The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 02-21-2012 Item No. 8 Consider area (s) for an off-leash area for dogs "2-1 21 1 ► 2 s g _5 [I r FEB 2 1 2012 j February 20, 2012 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Orrin Mahoney, City Council Member City of Cupertino—City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA Re: Memorial Park Geese Problem Dear Council Member Mahoney, Ms. Sandra L. James, your City's former Mayor and present CEO of the Cupertino Veterans Memorial has informed me that on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 your City Council will be discussing the ongoing geese problem at your City's beautiful Veterans Memorial. Although I am not a resident of the City of Cupertino, I am a resident of the City of Santa Clara and a Korean War Veteran. Because of the latter and as one of the founders of the City of Santa Clara's Veterans Memorial, thanks to Sandra, I have been involved with your beautiful Veterans Memorial from the beginning. Also for your information, I am presently serving my 5th year as a member of the City of Santa Clara's Parks and Recreation Commission. As a member of the Commission, I am quite aware of the ongoing problem with resident geese population in our parks. We too, in Santa Clara have this problem with geese at our Central Park. The main attractions for geese, as you may know, are beautiful ponds and green grass, the latter being their main diet. Because of this problem, I have searched the Web for information relating to the issue. The most informative document that I came across was an eight page 2007 document by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (see attached). This document describes the geese problem and outlines a number of proposed solutions. As Ms. Sandra James mentioned, a proposal before the City Council is to consider allowing the running of dog's off-leash during certain hours of the day at Memorial Park. This type of solution is documented in the aforementioned attachment. The information relating to this approach should be reviewed and 1 considered. You will also note in the attachment that trained dogs are used for the purpose of scaring geese. This option can be an ongoing expensive solution. The document also mentions the installation of fencing. Considering the design and layout of your City's Veterans Memorial, a properly designed and installed ornamental wrought iron fence around the Memorial with self-closing gates at each entry point may be another solution. This would be a one time expenditure and could be a viable solution to the problem. I wish I could attend your meeting tomorrow night and speak before the Council directly; however, Tuesday, the 21sst of February is our Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Good luck in solving your problem. We here in Santa Clara are still working on ours. Respectively yours, Rayfnond G. Gamma 975 Hilmar Street Santa Clara, CA 95050-5918 Home Phone: (408)243-7222 Fax Phone: (408)249-3511 cc Ms. Sandra L. James Attachment 2 40/ow"s.. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation a Sep 4 �• Division of Fish,Wildlife;and Marine Resources a� `"""N��0 and f t' 4 U.S.Department of Agriculture ‘4,1 " y Animal and Plant Health Inspection Servicee When Geese Become a Problem May 2007 Canada geese... Population Growth ...are a valuable natural resource that provide In the early 1900s,only a handful of Canada recreation and enjoyment to bird watchers, geese nested in the wild in New York State. hunters,and the general public throughout New These geese were descendants of captive birds York State. The sight of the distinctive V- released by private individuals in the Lower formation of a flock of Canada geese flying high Hudson Valley and on Long Island. Local overhead in spring or fall is a sign of the flocks grew rapidly and spread to other areas. changing seasons. But in recent years,flocks of During the 1950s and 1960s,game farm geese local-nesting or"resident"geese have become were released by the State Conservation year-round inhabitants of our parks,waterways, Department on wildlife management areas in residential areas,and golf courses,and too upstate New York(north and west of Albany). often,they are causing significant problems. Today,New York's resident Canada goose In urban and suburban areas throughout New population numbers close to 200,000 birds,with York State,expanses of short grass,abundant nesting documented all across the state. The lakes and ponds, lack of natural predators, estimated number of geese breeding in New limited hunting,and supplemental feeding have York has more than doubled since population created an explosion in resident goose numbers. surveys began in 1989(Fig. 1). While most people find a few geese acceptable, problems develop as local flocks grow and the II Pairs 0 Total pen droppings become excessive(a goose produces IMMO — _ about a pound of droppings per day). Problems MOO include over-grazed lawns,accumulations of - droppings and feathers on play areas and goose- -- walkways,nutrient loading to ponds,public - _ _ health concerns at beaches and drinking water men - supplies,aggressive behavior by nesting birds, and safety hazards near roads and airports. e , , This document describes the most effective ,ie , p 4" .4 , ,d, ,,& •4. methods currently available to discourage geese from settling on your property and to reduce Figure 1. Estimated number of resident Canada problems with geese that have already become geese(breeding pairs and total birds) in New established on a site. For more information, York State,based on spring surveys, 1989-2006. contact any of the agency offices listed at the end of this booklet. 