) The Memorial Park softball field:, could be fenced with minimum cost impact and would be a true multi.-use area. Dog activity would not impact other areas of Memorial Park. The Softball field is used only in season and then not for long periods of time. If the softball field could be used, the permanent fencing costs would substantially less than set forth on page 6. 3) Somerset Park: Agree with Staff, probably local small dog park. 4) Wilson baseball fields are fenced and are ideal for trials with minimal expense. Wilson could provide both large and small dog areas. 5) Hoover Park: could be fenced across the end to the existing fence for minimal cost. 6) Library Field: It is currently being; used for cricket and soccer. Permanently fencing the entire site would provide a level of security and multi -use including the OLA for our dogs. Please leave the current rented construction fence in place while conducting the trial, which could provide good trial period information at reasonable cost, On the other hand attractive permanent fencing could be installed now for more cost, but by replacing the rental fencing now with permanent Fenced Dog Areas Page Four fencing, the cost saving would reduce the cost of the permanent fencing. 7) Mary Ave Park: Install permanent fencing now, which will allow small dog activity in an underused area. Estimated cost should be similar to the cost set forth on page #6 of the staff report. 8) Possible new area: The city owned Sims Property on McClellan adjacent to McClellan Ranch and across McClellan from the entrance to Deep Cliff Golf Course. It could accommodate both parking & reasonable fencing & is currently under used. 9) Creekside Park: Creekside fronts on Miller, is split by the entrance driveway and has soccer fields on both portions of the "L" shaped park. Two soccer fields run parallel to Miller and the one closest to Miller has one side adjacent to Miller, one end butts up to the entrance driveway and the other end approaches the end of an Apartment House, the remaining long side parallels the adjacent soccer field. A fence could be installed between the two soccer fields and the field closest to Miller could be used as a fenced Off -Lease Dog Area with designated times. Our priority request for fenced Off -Lease Dog Areas are the following: 1) Wilson Park, existing fencing, good city location, minimal expense, ready now, could be adapted for both large & small dogs. 2) Library field: currently has rental fencing, we suggest permanent fencing be installed asap, which benefits Cricket, Soccer & provides an Off -Lease Area for our dogs. 3) Mary Ave: currently unused area with minimal fencing and would make an excellent small dog park with parking. 4) Memorial Park Softball Field: the majority of the fencing exists and there is parking; central location and specific times would make it work well for an Off -Lease Area with minimal expense. 5) Creekside Park: An accessible yep: relatively isolated and underutilized park, which could accommodate an Off -Lease Area with minimal fencing. Fenced Dog Areas Page Five These are our both our suggestions and requests and we believe Cupertino can and does deserve areas for our dogs to exercise. Other nearby Cities have both fenced and unfenced areas recognizing the need to offer opportunities for dogs to exercise. The selection of specific areas and specific times provides the City with the ability to regulate and organize the areas and dog & owner behavior. There has been dogs off -lease in Cupertino for as long as we can remember, which exceeds 35 years and continues today. Providing fenced areas will reduce neighbor tensions and concerns and help regulate and reduce off - lease activity as well. Thank you, Jim Black Linda Lagergren From: Judy Klinger Ucholla @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:15 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: no dog parks in our parks Dear Mr Chang, The council must keep dogs out of our parks and in areas that will not destroy our parks. Hoover Park is once again targeted with an area 2.0 ft from homes, under 9 heritage redwood trees. These trees would suffer with their shallow root systems and exposure to all the dog excrement. The drainage at Hoover would take the excrement and carry it over 2 sports fields, next to 2 playgrounds and past the basketball court. The park was planned as a youth sports area, which I know, as 'I served on P &R Commission at that time. We are ignoring all best practices of Parks professionals and will be the laughing stock of the state. The dogs belong away from our city parks. Many from our neighborhood voted for you as you stood for no dogs in our parks. The people of Cup spoke loudly in the survey. Mr Linder has also refused to clarify the Hoover turf driving problem... there was am incident in the late 80's... no neighbors aware of other turf damage. The noise issue speaks for itself, as the barking and smells would be a huge concern ... also lack of enforcement. Find another city area for the dogs and don't ruin our parks. Hoover has already suffered with the complete lack of courtesy from many dog owners and ignoring of the leash laws. These dogs have run many out of the parks! (including me!) Sincerely, Judy Klinger, David Klinger CC -413 Linda Lagergren From: Amit & Milan Bhardwaj [amitmilan @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:13 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; omamahoney @cupertino.org; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: No to fenced -in dog area at Hoover park Dear Councilman, Regarding the proposed fenced- in dog areas ( Item # 13) for the March 2nd City Council Mtg., we are urging you to vote against any OLA's in our neighbourhood parks. All of our parks are closely surrounded by neighbours and are multi -use neighbourhood parks. These OLA's would attract lots of dog owners,dogs,cars,etc. Because of safety concerns ,loss of park space,dog poop on the lawns, noise of barking etc we are strongly against this idea. Moreover we have young children who along with their friends in the neighbourhood like to just