11. Mary Ave Dog Park scope alternativesDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director
CUPERTINO
Agenda Item No. _1_t_
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
1 FETING DATE: June 9, 2010
Report on the evaluation of the scope alternatives for the proposed Mary Avenue Dog Park.
BACKGROUND.
At the June 1, 2010 meeting, Council received a budget estimate with a staff report discussing the
merits of an off -leash dog park on a 17,000 square foot open area on Mary Avenue. That report
and estimate proposed a project budget of $ 225,000 be included in the Fiscal Year 10 /11 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), currently under consideration.
Following the discussion and public hearing, Council requested that staff further evaluate the scope
of the project and corresponding cost estimates to determine if the project budget could be reduced.
This report responds to that request.
DISCUSSION
Scope Evaluation
In accordance with the Council's request, ,staff has recast the scope of the project into three
alternatives. Iri addition each alternative is scoped as a base project with the amenities placed as add
alternates which is how staff proposes that the bid documents be developed. The add alternates are
essentially the same for each project.
These alternatives with the add alternate feature in each provides the Council with maximum
flexibility in considering what is, in effect, six different scopes of work for the dog park. These
alternatives are summarized as follows and are detailed in the attachments to this report. Site Plans
of each alternative will be forwarded to the Council prior to the June 9 meeting.
Alternative A: 19,000 Square Foot Dog Park — Divided for large and small dogs with amenities.
This scope is the basic project that had been presented to Council in the report on June 1, 2010. The
base scope includes:
• Disabled access compliant parking stalls, signage, curb ramp & walkway
• Double gated entry pad with wash domm
• Waste and storm water retention features
• Site grading, cleanup, owner & pet hazard removal
• Waste receptacles & Mutt Mitt dispensers
STAFF REPORT
The amenities (now included as add alternates) include site furnishings (with benches), high -low
drinking fountain with sanitary sewer connection, electric card access gate, and a pet fountain
discharging into a bio -swale.
Base Project Cost $ 178,000
Add Alternates 47,000
Project Total with Add Alternates $ 225,000
Alternative B: 19,000 Square Foot Dog Park — No Dividing Fence for large and small dogs.
This scope is the basic project is similar to A but eliminates the divided space separating large and
small dogs. The basic scope includes the same features as alternative A but eliminates the dividing
fence and its fixtures reducing the basic project cost by approximately $16,000. The amenities are
the same except two benches are provided instead of four reducing the amenities cost by $3000.
Base Project Cost $ 162,500
Add Alternates 44,000
Project Total with Add Alternates $ 206,500
Alternative C: 10,000 Square Foot Dog Park — No Dividing Fence for large and small dogs.
This scope of the basic project is similar to Alternative B which eliminates the divided space
separating large and small dogs, but also reduces the size of the fenced in area with a corresponding
reduction in costs of approximately $22,000. The amenities are the same as Alternative B.
Base Project Cost $ 140,000
Add Alternates 44,000
Project Total with Add Alternates $ 184,000
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ON PROJECT AND OPERATIONS
Addition background information previously presented and discussed at the June 1, 2010 Council
meeting is contained in the report from that meeting (Item 18) and is attached to this report for the
Council's information.
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, the amount of $225,000 is proposed for the dog park. The actual amount will
be determined by the alternative selected by the City Council during budget deliberations.
