Loading...
18. Fenced dog park preliminary elements�c�T l y • 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. M SUBJECT AND ISSUE MEETING DATE: June 1, 2010 Receive a report on the preliminary elements for a nine -month trial of a fenced dog park at the Mary Avenue site. BACKGROUND At the March 2, 2010 meeting, Council directed staff to further investigate the Mary Avenue site for a nine -month trial fenced dog park. Council requested more detailed information regarding site, fencing, and surface. Additionally, Council gave direction that the Mary Avenue site neighbors within a 1000 -foot radius to be noticed of this item returning to Council for a hearing. On May 19, 2010, 870 post cards were mailed to the neighbors. Attachment A is the map of the 1000 -foot public notice radius and sample of the postcard mailed. DISCUSSION Parks and Recreation staff and Public Works staff worked together with Bruce Hill, principal landscape architect with Hill Associates, to conduct a preliminary analysis of the Mary Avenue site for use as a fenced dog park. Here are the findings. Site Analysis The Mary Avenue site is about one third of an acre and would be able to accommodate a nine- month trial fenced dog park consisting of a large dog area and a small dog area. Attachment B is the preliminary site plan. The proposed layout of the large dog area is a little more than a quarter acre in size and would have the maximum capacity of seven to ten dogs. Large dogs are considered to be any dog weighing more than 25 pounds. The small dog area would have a maximum capacity of 10 to 15 dogs. 18 -1 Small dogs are considered to be any dog weighing 25 pounds and under. The standard being used for the maximum dog capacity is consistent with the California Park and Recreation Society and City of San Jose professional standards for dog parks. The large dog /small dog weight standard is consistent with the standard being used by the Humane Society of Silicon Valley. The site has ample parking, and the City would be required by law to re -stripe one parking stall to be designated for handicap parking for use during the trial period. Because the site is elevated from the street level, grading work will be needed for the construction of an ADA accessible ramp for disabled access to the temporary dog park. The estimated cost for the required disabled accessibility to the Mary Avenue site is approximately $50,000. Fencing At the March 2, 2010 Council meeting, staff reported that a temporary rental chain link fence for the Mary Avenue site for the nine -month trial is estimated to cost approximately $53,000. The rental chain link fencing comes in eight foot high panels and sits in concrete blocks. This type of fencing works well on level ground, however on an undulating surface, such as the proposed site, the temporary rental panel ends will not match up to allow the standard fasteners to be used. Without the standard fasteners, the panels are easily moved, blown over, and vandalized. The cost for installing permanent fencing on the site is estimated at approximately $50,000. The permanent fencing specified for the preliminary feasibility study is four feet in height, black vinyl clad chain link material with entry gates and service gates. Surfacing There is no perfect surface for a dog park. On an uneven surface like the Mary Avenue site, decomposed granite, wood chips or grass would work, but grass is easily killed from foot/paw traffic. Decomposed granite is low odor, easy to scoop dog feces, but may need to be watered if it is very dry. Wood chips absorb odors but make it difficult to identify dog feces from wood chips and tends to be hard on dog's paws. Though artificial turf is low in maintenance and a great surface during the rainy season, there is a high installation cost and full replacement is needed in ten years. During the summer months, artificial turf does get hot on dog's paws and produces odors. The preliminary site plan is showing the surface for the fenced dog park to remain as dirt for the nine -month trial period. Keeping this a dirt surface will allow for a simple transition back to the site's natural state if the trial period is unsuccessful. Dust may become an issue during the nine - month trial. Maintenance during the dry season may require watering the dirt- covered surface to calm the clouds of dust. It is estimated that an additional $87,000 would be needed if Council preferred the site surface to be decomposed granite. The estimated additional cost for artificial turf surface would be approximately $300,000. The Mary Avenue site currently has a large number of non - functioning irrigation sprinklers that rise three inches above the ground's surface. Every sprinkler head will have to be removed along with some tree stump removal so there are not any tripping hazards on the site. There are many existing trees on the site that will need pruning for safe public access to use this site. Trial Period Dog Park Management In our county and across the country we are beginning to see the practice of charging a user fee relating to dog park use. Here are the results of a fee analysis for dog park usage: 2 18 -2 Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department Vehicle Pass fee to park for dog parks: Humane Society of Silicon Valley, Milpitas Dog Park Membership: California Parks and Recreation Society Best Practice for