run across and play in the park . Fencing it for the use of dogs at the cost of a children's play area seems a matter worth considering very seriously as it affects our community. I trust you shall consider our input. Thank you, Sincerely. Milan Bhardwaj Amit Bhardwaj (Residents of Barnhart Place) Linda Lagergren � From: Judy Klinger Ocholla @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:51 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: dog parks Dear Mayor Wang, As citizens, we are once again being asked to defend the parks from the dog lobby. Hoover does not have a problem with turf damage due to drivers. (late 80's was the last anyone recalls) Mr Linder will not respond to ?'s about this issue in his report. Also, the drainage at Hoover will take dog excrement from the top of the park, pouring it past 2 childrens parks, and 2 sports fields and the basketball court to the bottom drain. The fenced area is on top of 9 huge heritage redwoods with shallow root systems that will no doubt be damaged by digging dogs and the excrement on the soil. The area is within 20 ft of existing homes. We will be the laughing stock of the professional parks people by ignoring best practices. Put the dogs away from our city parks. Sincerely, Judy & David Klinger -'-'5 1zIIo Linda Lagergren I From: Li -Lin [lilink @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:05 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: Against fenced -in dog area Dear Mayor Wang, I am strongly opposed to the setup of a fenced -in dog area. I have seen dog owners let their dogs roam into ours and other neighbors' front yard sniffing around and sometimes poo right at our properties even though their dogs are leashed and the owners are watching, I'm not sure how we are going to protect our properties with potentially much more dogs showing up in our neighborhood? Please help us prevent this problem from worsening by nor allowing the setup of a fenced -in off - leashed dog area at Hoover Park. Thank you. Sincerely, Li -Lin Kuo Cc' 3 1 2 1 ' ° Linda Lagergren -41 From: playatthepark [playatthepark @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:49 AM To: safeparkfriends @googlegroups.co n; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Kris Wang Subject: Considerations Dear City Council and Residents of Cupertino I am following up on my earlier suggestion that we do not consider any parks in Cupertino at present. As current and former dog owners, we should start taking our dogs seriously and Cupertino should set the trend by not cowtowing to the alleged convenience of a few dog owners and encourage dog owners to take their dogs to Stevens Creek County Park. The parks should be for people who want to keep their dogs on a leash and once you give them one park, they will ask for another and say it is not close enough. There should be more. How can you guarantee that they will not ask for more and come week after week, session after session and make this Mark Linder's full time job. Children and families.. we have to tip toe around the loose dogs in the parks. They will be everywhere once people get used to the idea of having dogs off leash in the city. Cupertino has been designed as a driving city. How many people are going to walk to Mary or to Linda Vista? How do we know that people around Mary will support it. If they do not I hope it will not forced on them. If you decide to go that route, it should be clearly stated that if there is no local support then there should be no dog park and it should re iterated and recorded that overall the majority of people do not want off leash dogs fenced on unfenced in the parks so that no more staff time is spent on this. People of Linda Vista have already spoken. I am not sure what the logic is as most people are going to drive anyway. It is going to change the traffic, parking, poop and noise around both places. I would like to believe that the people of Cupertino are leaders. Please encourage people to think twice about the responsibilities of urban dog ownership. If we get a big dog, we need to be prepared to take it to a big place that is suitable for the dog. That is responsible ownership. If dog owners are too lazy, then it is time to educate them about what is being offered. Cupertino is a long way to becoming a walking city.. there is no well developed public transit, mixture of shops and residences the way it is in some metropolitan areas, no trees along major streets such as De anza and Stevens Creek and numerous ( hundred) parks and parkettes. We need all of that to start working towards a walking city. Turning dogs loose in the city is not going to make it a walking city. Thanks so much for your time and reading this letter. Premika Ratnam cc �I21t G Linda Lagergren 4 From: Lynn Frake [Ifrake @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:01 ANI To: City Council Subject: Fenced OLA for dogs Dear Mayor Wang and Councilmembers: I attended about six of the Citizens Group meetings on OLAs for dogs since last May. I got involved when I heard that Portal Park was a candidate for a fenced OLA for dogs. During the subsequent Citizens Group meetings, I was surprised that a member of the Citizens Group was so eager for an OLA that he got out his measuring tape, measured an area in Portal Park, and declared the 20 feet of noise /safety buffer zone he measured (to park neighbors with gate entrances to the park) adequate. He never described what he considered inadequate and I feel he was blinded by the beautiful field of grass he had his eye on. The lack of objective criteria bothered me then and bothers me now. I would like to encourage you to adopt a transparent process if you elect to go ahead with a fenced OLA. Agreed upon uniform, objective criteria should be prioritized and then applied to all potential sites. So far, I haven't seen prioritized, specific criteria for site selection endorsed by the City Council. I feel this should have been part of the Staff report and am dismayed by it's omission. I understand that this can be a difficult process but it doesn't help build public trust in government when