1 Legal Status geese congregate at ponds or lakes that provide a safe place to rest,feed and escape danger. Severe conflicts with people often occur at this All Canada geese,including resident flocks,are time of year because the geese concentrate on protected by Federal and State laws and lawns next to water and can't leave during that regulations. In New York,management period. Before the molt,some geese without responsibility for Canada geese is shared by the young travel hundreds of miles to favored U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),U.S. molting areas. These"molt migrations"account Department of Agriculture(USDA),and the for the disappearance or arrival of some local New York State Department of Environmental goose flocks in early June. Conservation(DEC). It is illegal to hunt,kill, sell,purchase,or possess migratory birds or After the molt and through the fall, their parts (feathers,nests,eggs,etc.)except as geese gradually increase the distance of their permitted by regulations adopted by USFWS feeding flights and are more likely to be found and DEC. Special permits are required for away from water. Large resident flocks, some of the control methods discussed in this sometimes joined by migrant geese in October, booklet. may feed on athletic fields and other large lawns during the day,and return to larger lakes and Goose Biology ponds to roost at night. This continues until ice or snow eliminates feeding areas and forces Resident geese are long-lived in suburban areas. birds to other open water areas nearby or to the Some will live more than 20 years. Most geese south,where they remain until milder weather begin breeding when they are 2-3 years old and returns and nesting areas open up. they nest every year for the rest of their lives. They mate for life,but if one member of a pair "Resident"geese,as their name implies, dies,the other will mate again. Geese lay an spend most of their lives in one area,although average of 5-6 eggs per nest,and about half will some travel hundreds of miles to wintering hatch and become free-flying birds in the fall. A areas. Resident geese are distinct from the female goose may produce more than 50 migratory populations that breed in northern young over her lifetime. Canada. Banding studies have shown that resident geese are not simply migrant geese The annual life cycle for geese begins in late that stopped flying north to breed. In fact, winter when adult pairs return to nesting areas Canada geese have a strong tendency to return in late February or March,as soon as waters to where they were born and use the same open up. Egg-laying(1-2 weeks)and incubation nesting and feeding sites year after year. This (about 4 weeks)generally extend through April, makes it hard to eliminate geese once they with the peak of hatching in late April or early become settled in a local area. May,depending on location in the state. Geese will aggressively defend their nests,and may Discouraging Geese attack if approached. Non-breeding geese often remain nearby in feeding flocks during the There are many ways to discourage geese from nesting season. After hatching,goose families settling in your area. No single technique is may move considerable distances from nesting universally effective and socially acceptable. areas to brood-rearing areas,appearing suddenly Persistent application of a combination of "out of nowhere"at ponds bordered by lawns. methods is usually necessary and yields the After nesting, geese undergo an annual"molt",a best results. 4-5 week flightless period when they shed and Goose problems in suburban areas are especially re-grow their outer wing feathers. Molting difficult because birds are not afraid of people occurs between mid-June and late July,and the and may become accustomed to scaring birds resume flight by August. During the molt, techniques.Also,some techniques are not 2 compatible with desired human uses of less effective. Feeding may be unhealthy for the suburban properties. For example,loud birds too,especially if bread or popcorn become noisemakers in residential areas,putting grid a large part of their diet. Geese that depend on wires over swimming areas,or letting grass human handouts are less likely to migrate when grow tall on athletic fields are not practical severe winter weather arrives,and are more remedies in those situations. But don't rule out vulnerable to disease. Once feeding is any technique that might work;dogs under strict discontinued, some geese will disperse and supervision can safely be used in parks and revert to using higher quality natural foods. schools, and controlled hunting has been successfully used at some golf courses. Supplemental feeding should be stopped as a first step in any control program. Wild geese Begin control measures as soon as you notice are very capable of finding other food and will geese in your area,and be persistent. Once survive without