Dog Park Fees: City of Boulder, Colorado TAG Program: City of Indianapolis, Indiana Pouch Pass for K -9 Zone: Wags Park Private Dog Park in Newton, Ohio: $80 annual $200 annual $20 -$75 annual $15 onetime fee $50 annual $325 annual It is being suggested that only Cupertino residents will be able to purchase a Fenced Dog Park Blue Tag Permit to exercise their dogs in the dog part: during the trial period. In order to receive a Fenced Dog Park Blue Tag Permit and gate access card, residents must provide proof of residency, and proof that their dog(s) is licensed by the City of San Jose Animal Control. Electronic gate access card provides security and statistics by recording a log of dog park users, and has shown to discourage irresponsible dog owners. The electronic gate access card is currently being used locally in Milpitas at the Humane Society's public dog park. The nine -month trial period user fee for a Fenced Dog Park Blue Tag Permit with gate access card is being proposed at $55 per dog. A resident would be allowed a limit of 2 (two) dogs per handler, per visit to the trial dog park. Besides funding the initial capital cost for a trial dog park, the management of a dog park does incur on -going operation costs. The revenue generated from the trial blue tag permit would go towards offsetting; the estimated $17,950 maintenance cost during the nine -month trial. Other options to the gate access process include: A. Blue Tag for dogs only without gate access card — Blue Tag only would still assure that dogs are licensed and dog park users are Cupertino residents. Without a gate access card, the park will be less secure and data about use of the dog park is less accurate. B. No Blue Tag or gate access card — Not having a Blue Tag or gate access card will be the most convenient for dog owners, but will not assure dogs are licensed nor dog owners are Cupertino residents. Enforcement and Monitoring of Nine -Month Trial Dog owners/handlers are legally responsible for the actions and behavior of their dogs at all times and any injuries caused by them. City staff, including Parks and Recreation Department personnel and designated enforcement officials, will monitor and enforce all park rules and regulations during the trial period. Trained volunteers will assist in. monitoring compliance of the regulations. At the July 21, 2009 meeting, Council adopted rules for use in a dog park. Attachment C is the listing of these rules for dog park use. Should a dog own--r/handler violate any of the rules and regulations, their blue tag permit may be revoked for gross misuse. 18 -3 At the midway point and at the end of the nine -month trial, staff will return to Council with a report that measures each element of the community established guideline for a successful dogs' off -leash area. These guidelines were collected on October 1, 2008 at the first community meeting held in Cupertino to discuss the issue of dogs' off -leash in city parks. Here are those guidelines: 1. Safety of park users and dogs 2. Sanitation of park facilities 3. Appropriately increase of use and positive usage rates 4. Respect to neighbors 5. Limited traffic impact 6. Protection of natural resources 7. Affordability of development and maintenance 8. Greater community education about dogs An explanation of these guidelines is found in Attachment D. FISCAL IMPACT AND SCHEDULE During the budget process for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, City Council designated $580,000 out of the Recreation Fund for Linda Vista Park water feature and dog park project. In this proposed budget for Fiscal 2010/2011, we are actually allocating out $225,000 for the dog park. Funds totaling $44,039 have been encumbered and spent during this current fiscal year for the following Council requested items: • Neighborhood and park user survey on off -leash areas in City parks conducted in Fall of 2009 - $23,468 • Preliminary site analysis for the Mary Avenue parcel for a trial fenced dog park - $20,000 • Mailing of the June 1 meeting notice to 870 Mary Avenue parcel neighbors - $571 Below is the preliminary feasibility study for a trial fenced dog park on the Mary Avenue site as shown in the preliminary site plan: Construction Cost: Site demo including sprinkler head and tree stump removal, preparation of dirt- covered surface, tree pruning, permanent fencing with key card entry system, benches, drinking fountain, waste receptacles, mutt mitt stations, park signage, handicap accessibility $170,000 requirements, and concrete entry Construction Contingency Cost $10,000 Project Administration Cost $45,000 Feasibility for Trial Dog Park at Mary Avenue Site Total $225,000 * A more detailed breakdown of these costs is being produced by Public Works and will be available to the Council by June 1. 