seemingly arbitrary decisions are made. I was diappointed in my experience with the Citizens Group as I found the lack of process and tranparency frustrating. I urge you to remedy this by adopting a transparent, fair process if you choose to proceed with a fenced OLA. I am not against a fenced OLA and thought the proposal for an OLA in Stevens Creek County Park was a reasonable solution. I have a hard time sympathizing with dog owners who insist they have to walk to an OLA or they will continue to violate city ordinances. I hope you discount these voices as I'd bet the majority of dog owners are more considerate of the larger community. Sincerely, Lynn Frake 10174 Riedel P1. Cupertino, CA C(; !2I2flio Linda Lagergren From: Maria Ludwikow [mjlu7 @yahoo.corn] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:49 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: dog parks Dear Ms Wang, I hope that you can stop this stupid action and the waste of our money to reconsider again "dogs in the park" issue. The residents of Cupertino already showed their opinions about this problem and looks that the best solution is to built the dog park in Stevens Creek Park, no in the small parks used by kids and senior citizens. Sincerely, Maria Ludwikow resident of Cupertino of 15 years 1 Linda Lagergren f From: paull_95014 @yahoo.com Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:58 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: Dog Park in Cupertino Dear Councilman Gilbert Wong, Regarding the proposed fenced -in dog areas (Item #13) for the March 2 nd City Council Mtg., we're urging you to vote against any OLAs in our neighborhood parks. All of our parks are closely surrounded by neighbors and are multi -use neighborhood parks. These OLAs would attract LOTS of dog owners, dogs, cars, etc. Because of barking noises, more dog poop on lawns, safety concerns and loss of park space, we're strongly against this idea. Thank you. Sincerely, Pou Lin 10074 Mann Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 CC Linda Lagergren� From: John Woolfolk [woolfolk @comcast.riet] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:55 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Dog Park Issue I am very disappointed to see that the issue of Dog Parks in Cupertino neighborhood parks is once again on the agenda for the next Council meeting. It should have been very clear from all the input that has been provided over the last many, many months that Cupertino residents overwhelmingly oppose such a plan. The survey that was done last year clearly showed that to be the case. For whatever reasons the council majority seems to be determined to go against the wishes of the citizenry and force this unpopular idea no matter what. This issue has been studied and discussed ad nauseam. Let me iust summarize two fundamental issues here. First, there is no acceptable location in our neighborhood parks to accommodate a dog park. And as was shown in the surveys last year, the neighbors very strongly oppose the idea. I cannot imagine why any more discussion or study is needed. The council needs to step up, make a decision and put this issue to rest once and for all. Second is cost. At a time when California government at all levels is in financial crisis Cupertino somehow has nearly a million dollars to spend on this not the mention the hundreds of hours of staff, council and public time that has been spent to date. At the same time Cupertino has the audacity to join the suit against the governor to try to prevent the state from taking local funds for state purposes. Now normally I would agree with that effort but if Cupertino has a million dollars for a dog park, I say let the state have it because there are much more urgent needs than that and Cupertino clearly has no effective prioritization system to manage its finances. PLEASE put a stop this issue now and let's get on with the much more important needs of the city than this. By the way I am not a dog hater. I love dogs and have owned dogs most of my life. Dogs or other pets can be a very important part of a family. But that does not mean that they need to run free in our neighborhood parks. John Woolfolk 10123 Hillcrest Rd. Cupertino Linda Lagergren From: Kenji Gonzales [shinkokuu @gmail.c:om] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:54 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Cc: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Subject: Hoover Park - Enclosed Area for Dogs To the Cupertino City Council, It has come to my attention of a proposal to turn Hoover Park into a fenced off -leash dog area including a fence along Barnhart Place. As one of the residents that lives on Barnhart across from the park, I am adamantly opposed to Hoover Park being turned into a fenced off -leash area and furthermore opposed to any of the city parks being considered with the exception of Linda Vista and Steven's Creek Reservoir. As I understand it, the reason for this proposal is to prevent teenagers from driving their cars through the park? Councilmen, I have lived here for over 20 years and there has only been one such incident long ago. If this is the sole reason, I find it to be baseless, ridiculous, and quite frankly callous. Hoover Park has always been enjoyed by people of all ages, even I go out there to lay in the sun on weekends. Furthermore, the park contains two jungle gyms, a basketball court, and a large area of grz.ss that is frequented by soccer games. The facilities are used frequently. Many children use that park, I myself ased to use it when I was younger. If there is any problem we have had in that park, it is from irresponsible dog owners that do not adhere to city policy (such as keeping a dog on leash) nor take responsibility. Dog feces is frequently found due to owners not cleaning up after their pets, an unleashed area would magnify the issue. Even a fence will not keep things in control - do you honestly thing just because the dog can't get outside there is no liability for those in the fenced area? I myself was tackled in Hoover Park by an unleashed dog when I was younger, from