handouts from humans. Some geese settle in a particular location,they will be success in reducing goose feeding may be more tolerant of disturbances and be difficult to achieved through simple public education,such disperse. No method works well with just a few as posting of signs. DEC can provide examples attempts,and a comprehensive,long-term of signs to help with this technique. strategy is usually needed. Control measures work in various ways_ Some reduce the biological capacity of an area to support geese by reducing availability of food or °" habitat. Other methods disperse geese to other sites where,hopefully,they are of less concern. Some techniques reduce the actual number of PLEASE geese to a level that people can tolerate("social carrying capacity"). DON'T FEED WATERFOWL Control techniques described in this booklet REGULAR FEEDING CAN CAUSE: include only those that have the best chance for k" Unnatural Behavior , Pollution success based on past experience. Other i37 Overcrowding methods may work,and new techniques will w, Delayed MVtigration undoubtedly be developed in the future. We ,q59 Poor Nutrition and Disease ltan people enjoy feeding waterfoN+1,but the effects of this welcome reports on the effectiveness of any seemingly generous act can be harmful. If you care about goose control measures that you employ. +rated o 1,please stop reeding then'and alloy.them to return to y p Y their natural habits. LET'S KEEP WILDLIFE WILD. Discontinue Feeding Support Federal,State,and Private Organizations and their 0 effons to consent.waterfowl and their natural habitats. r n n at+ou[thc::[tcYt.01 fccdii,g•.a;,ic,fo',l..onwc[the nc.,'YwL S:a;c Although many people enjoy feeding waterfowl u„.,„:„—.„`jti°""linens'Con,nanon°it`cc in parks and on private property,this often Further reduction of feeding may require contributes to goose problems. Feeding may adoption and enforcement of local ordinances cause large numbers of geese to congregate in with penalties such as fines or"community larger numbers than natural habitats would service" (cleaning up droppings,for example!) support. Well-fed domestic waterfowl often act for violations. as decoys,attracting even more birds to a site. Feeding usually occurs in the most accessible areas,making a mess of heavily used lawns, Allow Hunting walkways,roads,and parking areas. More than 30,000 people hunt waterfowl in Supplemental feeding also teaches geese to be New York State each year,and close to 100,000 unafraid of people,making control measures Canada geese are taken annually. Hunting in 3 urban-suburban areas is often limited by lack of You can also plant grass species that are less open spaces and local ordinances prohibiting palatable to geese,including some that go discharge of firearms. However,open shoreline dormant in the winter. Geese tend to prefer areas,reservoirs and large private properties Kentucky bluegrass, and are less attracted to where access can be controlled(such as golf fescue. Also,minimize use of lawn fertilizers to courses)are good places to try hunting. reduce the nutritional value of grass to the birds. Where it can be done safely,hunting can help It is very difficult to eliminate goose nesting slow the growth of resident goose flocks. habitat. Geese rarely nest in open lawns where Hunting removes some birds and discourages they feed. Typically,they build nests on the others from returning to problem areas. It also ground close to water,hidden by vegetation. increases the effectiveness of noisemakers, However,geese are very adaptable and nest in a because geese will learn that loud noises may be variety of habitats,including woodlands, flower a real threat to their survival. gardens,and rooftops. Islands and peninsulas are preferred nesting sites,and often support Goose hunting is permitted in most areas of many more nesting geese than mainland New York State during September,when few shorelines. Avoid creating such features during migratory geese from Canada are present. landscaping of ponds in problem areas. Local Hunting is allowed also in fall and winter,but zoning regulations may be a way to discourage regulations tend to be more restrictive then to habitat developments that favor geese. protect migratory geese that may be in the state at that time. To hunt waterfowl in New York,a Install Grid Wires person must have a State hunting license(which requires a hunter safety course),a federal Geese normally rest on open water or along Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp,and be shorelines to feel safe from predators. They registered in New York's Harvest Information also tend to land and take off from open water Program. Hunters should check local laws when feeding on adjacent lawns. Where regarding discharge of firearms. practical,construct a system of suspended wires Landowners concerned about potential conflicts over the water to deny the birds access to such can easily limit the number of hunters and times areas. Single strands of#14 wire or 80-100 they allow hunting on their property. For more pound test monofilament line can be arranged in information about goose hunting regulations or a grid with 10-15 feet between wires. Each wire setting up a controlled hunt,contact DEC. must be secured so that it remains 12-18" above the water surface,and perimeter