11 -2
Funds totaling $44,039 have been encumbered and spent during this current fiscal year (2009) for
the following Council requested items:
• Neighborhood and park user survey on off -leash areas in City parks conducted in Fail 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
Project Schedule
Under any of the above alternatives that may be selected and funded by the Council, the project
schedule would be a nine to twelve months 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 tiuneframe, the environmental
impact study and encroachment permit from Caltrans would also need to be finalized. These two
actions could vary widely in timing and could have a corresponding effect on the completion date
of the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Staff Report on the evaluation of the scope alternatives for the proposed Mary Avenue
Dog Park.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
1 407� c0J. cooc a 614V CkL�/-
Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
Attachments:
A- Alternative A Scope, Estimate
B- Alternative B Scope, Estimate
C- Alternative C Scope, Estimate
D- Staff Report to Council June 1, 2010
11 -3
Attachment
Alternative A
19,000 Square Foot Dog Park
6.9.2010
Base Project, Divided, No Amenities
Basic Scope of Work
• Disabled access compliant parking stalls, signage, curb ramp, &
walkway
• Double gated entry pad with wash down
• Waste and storm water retention features
• Site grading, cleanup, owner & pet hazard removal,
• Waste receptacles & Mutt Mitt dispensers
Proiect Administration Costs $35,000
Design, survey, geo -tech, soil testing, bidding, and project
administration
Construction Costs
Project Start-Up
Mobilization, temporary fencing, site security, storm water runoff
protection, dust control
Demolition
Clearing, tree trimming and protection, stump and dead tree removal,
asphalt removal, debris removal, curb and gutter removal, irrigation
head removal
Construction, Grading and Drainage
Excavating high spots, filling in low spots, and positive. draining to a
bio- Swale -- number also includes items listed below;
ADA parking stall, walkway ramp, curb ramp, signage
Fencing with pedestrian & maintenance access gates
Site Furnishings
Waste Receptacles & Signage
Design Contingency 15%
Necessary and desirable project elements identified during design
phase.
Prevailing wage labor and materials without mark -ups Subtotal
$10,000
15,000
59,150
22,125
26,050
11,000
14,000
$109,150—say 110,000
Profit/Overhead/General Conditions 22% + 24,200 say 25,000
Varies depending on complexity of project. Includes bonds, insurance,
liquidated damages, substitution requirements, work hour restrictions,
noise restrictions, & other City protections, Also includes inflation,
escalation, and economic climate.
Engineer's Estimate
Construction Contingency 6%
Construction Total
Project Admin
$135,000
+ 8,100—say $8,000
$143,000
+ 35,750 say 35,000
Total Base Project Budget Estimate $178
11 -4
0
Alternative A
19,000 Square Foot Dog Park
6.9.20 10
Add Alternate Amenities
Add Alternate No.l : Site Furnishings 6,000 base - marked up — say $8,000
Four benches with disabled access to two
Add Alternate No.2: Drinking Fountain
High -Low drinking fountain with water & sanitary service
Add Alternate No.3: Card Access Gate
Electric card access gate with electric service
Add Alternate No.4: Pet Drinking Fountain
Pet fountain with water service and discharge into bio -swale
15,000 base — marked up -- say $21,000
6,000 base -- marked up - say $8,000
8,000 base — marked up — say $10,000
Total Add Alternates
Project Total with Add Alternates
$47,000
$225,000
Attachment B
Alternative B
19,000 Square Foot Dog Park
6.9.2010
Base Project, Undivided, No Amenities
Basic Scone of Work
+ Disabled access compliant parking stalls, signage, curb ramp, &
walkway
• Double gated entry pad with wash down
• Waste and storm water retention features
• Site grading, cleanup, owner & pet hazard removal,
• Waste receptacles & Mutt Mitt dispensers
Proiect Administration Costs 32,500
Design, survey, geo -tech, soil testing, bidding, and project
administration
Construction Costs
Project Start-Up
Mobilization, temporary fencing, site security, storm water runoff
protection, dust control
Demolition
Clearing, tree trimming and protection, stump and dead tree removal,
asphalt removal, debris removal, curb and gutter removal, irrigation
head removal
Construction, Grading and Drainage
Excavating high spots, filling in low spots, and positive draining to a
bio- swale — number also includes items listed below:
ADA parking stall, walkway ramp, curb ramp, signage
Fencing with pedestrian & maintenance access gates
Site Furnishings
Waste Receptacles & Signage
Design Contingency 15%
Necessary and desirable project elements identified during design
phase.
Subtotal
Prevailing wage labor and materials without mark -ups
Profit/Overhead/General Conditions 22%
Varies depending on complexity of project. Includes bonds, insurance,
liquidated damages, substitution requirements, work hour restrictions,
noise restrictions, & other City protections. Also includes inflation,
escalation, and economic climate.