an owner that believed his dog was friendly enough that he would not harm anyone. The dog had the friendliest of intentions, but a scared 6 year old is not going to react well a large golden retriever chases after you thinking you want to wrestle. I suffered a sprained ankle as a result. Even a leashed dog can be a risk at times, as some owners are unable to fully control their pets. Please don't get me wrong. I love dogs, but I hold a great amount of frustration towards irresponsible dog owners, and I feel this proposal would only make a tumultuous situation worse. The San Jose Mercury recently printed an article about dog parks in San Jose, and how residential complaints increased significantly. I would ask the city council to reconsider this issue. I remain opposed to any such notions of a fenced unleashed area in any city park, especially Hoover Park. Mark Kenji Gonzales 7576 Barnhart Place Cupertino C C X121 I v Linda Lager ren '�; I Ii From: Sharad Kukreti [skukreti @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:29 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Proposed fenced in dog area in Hoover Park Dear Councilman Mahoney We recently moved to Cupertino ( Barnhart Place , within 500 ft of Hoover Park ) and became aware of the fenced -in unleashed dog park issues as we are settling down in our beautiful neighborhood. We have a 10 month old son who goes to the Hoover Park multiple times a day. We are deeply concerned about his safety from dogs running amok in the park. Hoover Park is a neighborhood park closely surrounded by residences and increased dog traffic on our sidewalks will create other unintended consequences such as litter, traffic, noise etc. Based on the above, the OLA proposal for our park is unacceptable to us and we strongly urge you to vote against it. Thanks Sharad & Archana Kukreti Barnhart PI, Cupertino CC -�� "�' ° - - Linda La er ren From: Sharad Kukreti [skukreti @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 4:25 PM To: Kris Wang Subject: Proposed fenced in dog area in Hocver Park Dear Mayor Wang We recently moved to Cupertino (Barnhart Place, within 500 ft of Hoover Park) and became aware of the fenced -in unleashed dog park issues as we are settling down in our beaut ful neighborhood. We have a 10 month old son who goes to the Hoover Park multiple times a day. We are deeply concerned about his safety from dogs running amok in the park. Hoover Park is a neighborhood park closely surrounded by residences and increased dog traffic on our sidewalks will create other unintended consequences such as litter, traffic, noise etc. Based on the above, the OLA proposal for our park is unacceptable to us and we strongly urge you to vote against it. Thanks Sharad & Archana Kukreti Barnhart PI, Cupertino 0 Linda Lagergren - 3 From: SUZANNE ABECKET [8pawprints@)sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:38 AM To: City Council Subject: Dog Park Dear Council Members: Please put a stop to the time, effort, finances and community dissension involved in the continuing issue of dog parks in our City's neighborhood parks. The citizens have spoken - please listen. I have written before, and spoken in person at Council meetings on this matter, so will not reiterate my statements (which echo much of what you are currently receiving from others). I feel strongly that this matter should be put to rest regarding neighborhood parks. The most logical, and cost effective, place for a dog park is the County area which was offered to our City. Incidentally, I love dogs, and volunteer with them at the Humane Society. Suzanne a'Becket 21163 Patriot Way Cupertino _t, JAMES W. BLACK 11691 REGNART CANYON DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 408 - 996 -2713 * 408 - 446 -2410 FAX 408 -996 -8300 e -mail: jameswilsonblack @me.com February 28, 2010 Barry Chang Councilmember bchang(a,cupertino. org 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 -3255 Re: Fenced Dog Park Areas Dear Barry, I am aware the Fenced Dog Park issues will be before you & the Council Tuesday night to establish a trial period for several dog parks. I just had an opportunity to read the staff report. I would appreciate your serious consideration and support for the trial period, which is set forth in the report. We have been pursuing this trial period for almost three years with many committee meetings and public hearings without results. It is past time to collect the data and measure the results. Based upon the success of hundreds of existing and new dog parks throughout California & the Country, we are confident our Cupertino Fenced Off -lease Areas (OLA's) for our dogs can be successful too. As you remember, we. as the advocates for off -lease dogs in the parks presented a number of facts for consideration including successful OLA's in adjacent Cities. The opponents mainly presented emotional stories with scant facts as reasons to deny off -lease areas within the parks. Further they distributed misleading flyers in an attempt to sway the survey votes. The council voted to proceed with a survey, which was done & the Un- fenced Off -Lease Area trial proposal was rejected. We want to have areas where our dogs can exercise off -lease and we are here to present facts to support our request. During the presentation by the opponents, a number of the speakers suggested that while they opposed un- Fenced Dog Areas Page Two fenced off -lease areas, they could support fenced off -lease areas within our multi -use parks. I have several suggestions for your consideration, some of which are not in the staff report, but may be presented and discussed at the Tuesday public hearing. The following general rules should apply for any fenced dog park: q l) The OLA's should be available only for specific limited times such as 6 to 9 AM & 2 hours before sunset in the evening. 2) Any Dog use times would be superseded by scheduled events, including athletic activities. 3) The Dog use areas, OLA's, should be restricted to Cupertino Residents. 