4 18 -4 Estimated Cost for Alternative Surfaces: Trial Dog Park at Mary Avenue Site with Deco mposed Granite Surface $312,000 Trial Dog Park at Mary Avenue Site with Artif Turf Surface $525,000 Project Schedule The project schedule would be a nine to twelve ;nonths timetable for staff to complete design plans for the trial fenced dog park, bid the project, and construction of the project. In conjunction with this nine to twelve month project completion timeframe, the environmental impact study and encroachment permit from Caltrans would also need to be finalized. PREPARED BY: i IVA Julia Lamy Senior Recreation Supervisor SUBMITTED BY: r arc inde �`' Director, Parks and Recreation APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY: �Ae David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment A - Map of the 1000 -foot public notice radius and sample of the postcard mailed Attachment B - Preliminary Site Plan Attachment C — Dog Park Rules for Use Attachment D — Community Established Off -Leash Area Guidelines Criteria 18 -5 J W U Q a uU Z W a a The Cupertino City Council will be conducting a hearing about a possible Mary Avenue parcel site being used for a nine -month trial for a fenced dog park. The City Council heard this item on March 2, 2010, and directed staff to investigate and return with a prepared report on more details for the Mary Avenue Site for prc.- +c.��tuiivn and review ui u council �i�c.c.aiffy. To view the meeting agenda available after May 27, please see the City's website at: www.cupertino.org /a eq nda Also, please check the City's website prior to the meeting for updated information in the event of any changes. J V City of Cupertino CITY COUNCIL HEARING Proposal for a Nine -Month Trial Fenced Dog Park at the Mary Avenue Site CITY Of City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Dept 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CUPERTINO -� SCALE, I " =20' w. " ,,� L �yS. f 9 ss • DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3110 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366 Dog Park Rules for Use Adopted by Cupertino City Council on July 21, 2009 Only dogs with Blue Tag Permits, dog handlers, and those persons accompanying them are allowed in the dog park. Dog handlers must be 16 years of age or older. Any person under 16 years of age in the dog park must be accompanied by a person 18 years or older. A dog handler, as defined herein, shall accompany his or her dogs at all times. Dog handlers are responsible for picking up and properly disposing of all feces deposited by their dogs. No more than two dogs per handler will be permitted in the dog park at one time. Dogs in heat are not permitted in the dog park. Puppies under 4 months of age are not permitted within the dog park. Dogs must be vaccinated and free of communicable illness and disease. Dogs must wear proof of current license. Dogs must be leashed when entering and exiting the dog park. Dogs must be under voice control of their handler. Dogs displaying aggressive or anti - social behavior are not permitted in the dog park. Upon signs of aggression or anti - social behavior, the dog will immediately be required to leave the dog park. No smoking, food or alcohol allowed in the dog park. All other City of Cupertino park rules apply to use of the dog park. The dog park is subject to closure upon determination by the City that there is a reason deemed to be in the public's interest or safety. Users of the dog park 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 dog park. 18 -10 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3110 - FAX: (408) 777 -3366 CUPERTINO Community Established Off - Leash Area Guideline Criteria Site: Unfenced or Fenced 1. Safety of park users and dogs a) The park users must have their dog under voice control b) Children should always be closely supervised by a responsible adult c) Owners should carry their leash on them at all times • Dogs should be under voice control at all times • JVll dogs in city should be licensed • J� certified dog handler to evaluate if dog is eligible to be off leash d) One activity for a citizens group is to help monitor interactions between dogs and other dogs and between dogs and people e) Overtly aggressive, overly assertive, overly unruly, and under socialized dogs should be discouraged from visiting the parks Park users should be discouraged from bringing young puppies or fearful dogs to parks, as they may be made more fearful by highly assertive dogs, highly interactive dogs, or rough play g) Limit the number of dogs per adult allowed in the park. U.C. Davis study suggest no more than 3 per adult user 2. Sanitation of park facilities a) Plan and budget for an appropriate maintenance and cleaning schedule, done by the City, with assistance from the citizens group b) Place signs stating the rules at the entrance(s) to the park, as well as within the park, profiling the rule that owners must pick up the feces of their dogs. Be sure that the signs are well maintained. Signs should be in English and Mandarin. c) Provide adequate disposable bags, or other means of removing feces, and refuse cans for feces cleanup d) The a citizens group should help monitor the sanitation of the park • investigate what would be the additional maintenance cost to a park facility to have an off - leash area. • Should be illegal for dog owners not to carry a bag for picking up dog poop. • Better enforcement of dog sanitation laws • Dogs should not be allowed in playground areas • Designed dog areas should be located in a park where it has adequate drainage • Park signs should be prominently displayed 18-11 18-12 3. Appropriately increased and positive usage . Excluded sports areas, playgrounds, picnic area, environmentally sensitive areas. rates in parks a) The size of the off -leash area should be as large . Minimum buffer zone from residents as feasible, but not too large to adequately . Review seasonal park usage maintain. • Determine amount