Engineer's Estimate
Construction Contingency 6%
$10,000
15,000
53,100
22,125
20,700
10,000
13,000
$101,100—say 100,000
+ 22,000
$122,000
+ 7,300—say $8,000
Construction Total $130,000
Proiect Admin + 32,500
Total Base Project Budget Estimate $162,500
11-6
Alternative B
19,000 Square Foot Dog Park
6.920 10
Add Alternate Amenities
Add Alternate No.1: Site Furnishings 3,000 — marked up say — 5,000
Two benches with disabled access to one
Add Alternate No.2: Drinking Fountain
High -Low drinking fountain with water & sanitary service
Add Alternate No.3: Card Access Gate
Electric card access gate with electric service
Add Alternate No.4: Pet Drinking Fountain
Pet fountain with water service and discharge into bio -swale
Total Add Alternates
Project Total with Add Alternates
15,000 — marked up say — 21,000
6,000 — marked up say — 8,000
8,000 — marked up say — 10,000
$44,000
$206,500
11 -7
Alternative C
8,000 Square Foot Dog Park
6.9.2010
Base Project, Undivided, No Amenities
Basic Scope of Work
• Disabled access compliant parking stalls, signage, curb ramp, &
walkway
• Double gated entry pad with wash down
• Waste and storm water retention features
• Site grading, cleanup, owner & pet hazard removal,
• Waste receptacles & Mutt Mitt dispensers
Proiect Administration Costs
Design, survey, geo -tech, soil testing, bidding, and project
administration
Construction Costs
Project Start-Up
Mobilization, temporary fencing, site security, storm water runoff
protection, dust control
Demolition
Clearing, tree trimming and protection, stump and dead tree removal,
asphalt removal, debris removal, curb and gutter removal, irrigation
head removal
Construction, Grading and Drainage
Excavating high spots, filling in low spots, and positive draining to a
bio- swale— number also includes items listed below:
ADA parking stall, walkway ramp, curb ramp, signage
Fencing with pedestrian & maintenance access gates
Site Furnishings
Waste Receptacles & Signage
Design Contingency 15%
Necessary and desirable project elements identified during design
phase.
Subtotal
Prevailing wage labor and materials without mark -ups
Attachment C
30,000
$6,000
9,000
49,700
22,125
14,445
9,000
11,000
$84,700 — say 85,000
Profit /Overhead/General Conditions 22% + $18,700— say 19,000
Varies depending on complexity of project. Includes bonds, insurance,
liquidated damages, substitution requirements, work hour restrictions,
noise restrictions, & other City protections. Also includes inflation,
escalation, and economic climate.
Engineer's Estimate
Construction Contingency 6%
104,000— say $105,000
+ 6,300 — say $6,000
Construction Total $111,000 say 110,000
Proiect Admin + 30,000
Total Base Project Budget Estimate $140
11 -8
Alternative C
8,000 Square boot Dog Park
6.9.2010
Add Alterna Amenities
Add Alternate No.1- Site Furnishings 3,000 — marked up say — 5,000
Two benches with disabled access to one
Add Alternate No.2: Drinking Fountain
High -Low drinking fountain with water & sanitary service
Add Alternate No.3: Card Access Gate
Electric card access gate with electric service
Add Alternate No.4: Pet Drinking Fountain
Pet fountain with water service and discharge into bio -swale
Total Add Alternates
Project Total with Add Alternates
15,000 — marked up say -- 21,000
6,000 — marked up say — 8,000
8,000 — marked up say — 10,000
$44,000
$184,000
11 -9
Attachment D
� ►n
•
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 N4.
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. Attaehment 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 I0 to 15 dogs.
18 -1
11 -10
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 fcr the construction of an ADA accessible ramp for
disabled access to the temporary dog park. Th 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 gazes.
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 installal ion 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 unsucce,>sful. Dust may become an issue during the rnine-
month trial. Maintenance during the dry seasaa 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 grz.nite. 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:
18 -2
11 - 11
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department
Vehicle Pass fee to park for dog parks:
$80 annual
Humane Society of Silicon Valley, Milpitas
Dog Park Membership:
$200 annual
California Parks and Recreation Society
Best Practice for Dog Park Fees:
$20 -$75 annual
City of Boulder, Colorado
TAG Program:
$15 onetime fee
City of Indianapolis, Indiana
Pouch Pass for K -9 Zone:
$50 annual
Wags Park
Private Dog Park in Newton, Ohio:
$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 .rose 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 er/handler violate any of the rules and regulations,
their blue tag permit may be revoked for gross ndsuse.