4) Install attractive permanent green or black- coated vinyl 4 feet high fence including top rail with simple gates that can be left open and only closed during dog use, rather than temporary fencing. Permanent fencing installed now will cost reasonably more than temporary fencing, however, the permanent fencing will be installed at the end of the period rather than returning rental fencing with no cost benefit to the City. Library Field is a perfect example of choosing a site for permanent fencing to accomplish security for the Soccer, Cricket and other athletic activities and which could be used as a fenced Off - Lease Area for our dogs with specific use times. 5) Post the rules clearly and require users to police themselves. That is, clean up as necessary and remove excessively noisy dogs, for example. Where this has been done, the response has exceeded the expectations of the respective Parks & Recreation Departments. New York, Portland, Santa Cruz are examples of this and there are many more. Benefits: 1) Restricting the time and the use to Cupertino Residents will limit driving & minimize parking requirements and the number of dogs. Most individual dog exercise periods are less than an hour. Most OLA's and parks are used by adjacent members of the neighborhood. With several parks identified for the trial, driving, parking & the impact on the turf will be reduced as well Fenced Dog Areas Page three 2) Athletic activities or scheduled use would take priority over dog use. This concept is used many places; Incline Village, Lake Tahoe, shares a soccer field with dog activity, for example. Soccer schedules are posted and dogs are not allowed during those times. 3) Select and install fencing with gates whose visual impact is minimized and with gates that can stay opened for ether uses during the day, Specific Comments: The following are specific comments following the staff report outline. We are recommending the selection of specific parks with minimal fencing cost impact and /or where there are additional benefits to install permanent fencing rather than temporary fencing: 1) Linda Vista Park: It would be possible to install permanent fencing dividing the upper area from the lower area where the bottom empty pond, below the waterfall is located. Two gates could be located on the existing asphalt path and remain open except when dogs are present. The permanent fencing cost should be similar to the cost set forth in the table on page 6. 2) The Memorial Park softball fields could be fenced with minimum cost impact and would be a true multi -use area. Dog activity would not impact other areas of Memorial Perk. The Softball field is used only in season and then not for long periods of time. If the softball field could be used, the permanent fencing costs would substantially less than set forth on page 6. 3) Somerset Park: Agree with Staff, probably local small dog park. 4) Wilson baseball fields are fenced and are ideal for trials with minimal expense. Wilson could provide both large and small dog areas. 5) Hoover Park: could be fenced across the end to the existing fence for minimal cost. 6) Library Field: It is currently being used for cricket and soccer. Permanently fencing the entire site would provide a level of security and multi -use including the OLA for our dogs. Please leave the current rented construction fence in place while conducting the trial, which could provide good trial period information at reasonable cost, On the other hand attractive permanent fencing could be installed now for more cost, but by replacing the rental fencing now with permanent fencing, the cost saving; would reduce the cost of the permanent fencing. 7) Mary Ave Park: Install permanent fencing now, which will allow small dog activity in an underused area. Estimated cost should be similar to the cost set forth on page #6 of the staff report. 8) Possible new area: The city owned Sims Property on McClellan adjacent to McClellan Ranch and across McClellan from the entrance to Deep Cliff Golf Course. It could accommodate both parking & reasonable fencing & is currently under used. 9) Creekside Park: Creekside fronts on Miller, is split by the entrance driveway and has soccer fields on both portions of the "L" shaped park. Two soccer fields run parallel to Miller and the one closest to Miller has one side adjacent to Miller, one end butts up to the entrance driveway and the other end approaches the end of an Apartment House, the remaining long side parallels the adjacent soccer field. A fence could be installed between the two soccer fields and the field closest to Miller could be used as a fenced Off -Lease Dog Area with designated times. Our priority request for fenced Off - Lease Dog Areas are the following: 1) Wilson Park, existing fencing, good city location, minimal expense, ready now, could be adapted for both large & small dogs. 2) Library field: currently has rental fencing, we suggest permanent fencing be installed asap, which benefits Cricket, Soccer & provides an Off -Lease Area for our dogs. 3) Mary Ave: currently unused area with minimal fencing and would make an excellent small dog park with parking. 4) Memorial Park Softball Field: the majority of the fencing exists and there is parking; central location and specific times would make it work well for an Off -Lease Area with minimal expense. 