of sites that would be adequate b) Utilize alternate or nontraditional locations, if for the community. needed, to help decrease the chance for conflict with other community users c) The requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be taken into consideration 4. Respect to neighbors_ • Focus on actual problems between park users and a) Locate the off -leash area so that it is not directly the neighbors and eliminate perceived problem adjacent to residential property lines, to help concept decrease the chance of actual and perceived • Define what community support means problems between park users and the neighbors • Investigate buffer zone b) The off -leash area should be close enough to a • Program midway review process residential area that dog owners will take their User fee for off -leash area dogs to that area and not allow them off -leash elsewhere c) Enforce leash laws in areas surrounding the off - leash area to decrease the number of dogs illegally off -leash going to and from the park 5. Limited traffic impact • Walkable distance from neighborhoods a) Provide adequate parking for the dog park Investigate what would be acceptable travel times users, as most users (95 %) drive to them b) Locate the off -leash area as close to the parking lot as possible to discourage owners letting their dogs' off-leash between the area and parking 6. Protection of natural resources Determine who would be qualified to identify an a) Mitigate concerns about possible disturbance of environmentally sensitive area wildlife or native plants 7. Affordability of development and • Investigate incremental cost for maintenance of maintenance space a) An active citizens group should participate in Identify what the funds from the fundraiser would the planning of a dog park be used for b) Encourage the citizens group to sponsor a fundraiser with park users c) A citizens group should advise the City as to the needed resources to maintain the park, and to help monitor its condition 18-12 8. Greater community education about dogs a) Suggest that the dog park citizens group sponsor an on -line and /or paper newsletter, and potentially an email group b) Park users should be educated in the signs that dogs display when performing aggressive behaviors Issue to address with community when program is Implemented. .Investigate education courses for the community 18-13 EXHIBITS BEGIN If-ERE Linda Lagergren From: betsy dougherty [betzd @pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:53 AM To: City Council Subject: Proposal for a Nine -Month Trial Fenced Dog Park at the Mary Avenue Site Having been notified that the council is considering a PROPOSAL FOR A NINE -MONTH TRIAL FENCED DOG PARK AT THE MARY AVENUE SITE I recommend that we move forward with this plan. Although it doesn't seem to be anyone's idea of an idea: situation, it seems to be the best compromise we can do at this time. We are one of the few bay area cities without any sort of place for dog recreation, it is very embarrassing to go to all the surrounding cities dog parks and have to admit that Cupertino does not provide this service to it's citizens. Although it will probably be the smallest dog park in the county, at least it is a start. thank you, Betsy Dougherty Primrose Way, Cupertino i Linda Lagergren From: AJScottie @aol.com Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 7:46 PA1 To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrir Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Subject: Mary Avenue Dog Park Council members, I have read the Staff Report on the proposed trial fenced dog park on Mary Avenue. The first problem I •have is with your 1000 ft. public notices. Why notify residents who live on they west side of the freeway? They will not be impacted by traffic or by barking dogs. With the freeway noise, they will not hear the sounds of barking bouncing off the sound wall into the neighborhoods east south and north of Mary Avenue. If anything, notices should have been sent to more residents east, south and north of the proposed dog park. The second problem I have is the proposed cost of a very small parcel for a limited number of dogs. Why is the city proposing to spend $225,000 or much more for a nine month trial of a dog park? This is a huge amount of money to please a few residents of Cupertino. I look around the city and I see so many places where the money could be used. For instance, many of our streets are deteriorating because of deferred maintenance. Has an gone driven past Garden Gate School lately? The road is terrible. My street, Castine Avenue, needs coating to prevent deterioration. I feel sure there are many projects being put aside because of money shortages. Why are we considering this project? It is a very expensive project for a very small number of dogs. This is not a time for luxuries. For you information, I am a dog owner and would not use a dog park. Alice Ramsauer 10531 Castine Avenue 738 -4656 1 Cr /6- 1 -i c) Linda Lagergren r8 From: sharpset1 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 10:10 AM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Cc: sharpset1 @aol.com; comment@sonic.net Subject: The Dog Park Problems at Mary Ave and why not a Teen Center Attachments: City of cupertino dog park.docx Hello, I have attached my comments and concerns about the Dog Park and have included mentions of additional