18 -3
11 -12
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
• MaiIing of the June 1 meeting notice tc 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 sprinder 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 en
Construction Contingency Cost
$10,000
Project Administration Cost
$45,000
Feasibility for Trial Dog Park at Mary Avenu.- 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.
18 -4
if ]
Estimated Cost for Alternative Surfaces:
Trial Dog
Park at Mary
Avenue Site with Decomposed Granite Surface
$312,000
Trial Dog
Park at Mary
Avenue Site with Artificial Turf Surface
$525,000
Project Schedule
The project schedule would be a nine to twelve months 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:
,�� / e ` 0 7
Julia Lamy
Senior Recreation Supervisor
SUBMITTED BY:
r"
ar c inde
Director, Parks and Recreation
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION BY:
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
11 -14
9l - ll
� �
18 -6
MARY AVENUE P ARC
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
pros taflan a n d review at a council mee i ng.
To view the meeting agenda
available after May 27, please
see the City's website at:
www.cupertino.org /agenda
Also, please check the City's
website prior to the meeting
for Updated information in the
event of. any changes.
m
� y
MY Of
City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation Dept
City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY COUNCIL HEARING CUPERTINO
Proposal for a Nine -Month Trial
Fenced Dog Park at the
Mary Avenue Site
m
A'p
5C, ALE. 1 " =20'
1
�y�. t9
DEPARTMENT OF PARRS 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 C;ty 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 accomparry 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 handier.
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 tbat 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
11 - 19
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
• All dogs in city should be licensed
• A 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
f) Park users should be discouraged from bringing
young puppies or fearful dogs to parks, as they
may be made more fearful by highly assertive
dogs, highly interactive dogs, or rough play
g) Limit the number of dogs per adult allowed in
the park- U.C. Davis study suggest no more than
3 per adult user
2. Sanitation of park facilities
a) flan 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
11-20
3. Appropriately increased and positive usage
rates in parks
a) The size of the off -leash area should be as large
as feasible, but not too large to adequately
maintain.
b) Utilize alternate or nontraditional locations, if
needed, to help decrease the chance for conflict
with other community users
c) The requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) must be taken into
consideration
4. Respect to neighbors
a). Locate the off -leash area so that it is not directly
adjacent to residential property lines, to help
decrease the chance of actual and perceived
problems between park users and the neighbors
b) The off -leash area should be close enough to a
residential area that dog owners will take their
dogs to that area and not allow them off -leash
elsewhere
c) Enforce leash laws in areas surrounding the off-_
leash area to decrease the number of dogs
illegally off - Ieash going to and from the park
5. Limited traffic impact
a) Provide adequate parking for the dog park
users, as most users (95 %) drive to them
b) Locate the off -leash area as close to the parking
lot as possible to discourage owners letting their
dogs' off -leash between the area and parking
6. Protection of natural resources
a) Mitigate concerns about possible disturbance of
wildlife or native plants
7. Affordability of development and
maintenance
a) An active citizens group should participate in
the planning of a dog park
b) Encourage the citizens group to sponsor a
fundraiser with park users
c) A citizens group should advise the City as to the
needed resources to maintain the park, and to
help monitor its condition
• Excluded sports areas, playgrounds, picnic area,
environmentally sensitive areas.
• Minimum buffer zone from residents
• Review seasonal park usage
• Determine amount of sites that would be adequate
for the community.
• Focus on actual problems between park users and
the neighbors and eliminate perceived problem
concept
• Define what community support means
• Investigate buffer zone
• Program midway review process
• User fee for off -leash area
• Walkable distance from neighborhoods
• Investigate what would be acceptable travel times
• Determine who would be qualified to identify an
environmentally sensitive area
• Investigate incremental cost for maintenance of
space
• Identify what the funds from the fundraiser would
Ise used for
18-12
11 -21
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
11 -22
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
RE
CC. C- &
�j
Kimberly Smith
To: City Council; Department Heads
Subject: Three alternative diagrams for Mart Avenue dog park
Attachments: 20100607153941279. pdf
Item No. 11 at the Council meeting on Wednesday, June 9, is a report on the evaluation of the
scope alternatives for the proposed Mary Avenue Dog Park.