5) Creekside Park: An accessible yet relatively isolated and underutilized park, which could accommodate an Off -Lease Area with minimal fencing. These are our both our suggestions and requests and we believe Cupertino can and does deserve areas for our dogs to exercise. Other nearby Cities have both fenced and unfenced areas recognizing the need to offer opportunities for dogs to exercise. The selection of specific areas and specific times provides the City with the ability to regulate and organize the areas and dog & owner behavior. There has been dogs off -lease in Fenced Dog Areas Page Four Cupertino for as long as we can remember, which exceeds 35 years and continues today. Providing fenced areas will reduce neighbor tensions and concerns and help regulate and reduce off -lease activity as well. Thank you, Jim Black Linda Lagergren From: Victor Hung [victoga @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:35 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney, Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Cc: mei Chang Subject: Fenced -in dog areas in Cupertino's parks Dear City Council, Regarding the proposed fenced -in dog areas (Item #13) for the March 2 " City Council Mtg., we're urging you to vote against any OLAs in our neighborhood parks. All of our parks are closely surrounded by neighbors and are multi -use neighborhood parks. These OLAs would attract LOTS of dog owners, dogs, cars, etc. Because of barking noises, more dog poop on lawns, safety concerns and loss of park space, we're strongly against this idea. Thank you. Sincerely, Victor Hung CCI���`' Linda Lagergren "AV From: Eleanor Muhlstein [muhlstein @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:19 PM To: City Council Subject: Fenced Dogs Off Leash If we must have a fenced area for off leash dogs, I strongly urge you to reconsider using Stevens Creek County Park. It would provide quality areas for dogs large and small alike, as well as plenty of parking for dog owners. Placing a fenced area for off leash dogs in Linda Vista Park would completely change the tone of this neighborhood park. Dogs would dominate with their barking, chasing, unmanaged poop and disregard for others using the park. Not only would it ruin Linda Vista park itself, it would negatively impact the entire neighborhood. There are many of us that are completely opposed to having a fenced area for off leash dogs in Linda Vista Park. You will hear from us. Please reconsider using Stevens Creek County Park for the off leash dogs fenced area. Eleanor Muhlstein Grace Schmidt From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:53 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Request for Supporting Information - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Fung [mai Ito: dfung @symian.com] Sent: March 01, 2010 12 :19 PM To: Julia Lamy; Mark Linder; Cupertino City Manager'_ Office Cc: City Council; 'David Fung' Subject: RE: Request for Supporting Information Julia - Thanks for responding. The team methodology that was used to generate the report was clear in the document. The concern that I raised in my message is that the resulting report suffers from serious inconsistencies which I believe should be clarified when the report is presented to the City Council. For example, the report cites a problem with kids joyriding in Hoover Park as a "pro" for locating a fenced dog park there, apparently as a deterrent to f iture problems. If there's really a systematic problem there, then there ought to be records of it so it can be discussed objectively. If this was a one -off event that a ground maintenance crew person anecdotally remembers, then it raises the question of whether this should have been included in a report of professional opinion and should probably have been formally removed. Again, by example, if all sites are judged by the same objective critieria (size, proximity, parking access, location, etc.) I believe that both Hoover and Somerset Parks have no real "pro" factors and longer lists of "cons" than have been presented. Over the long discussion on this issue, both the professional literature and the citizens groups that you worked with identified near proximity to residences as a negative selection factor, so I find it disappointing that this was largely ignored in this report, which was intended as a professional view on the question. We would both agree that no report can be perfect, but my concern is that this report has enough weak points that it will create additional misinformation in an already tense environment. I hope that you'll give serious consideration to the issues I've raised and directly address them when you present the report. David Fung > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: Julia Lamy [mai Ito: Jul iaL @cupertino.org] > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:29 AM > To: David Fung; Mark Linder; Cupertino City Manager's Office > Cc: City Council > Subject: RE: Request for Supporting Information > David - > Thank you f or your emai I. > In response to your points, City Council asked City staff to prepare a report on > whether or not fenced -in dog parks would work in City parks. A staff > team consisting of professionals from law enforcement to park > maintenance were gathered for this assessment. The City staff each > gave their professional opinions > based on multiple years of experience working in their field. The > staff report > reflects these professional opinions. > Julia Lamy > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: David Fung [mai Ito: dfung @symian.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:16 PM > To: Mark Linder; Julia Lamy; Cupertino City Manager's Office > Cc: 'David Fung' > Subject: FW: Request for Supporting Information > Mark, et. al., > Sorry, I originally sent this only to Mark, and realized that I should have > sent it to all the signatories. > David Fung > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: David Fung [mailto :dfung @symian.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:14 PM 2 > To: 'Mark Linder' > Cc: 'David Fung' > Subject: Request for Supporting Information > Mark - > It shouldn't surprise you that I'm disappointed in your report to the > Council on fenced dog park locations for the 3/2 Council Meeting, > particularly in your comments with regard to Hoover Park. > So that I can be properly prepared to comment on your report, I > request that > you supply the supporting documentation on which you based some of > your evaluation points: > 1) As a "pro" for locating a dog park at Hoover, you c lte "Stop teens > from driving across turf from Donegal Dr. to Barnhart PI." Please > send me the incident reports of these occurrences. I've lived in this > area for more than 23 years and I'm not aware of any pattern of people > driving in the park. Your comment makes it appear that this is a recurring problem. > 2) As a "pro" for locating a dog park at Hoover, you cite "Light park > use on > weekdays ". Please send me