funding to the Teen Center and the Senior Center please take them into consideration when making your decisions. City Council Members feel free to disperse this e-mail and the attachment to the City Manager and his staff because I have not included them in this e-mail. Thanks Cathy Helgerson 408 - 253 -0490 1 June 1, 2010 To: The City of Cupertino City Council and Staff From: Cathy Helgerson Regarding: The Dog Park Problems at Mary Ave and why not a new Teen Center? The area proposed for the 9 month dog park trial on Mary Avenue is extremely narrow an area to host a dog park not to mention the astronomical cost to the citizens of Cupertino. Dog lovers know that large and small dogs alike need more room to run and this location is not accommodating for this purpose. The liability just saying that the City of Cupertino is not responsible for any person or other dog getting bit by another dog is not enough anyone can take anyone to court. There could be all types of law suites imposed because of dog bits and even death as a result of letting these dogs run free in the fenced in area. We would need tight security and this security would have to be not only in the day time but in the evening and night because anyone could enter the dog park all night long if they wish. The temporary chain link fence for the dog park a proposed will cost $53,000.00 dollars will be ugly and will be an eye sore to the surrounding community and will cost to much. The permanent fence that was specified in the preliminary study is to short and large dogs can jump the fence to get inside or out. This fence is supposed to be black vinyl cloth chain link material with entry gates and service gates again an eye sore and ugly and will cost $50,000.00 dollars wasted dollars spent. Taking the sprinklers out will not keep the area watered and the grass, plants and trees will die. There should not be any tree cutting to satisfy the dog park. Dogs also get fox tails from dry weeds and grass this is a very big concern for dog owners because these fox tails get in the dogs ears and on their feet and can work their way into the dog. If they work their way into the dog's ears they can eventually work their way into their brains. These fox tails need to be taken out by a vet and the veterinary bills are high these days not to mention the pain to the dogs from the fox tails. The dog park needs to be watered all year round to make sure that the dust is kept down and also the weeds are contained. The user fees to belong to the Fenced Dog Park Blue Tag Permit dog park club should not be high and anything next to $200.00 or $325.00 annual fee is to much as given the examples of other dog parks. We are in very hard times for most people and this expense adds to people's hurt. Enforcement and Monitoring what type of liability will the city adapt to support the trained volunteers and who be in charge to train the volunteers? The city still has a cost and must hire someone to monitor the volunteers and to train them how will this be set up? There would have to also be a back round check conducted for these volunteers and who will pay for that? Everything that is imposed with this dog park will cost money and we as a city can not spend this kind of money in these hard times we need to conserve our assets. There is the proof of residency and use of the dog park will there be someone at the park during the hours of operation? If there is no one there all the time how will you keep other people and unauthorized dogs from coming into the dog park area how can you keep them out? It is good to remember anyone can let anyone into the dog pares: that has not paid a due or that is not authorized you will need constant monitoring of the park. I do not 5elieve the City Staff and City Council has really thought this matter through completely and should do so. The City took a survey and I would like to know how many people intend to use the dog park there is no mention of this in the report can you tell me because this dog park and the future city dog parks are to expensive. The ongoing expense over the years setting up multiple dog parks in multiple parks will be too costly there are more important things that the city should be working on such as a new Teen Center. The cost of cleaning and sanitation of the dog park area and just expecting the owners of the dogs to pickup the mess won't do there needs to be a plan and I would like to know what would this cost the City? The Memorial Park has a problem with ducks and birds making a mess and the City can not even keep up with that so how will you keep up with this dog park and the other dog parks in the future? The Public Works Department does not seem to know what to do and it has even been thought that maybe getting ride of the water fountains and little stream would send the duck some place else. The Citizens love the water fountains and the ducks so that would be a shame. The Public works Dept. needs to send their staff out to clean up the park more frequently and are not doing the job I for one would like to know why? Washing off the sidewalks and the watering the grass more frequently will get ride of the duck poop but it takes the City to realize how frequently it needs to be done and do it. The dog survey cost the City of Cupertino $23,468.00 dollars in 2009 this is another costly expense and we need to conserve our revenue in