The attached PDF contains three alternative diagrams. Paper copies of these will also be
available on the dais on Wednesday.
CUPERTINO
i
cc b �q //0 -"�_ 1/
Linda Lagergren
From: David Coulson [davidcoulson @earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: OPPOSE Dog Park on Mary Avenue
To: Cupertino City Council
I live very close to the proposed Mary avenue dog park. This will create smell and noise with no benefit to the people
living close. WE already suffer noise and smell from over -use of Memorial Park. Surely you can find a better place well
away from houses, perhaps close to the gun range or the quarries in Stevens Canyon where there is already noise
pollution.
David Coulson
Linda Lagergren
From: Steve Hu [huchen06 @gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The new dog park locations
Dear Sir /Madam:
We are residents of the Glenbrook apartment.
The apartment is no pet community. This is
why we choose to live there because my son
is very allergy to pet.
We heard the city is going to proposed dog
locations among GlenBrook (on Mary). It is
risk for our son because it is close to what
we live.
Please move the location to other place.
Thanks,
Steve, Ashely, Alan
Linda Laaeraren
From: abhaybaokar@netscape.net
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:53 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Proposed dog Park - Across Glenbrook
Dear Sir /Madam,
We (my family) came to know that city council has decided to have the dog park site on the Mary street across
Glenbrook. We want lodge our complaint and state that we are completely displeased with this decision. Me, My wife and
kids live in Glenbrook apartment live just across the proposed site. We chose to live here because this apartment complex
is "no pet' complex and suitable for us who are allergic to dogs and in general pets. This decision has been quite stressful
for us.
Our complex have several kids including ours who are of school going age and many of them walk to neighboring schools
daily. Keeping this kind of park is potential disaster in happening with legal consequences.
We feel the city council is biased when decisions similar to this are made and wants to push its decision on people who
have limited resources /voices.
We suggest these parks be built in a different location which is less crowded and less stressful for neighborhood. (e.g. -
open area near stevencreek and cement factory)
Hope you will consider.
Regards,
Abhay Baokar
U � / #r/
Linda Lagergren
From: XY Liang [good_xyliang @yahoo.corn]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:24 AM
To: City Council
Subject: dog park
Dear council members,
As a resident in Glenbrook Apartment, I am strongly against the proposal of building a dog park on Mary
Avenue.
First, the location of the proposed dog park is terrible. The location is in a highly populated area. It is so close to
Casa De Anza and Glenbrook that hundreds of residents are affected. Glenbrook is right between Memorial
park and the proposed dog park, and the dog walking path would be logically through Glenbrook. The residents
in Glenbrook have been suffered the chaos of building a dog park for a long time. When the dog park was
proposed to be built in Memorial Park, we had been worried about the safety of our kids who play in Memorial
Park. Now, the proposed dog park is right across our apartment. I really want to know if the council can find
other better locations for the dog park. I really hope the council faces the fact that the city of Cupertino has
become a highly populated place and any location of a proposed dog park in the heart of the city will have
impact on residents living around. That is why the proposal of building a dog park has caused so much trouble
and chaos in the city and I really hope to see the end of it. Please think thoughtfully for the people and make the
right decision at the beginning to avoid the waste of resources and confusions among Cupertino residents.
Secondly, I don't see spending $250,000 for a trial dog park is a wise idea. Moreover, the $250,000 is only the
initial investment. There are other expenditure including maintenance and possible future expense of tearing
down the park. Do we have other better way to spend our :money? YES. When the Cupertino School District
announced a large scale of layoff, we didn't see our council members "think out of the box" to help our school,
students and teachers. Financially, Cupertino is in a much better shape than San Francisco, but the city of San
Francisco used their money to save the teachers who got pink slip one or two years ago. Summer vacation is
coming; do we see any council member propose that our library open on Monday and Tuesday mornings to
meet the needs of our kids? Our schools are becoming more and more crowded and the traffic around our
schools during rush hours is terrible. Has the city done anything to improve the situation? There are so many
issues in Cupertino which need your concern. Why does the council spend so much time, effort and resources
on the dog park?
Kindly please consider our concern, help resolve our confusion and end the chaos.
Thank you very much.
Xiaoyin Liang
Resident of Glenbrook