the documentation that park usage is light > at Hoover on weekdays relative to other parks in Cupertino. You've identified > this as a pro factor only at Hoover, when I think tha the pattern of usage > would be no different than what I've observed at Somerset, Wilson, or > Library Field. Published best practices for siting cloy parks would > oppose placing a dog park in a residential area with lic3ht traffic > because of nuisance and favor high traffic locations 'Nhere incremental > noise and car traff is are not an issue. > 3) You also cited "Neighborhood group exercises dogs in the park" as a "pro" > for Hoover Park. Please provide your documentation that this is true > relative to other parks in Cupertino. In the past, this "group" was > illegally running dogs off -leash in the park. It is clearly in the > public record and by their own admission that they were being cited as > a result of > their illegal actions. As a side note on this point, I think it's somewhat 3 > ironic that this is cited as a plus for a fenced dog park at Hoover > since this group has vocally opposed fenced dog park:- throughout the process. > Creating a fenced dog park at Hoover is likely to create a "worst of > all worlds" situation where the neighborhood not only bears the impact > from an improperly located fenced park but will continue to have to > deal with dogs illegally off -leash in the rest of the park. > 4) You identify "Good for deterring problem teen activity in the area" > as "pro" points for Linda Vista and Wilson Parks. Please provide me > with the documentation regarding occurrences of problem activity. If > the problem activities are happening at night, after the park is > closed, how will the existence of a closed fenced dog park be a deterrent factor? > If the evidence that you based your findings on is anecdotal in > nature, I demand that you amend your report so that your findings are accurate. > There are also material inconsistencies in your report, which I > believe you > should address and correct: > 4) Have you applied a uniform criteria for acceptable dog park size? > In the > Linda Vista "con" section, you cite that the proposed area is small - > the marked area appears to be 400'x100' or about 40,000 square feet. > Yet, the Hoover Park marked area is only 170'x70' or 11,900 square > feet, just 1 /4th the size of the Linda Vista area that cited as being > too small. The marked > area at Somerset Square Park is even smaller. Short of the "all of Library > Field" option, the Linda Vista area which is called out as being small > is actually the largest proposed area in your report. It seems to me > that this > shouldn't be a Linda Vista "con" but size should probably be a "con" factor > for Hoover and Somerset and potentially some of the others. > There are also significant omissions, which I also believe you should > address and correct: > 5) There is no mention in the Hoover Park cons that this location has > virtually no residential setback - it appears to be no more than 15' > from the property lines of 4 houses. In every other case you studied, 4 > the proposed locations were no closer than 60' from the nearest property line. > Shouldn't this have been cited as a "con ", especially since best > practices cite separation from residences as a requirement for successful dog parks? > The dog issue has been discussed and over - discussed over the past 2 > years, so I think there's little reason that the report should have > issues on this > level. I hope that you can promptly respond to my questions and make > the appropriate amendments to your report so that it's not a source of > misinformation at the Council meeting. There's no question in my mind that > if some of these sites are selected for a trial, legal cction will > result and that these points will not withstand impar scrutiny. > David Fung > dfung @symian.com > (408) 996 -0586 Kimberly Smith From: David Knapp Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 1:53 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Request for Supporting Information - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Fung [mailto:dfung @symian.com] Sent: March 01, 2010 12:19 PM To: Julia Lamy; Mark Linder; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc: City Council; 'David Fung' Subject: RE: Request for Supporting Information Julia - Thanks for responding. The team methodology that was used to generate the report was clear in the document. The concern that I raised in my message is that the resulting report suffers from serious inconsistencies which I believe should be clarified when the report is presented to the City Council. For example, the report cites a problem with kids joyriding in Hoover Park as a "pro" for locating a fenced dog park there, apparently as a deterrent to future problems. If there's really a systematic problem there, then there ought to be records of it so it can be discussed objectively. If this was a one -off event that a ground maintenance crew person anecdotally remembers, then it raises the question of whether this should have been included in a report of professional opinion and should probably have been formally removed. Again, by example, if all sites are judged by the same objective critieria (size, proximity, parking access, location, etc.) I believe that Moth Hoover and Somerset Parks have no real "pro" factors and longer lists of "cons" than have been presented. Over the long discussion on this issue, both the professional literature and the citizens groups that you worked with identified near proximity to residences as a negative selection factor, so I find it disappointing that this was largely ignored in this report, which was intended as a professional view on the question. We would both agree that no report can be perfect, but my concern is that this report has enough weak points that it will create additional misinformation in an already tense environment. I hope that you'll give serious consideration to the issues I've raised and directly address them when you present the report. David Fung > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: Julia Lamy [mailto:JuliaL @cupertino.org] > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:29 AM > To: David Fung; Mark Linder; Cupertino City Manager's Office > Cc: City Council 1 > Subject: RE: Request for Supporting Information > David - > Thank you for your email. > In response to your points, City Council asked City staff to prepare a report on > whether or not fenced -in dog parks would work in City parks. A staff > team consisting of professionals from law enforcement to park > maintenance were gathered for this assessment. The City staff each > gave their professional opinions > based on multiple years of experience working in their field. The > staff report > reflects these professional opinions. > Julia Lamy > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: David Fung [mailto:dfung @symian.