these hard times. Uncontrolled spending will make the City a poor city very soon and that is not what we want and the fact that now the City is over budget and has to ask dip into our reserve funds is not acceptable. The Primary Site Analysis cost $20,000.00 dollars and the just one mailing notice cost $571.00 dollars we need to again conserve our revenue. We seem to need to go outside all the time and get someone else to do our analysis instead of using our own city staff people to do the job thus paying twice this is not acceptable. It is estimated that just one dog park will cost the cit'i $225,000.00 1 believe this is just a conservative estimate and we as a city will be paying a great deal more and this is not acceptable to the citizens as a whole. There has been suggestions of a surface site of decomposed granite that would cost $87,000.00 dollars and also an other cost of $300,000.00 dollars for an artificial turf surface that could be used this again is to costly. These surfaces will need up keep and that will cost the city money again right now the site has no real expensive up keep aside from sprinkling the area to keep it green. I say leave it alone and find another site better than that end this dog park hunt and save the City of Cupertino and the Citizens money. The City is spending a great deal of money on just one dog park and it looks like if they decide to put in more we could be looking at a possible cost of many millions of dollars now and over the years this is unacceptable to the citizens in Cupertino. The City of Cupertino is spending more on dog parks for dogs then they are on spending for our kids who attend the Teen Center under the Sports Center in Cupertino. The Teen Center has a very small budget that has even been cut back to $57,000.00 dollars this year. This money is mostly spent on employee salaries and very little money goes to the kids. The City has also a proposal to put in a new pool and out side area for the Sport Center the kids at the Teen Center do not get to use the pool, tennis court or the basket ball court as it is because it seems they are not paying customers. The paying members use the facilities and not the Teen Center Kids. I know this because my sons went to the Teen Center during the school year and also during the summer. The Teen Center is this little area under the Sport Center in a basement type area and is to small for the amount of kids that attend. It is mostly attended by boys who play pool, watch T.V. and play video games. The City of Cupertino should build, lease or rent a building for the kids to attend with all kinds of recreational services geared especially for them. This facility could be a model for other cities all over the valley. While the kids are in school during the school year from 8:00 AM to 3:30 PM the facility could host classes for the surrounding schools and colleges. Hosting classes during the day could bring revenue to cover some of the cost of the Teen Center. The Teen Center could also be used to attract the older teen junior and seniors high school students who do not usually attend the center because they are older and there is very little for them to do. The Teen Center could be used to host a dance on Friday night for the teens this would give the kids a place to get together and have a good time. If the center is large enough there could be a dance going on and on the other end just a place to meet and play games and what T. V. We need to spend more money on our kid as a community the library is not enough. Note: It seems to me that dogs and the dog parks are more important than our kids why is this so? Who is going to monitor the dog park 24/7 days a week and especially on holidays and make sure all the rules are followed? What about the noise from the dogs barking and growling there are neighbors in the area and they will have to put up with this noise how will the city contain it? No more than two dogs per handier who is going to monitor and enforce this? Who is going to monitor the dogs in heat how could anyone even tell is the dog at the beginning or the end of that period? How about puppies under 4 months again who will monitor this and how much will it cost? Vaccinated dogs again who will monitor this and make sure the dogs are all vaccinated? Who will keep the records of all of the members and keep them updated with information? Voice control how can you monitor that not every dog; can always respond to voice control some owners and trainers use hand motions are you going to exclude them? How will you know what does actually are trained in either of these controls will you expect certificate from a training school or will you need to view the dog before you give the permit something; like a driving test? Who is going to pay for all this the City does not have the manpower to employ this service. Who decides how much aggressive behavior some dogs like to play and show some play full behavior that could be interpreted as aggressive there are IevE'ls of aggressive behavior how will you monitor them? I do not think the City Council really know a lot about dogs because this is going to be a very difficult area to control. What happens if there is smoking and drinking of alcohol in the park how will you know who is doing both not to mention drugs in the park how will you know and who will monitor it? Will the City of Cupertino call