fencing may be needed to keep geese from walking under the Modify Habitat grid. To reduce the risk of birds flying into the wires,attach brightly colored rope,flagging or Geese are grazing birds that prefer short,green other markers to make them more visible. grass or other herbaceous vegetation for feeding. Well-manicured lawns and newly seeded areas Wire systems are not practical for ponds used provide excellent habitat for these grazing birds. for swimming,fishing,or other recreation. However,golf course ponds,reflecting pools, Wherever possible, let grass or other vegetation wastewater ponds, and newly seeded lawns with grow to its full height(10-14")around water limited public access,may be suitable. Human bodies so that it is less attractive to geese. In disturbance(vandalism)of grid wires may be a time,most geese will stop feeding in those problem in public areas. areas. Instead of grass,plant or encourage native shrubs or less palatable ground cover, Install Fencing such as ivy,pachysandra,or junipers,around the shoreline of ponds and along walkways where Fencing or other physical barriers can be geese are a problem. 4 effective where geese tend to land on water and tape along the water's edge. To ensure walk up onto adjacent lawns to feed or rest. maximum reflection and noise production,leave Fencing works best during the summer molt, some slack in the tape and twist the material as when geese are unable to fly and must walk you string it from stake to stake. between feeding and resting areas. In these situations,fencing,dense shrubbery,or other Another visual scaring technique is the physical barriers installed close to the water's placement of flagging or balloons on poles(6'or edge are effective ways to control goose taller)or other objects in and around an area to movements. Fences must completely enclose be protected. Flagging can be made of 3-6' the site to be effective. Fencing may also be strips of 1"colored plastic tape or 2'x 2'pieces used to block aggressive birds on nests near of orange construction flagging. Bird-scaring buildings or walkways. Although birds can get balloons,30" diameter, with large eye-spots and around most fencing,direct attacks may be helium filled,are sold at some garden or party prevented. Fencing around large open areas, supply stores. Numerous flags or balloons may such as athletic fields or ponds,has little effect be needed to protect each acre of open lawn. on free-flying birds. These materials should be located where they will not become entangled in tree branches or Goose control fences should be at least 30" tall power lines. They also may be subject to theft (48-60" to block aggressive birds)and solidly or vandalism in areas open to the public. If constructed. Welded wire garden fencing(2"x geese become acclimated,frequent relocation of 4"mesh)is durable and will last years. Less the materials is recommended. expensive plastic or nylon netting is effective, but will have to be replaced more often. Fences For small ponds,remote control boats have been may be hidden by planting shrubs close by. used to repel geese,and these may be practical Snow fencing or erosion control fabric may be if staff or volunteers are available on a daily used as a temporary barrier to molting geese. basis to help out. Fencing made of two parallel monofilament fish lines (20 pound test) strung 6" and 12" above Use Noisemakers ground and secured by stakes at 6'intervals can work,but is less reliable. Some success has Geese may be discouraged from an area through been reported with low voltage electric fencing. the use of various noisemakers or pyrotechnics. Shell crackers are special shells fired from a 12- Use Visual Scaring Devices gauge shotgun that project a firecracker up to 100 yards. Other devices, such as screamer Various materials may be used to create a visual sirens,bird-bangers,and whistle bombs,are image that geese will avoid,especially if they fired into the air from a hand-held starter pistol are not already established on a site, such as or flare pistol. These devices generally have a newly seeded areas. Geese are normally range of 25-30 yards. reluctant to linger beneath an object hovering over head. However,visual scaring devices are Automatic exploders that ignite propane gas to not likely to be effective on suburban lawns produce loud explosions at timed intervals are where trees or other overhead objects exist and effective for migrant geese in agricultural fields, where geese have been feeding for years. but are not suitable for residential or public areas. One inexpensive visual deterrent for geese is Mylar tape that reflects sunlight to produce a Noisemakers work best as preventive measures flashing effect. When a breeze causes the tape before geese establish a habit of using an area to move,it pulsates and produces a humming and where the birds are too confined to simply sound that repels birds.This product comes in move away from the noise. At sites with a 1/2"-6"widths. To discourage geese from history of frequent use by geese and people,the walking up onto lawns from water, string the birds may become acclimated in 1-2 weeks. 