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:16 PM > To: Mark Linder; Julia Lamy; Cupertino City Manager's Office > Cc: 'David Fung' > Subject: FW: Request for Supporting Information > Mark, et. al., > Sorry, I originally sent this only to Mark, and realized that I should have > sent it to all the signatories. > David Fung > - - - -- Original Message---- - > From: David Fung [mailto:dfung @symian.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:14 PM > To: 'Mark Linder' > Cc: 'David Fung' > Subject: Request for Supporting Information > Mark - > It shouldn't surprise you that I'm disappointE!d in your report to the > Council on fenced dog park locations for the ]J2 Council Meeting, > particularly in your comments with regard to Hoover Park. > So that I can be properly prepared to comment on your report, I > request that > you supply the supporting documentation on which you based some of > your evaluation points: > 1) As a "pro" for locating a dog park at HoovE!r, you cite "Stop teens > from driving across turf from Donegal Dr. to Barnhart P1." Please > send me the incident reports of these occurrences. I've lived in this 2 > area for more than 23 years and I'm not aware of any pattern of people > driving in the park. Your comment makes it appear that this is a recurring problem. > 2) As a "pro" for locating a dog park at HoovE!r, you cite "Light park > use on > weekdays ". Please send me the documentation that park usage is light > at Hoover on weekdays relative to other parks in Cupertino. You've identified > this as a pro factor only at Hoover, when I think that the pattern of usage > would be no different than what I've observed at Somerset, Wilson, or > Library Field. Published best practices for siting dog parks would > oppose placing a dog park in a residential area with light traffic > because of nuisance and favor high traffic locations where incremental > noise and car traffic are not an issue. > 3) You also cited "Neighborhood group exercisE!s dogs in the park" as a "pro" > for Hoover Park. Please provide your documentation that this is true > relative to other parks in Cupertino. In the past, this "group" was > illegally running dogs off -leash in the park. It is clearly in the > public record and by their own admission that they were being cited as > a result of > their illegal actions. As a side note on this, point, I think it's somewhat > ironic that this is cited as a plus for a fenced dog park at Hoover > since this group has vocally opposed fenced dog parks throughout the process. > Creating a fenced dog park at Hoover is likely to create a "worst of > all worlds" situation where the neighborhood rot only bears the impact > from an improperly located fenced park but will continue to have to > deal with dogs illegally off -leash in the rest: of the park. > 4) You identify "Good for deterring problem tE-en activity in the area" > as "pro" points for Linda Vista and Wilson Parks. Please provide me > with the documentation regarding occurrences of problem activity. If > the problem activities are happening at night, after the park is > closed, how will the existence of a closed ferced dog park be a deterrent factor? > If the evidence that you based your findings on is anecdotal in > nature, I demand that you amend your report so that your findings are accurate. > There are also material inconsistencies in your report, which I > believe you > should address and correct: > 4) Have you applied a uniform criteria for acceptable dog park size? > In the > Linda Vista "con" section, you cite that the proposed area is small - > the marked area appears to be 400'x100' or about 40,000 square feet. > Yet, the Hoover Park marked area is only 170'x70' or 11,900 square > feet, just 1 /4th the size of the Linda Vista area that cited as being > too small. The marked 3 > area at Somerset Square Park is even smaller. Short of the "all of Library > Field" option, the Linda Vista area which is called out as being small > is actually the largest proposed area in your report. It seems to me > that this > shouldn't be a Linda Vista "con" but size should probably be a "con" factor > for Hoover and Somerset and potentially some of the others. > There are also significant omissions, which I also believe you should > address and correct: > 5) There is no mention in the Hoover Park cony, that this location has > virtually no residential setback - it appears to be no more than 15' > from the property lines of 4 houses. In every other case you studied, > the proposed locations were no closer than 60' from the nearest property line. > Shouldn't this have been cited as a "con ", especially since best > practices cite separation from residences as a requirement for successful dog parks? > The dog issue has been discussed and over - discussed over the past 2 > years, so I think there's little reason that the report should have > issues on this > level. I hope that you can promptly respond to my questions and make > the appropriate amendments to your report so that it's not a source of > misinformation at the Council meeting. There's no question in my mind that > if some of these sites are selected for a trial, legal action will > result and that these points will not withstand impartial scrutiny. > David Fung > dfung @symian.com > (408) 996 -0586 0