the police and if they do how much will that cost each time they come out? Is there also going to be a rule that you can not eat or drink beverages in the park especially in glass containers? If the park is to be closed or if the park stays open who or what decides before or at the 9 month mark and what criteria will you use? What type of violation or a series of violations by the citizens will send this park idea out of commission and how soon? Telling people that if they are hurt at the park and bpi using the park they are using it at their own risk is foolish and I mentioned anyone can take anyone to court for just about anything so the City would and could be held responsible. I hope to think that legal council at the city is not using all of it's resources to make it clear to the City Council Members that the City of Cupertino can and will be held responsible for any dog mauling of humans or other dogs and it will be serious. Will the City of Cupertino cut any trees down and what justifies the destruction of those trees? Who will be the one to decide what trees are cut down? What about a cripple three legged dog will they be allowed to come into the park? Do these dogs also need to go through some special training? What about old dogs will they also be allowed to come into the park they may move slow and could be overcome by younger dogs will they be allowed in the park? It would seem to me there is a lot more to this dog park idea then has been seen. There could be people who have their membership revoked because they violated a rule or more than one rule and loose their dog park license does the City Council members want to deal with that? How many rules can be violated before you loose your membership and how serious would this violation have to be? If the City does not want to deal with i1: then who will and if this ends up in court how much will it cost the City in legal fees? We need to remember that not everyone loosing their dog park membership is going to stand for it being revoked. - there may need to be a police citation imposed will this be necessary before the City can revoke a membership? Will there be a guard at the dog park and will he impose some kind of citation if the member is in violation this needs to be clear? Estimate Costs of Alternative Surfaces Granite site $313,000.00 dollars and Artificial turf $525,000 dollars this is outrageous and to big a cost to the City. I would like to mention this is putting the City of Cupertino over budget. The costs must be lowered and there should also be a plan proposed as to what 4 or 5 parks would cost over lets say 5 years so that the public could see how many millions of dollars we would be spending. Who is handling the bid processes for all of the expense of this dog park have they used the three or four out for bid process? Has the City Council members looked at the bids to make sure things were done correctly and to meet all requirements? The cost is so high I have to question the bid process and the fairness of this process as a whole. My field has been as a Buyer in Electronics and I know a great deal about the bid process and have done many contacts and I see nothing mention at all about any bid process before the City Council really makes a decision they need to look at the bids. I would also like to add that a very cheap temporary fence could be put up just to see how things go for about a month or two this would save the City a great deal of money. The only thing is a fence nothing else to even see if this site is big enough which of course I say it is not and I would hope the City Council member really take this alternative seriously. My over all suggestion is that you not put up any dog parks and use the proposed funds to build and maintain a Teen Center for our kids. We need to keep the kids off the streets and away from drugs and alcohol this is a big problem even for Cupertino. One more thing I would like to add here is something about the Senior Center I joined the Center and soon found out that everything at the Center cost money to attend and this is just not acceptable to me. I believe there should not be charges to seniors for everything at the Senior Center you can not park in the parking lot with out a fee. You can not take a class without a fee or eat a lunch at the Center without a cost nothing is free. Many Senior Citizens like my self live on an income that we need to pay our bills with and we have very little left over so many Seniors do not join the Senior Center for this reason. I have not continued my membership for this reason and feel that there should be no charge for services to Seniors of any kind. The City built this beautiful center and only a small portion of the Senior Citizens take advantage of the center and so I believe a lot more could be done to help the Seniors in Cupertino. The proposed dog park money could help free services to Seniors at not cost. Note: It seems the City of Cupertino cares more about the does in the proposed dog park than they do for the Seniors at the Senior Center and are willing to spend all kinds of money to accommodate dogs instead of our Seniors why is this? I have invested a great deal of time to review the issues and expect to see some written response from the city on this matter. I hope you will reconsider installing Dog Parks in our parks we do not need them and they are to costly.