5 Noise devices are often not effective for moving Use Dogs to Chase Geese nesting geese. Before using any of these techniques,check Use of trained dogs to chase geese is among the with local law enforcement agencies(police) most effective techniques available today. It is about noise control ordinances,fire safety widely used to disperse geese from golf courses, codes,or restrictions on possession and parks,athletic fields and corporate properties. discharge of firearms. Obtain special permits Border collies or other breeds with herding if necessary. In some areas,starter pistols are instincts tend to work best. The dogs must be considered a handgun,and their possession and closely supervised during this activity. Except use may be regulated. Federal and state permits where permitted,compliance with local leash are not necessary to harass geese with these laws or park regulations is still required. techniques,as long as the birds are not Initially,chasing must be done several times per physically harmed. day for several weeks,after which less frequent but regular patrols will still be needed. Geese Where discharge of firearms is allowed, will not become acclimated to the threat of occasional shooting of geese can increase the being chased by dogs. effectiveness of noisemakers,as geese associate This method is most practical where the dog and the sound with a real threat. Special Federal and handler are on-site at all times,or where daily State permits are generally needed to shoot service(as needed)is available from private geese outside of established hunting seasons. handlers. Another approach is to allow dogs to roam freely in a fenced(above ground or Apply Goose Repellents "invisible"dog fence)area that is not open to the public,but this may be less effective. Dogs The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and generally should not be used when geese are DEC have approved the use of one product, nesting or unable to fly, such as during the molt ReJeXiT®,as a goose repellent on lawns. or when goslings are present. Use of dogs may Geese will feed less often on treated lawns not be practical near busy roads or where a because they dislike the taste.However,geese property is divided into many small sections by may still walk across treated areas to get to fences,buildings,or other barriers. Also, dogs adjacent untreated areas. can not easily repel geese from large water areas,but may be able to keep geese off The active ingredient in ReJeXiT®is methyl shoreline lawns or beaches. Although this anthranilate(MA),a human-safe food flavoring technique has proven effective,it can be derived from grapes. The material is available expensive and labor intensive. at some garden supply centers and costs about $125 per acre per application. Several Control Goose Nesting applications per year are usually necessary. Therefore,it is most practical and cost-effective Geese usually return in spring to the area where for homeowners with only small areas of lawn they hatched or where they nested previously. to protect. For best results,follow directions on Over time,this results in increasing numbers of product labels; if too dilute,it won't work,if too geese in areas that once had just a few birds. concentrated,it can kill the grass. Local population growth may be controlled by ReJeXiT®may not be used in ponds or preventing geese from nesting successfully. wetlands in New York State,and a DEC Article Although it is difficult to eliminate nesting 24(Freshwater Wetland)permit is needed to habitat,harassment in early spring may prevent apply it within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. geese from nesting on a particular site. No other repellents,including products However,they may still nest nearby where they containing formulations of MA,have been are not subject to harassment. approved for use in New York State. 6 If nest prevention fails,treating the eggs to received source of food for needy people. prevent hatching is an option. This can be done However,this method is controversial. Media by puncturing,shaking,freezing or applying interest,protests and legal challenges from 100%corn oil to all of the eggs in a nest. The animal rights activists can be expected. female goose will continue incubating the eggs until the nesting season is over. If the nest is Relocation of geese is not an option at this time. simply destroyed or all the eggs are removed, In the past,DEC captured thousands of geese the female may re-nest and lay new eggs. from problem areas and shipped the birds to other states that wanted to establish their own Federal and state regulations apply to any resident goose populations. Opportunities for disturbance or treatment of Canada goose out-of-state transfers have been exhausted as nests or eggs. However,federal rules only resident goose flocks now occur throughout the require that persons register on-line at: U.S. In some states,problem geese are moved hops://epennits.f ws.gov/eRCGR before to public hunting areas to reduce the likelihood conducting this activity. This website is also a of the birds returning. In New York State,there good source of information about egg treatment. are no known areas where problem geese from other areas would be welcome. Egg treatment helps in several ways. First,it directly reduces the number of geese that will be Relocation of geese is also less effective than present on a site later in the year. Second,geese permanent removal. Banding studies have without young will be more easily repelled from shown that some relocated geese return to their a site after the nesting season. Finally,if initial capture locations by the following conducted on a large enough scale(throughout a summer. Some have returned to New York town),it can help slow the growth of a local from as far away as Maine,South Carolina and goose population,and over time lead to stable or Oklahoma. Geese taken short distances(less declining numbers. Egg treatment may be than 50 miles)may return soon after they are necessary for 5-10 years before effects on goose able to fly. Adult geese are most likely to numbers are evident. return,whereas goslings moved without parent birds will often join a local flock and remain in Capture and Remove Geese the release area. Birds that don't return may seek out areas similar to where they were An effective method of relief for sites with captured,and may cause problems there too. problems during the summer,or to help reduce Many wildlife and animal health professionals year-round goose numbers in an area, is capture and removal of geese.Federal and state are concerned that relocating problem wildlife permits are required for this activity. increases the risk that diseases may be spread to wildlife or domestic stock in other areas. Geese are easy to capture during the molt by simply herding them into holding pens. In large Not Recommended areas,it may be necessary to remove geese for several years to get maximum results. After For almost any goose control method that has geese are removed,the capture site will have been tried,there have been successes and substantially fewer geese for the rest of the failures. However,the following methods are summer or longer. Over time,geese from not recommended at this time for various surrounding areas may move in if preventive reasons: use of swans(real ones create other measures are not in place. problems; fake ones don't work);bird distress calls(effective for some bird species,but not Geese removed from problem areas can be proven for geese); scarecrows or dead goose processed and donated to charities for use as decoys(ineffective for resident geese);use of food. If properly handled by a licensed poultry trained birds of prey to chase geese(labor- processor,goose meat is a healthy and well- intensive,generally not available); sterilization 7 Ce, z fr � Grace Schmidt From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 5:46 PM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: Fwd: Veterans Memorial Park Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "staylorssci @comcast.net" <staylorssci @comcast.net> Date: February 21, 2012 5:33:21 PM PST To: "James, Sandra" <sandyljames @sbcglobal.net:> Cc: "cupertnomark@gmail.com" <cupertnomark @,gmail.com>, Orrin Mahoney <OrrinMahoney @Comcast.net>, "gilbertwong(ZIgmail.com" <gilbertwong(c gmail.com>, Rod Sinks <rodsinks ;gmail.com>, Barry Chang <barry4cupertino @gmail.com>, Kimberly Smith <KimS @cupertino.org>, David Knapp <Davidk @cupertino.org>, "rick@cupertino.org" <rick@cupertino.org> Subject: Veterans Memorial Park Dear Sandy James/City Council Members, As you know I am a very staunch supporter of your efforts in presenting the annual Veteran's Day Memorial Ceremony in the fine City of Cupertino. As a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, Military Police Corps (veteran of both the Korean Conflict and the Viet Nam war) I can assure you that the local Veterans are indeed proud to attend the ceremony and hold you, the ceremony organizers, the City Council and the Mayor in the highest regards for honoring veterans, active duty and retirees of all conflict the country has engaged in. .1 regret to report to you that on my most recent visit to the park I was applauded to see the condition of the grounds. I observed the "mess" made by the geese and other fowl that have literally been allowed to trash the park. Their residue is a hindrance to free walking in the park and their rendering have been permitted deface some of the pavers and the wonderful statue honoring local Cupertino heroes. I have been advised that you, Sandy, have proposed a solution to the problem which is both 'cost effective and efficient'. I support the free two hour daily free lease permit that you propose for dog owners to allow their dogs to chase the geese and wild fowl out of the park. I am sure that there will be some opposition to this proposal just as it was to we who returned from Viet Nam after having served our country and performed our duty. You recently honored us and I was pound to attend and to participate in the ceremony in your wonderful and clean park. I ask the council, is it really asking too much to assure the vets here that we can have a place to visit that is clean and well maintained in our honor and in the recognition of the sacrifice of our fallen comrades 7 Please support and pass the proposal Sandy has submitted. 1 CC 2 ltillf2 it- E3 Donna Henriques From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:43 PM To: Donna Henriques Subject: FW: Please vote against the off-leash dog issue From: Cecil Coe [mailto:ccoe@videojump.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:42 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote against the off-leash dog issue Dear Councilman Sinks, I will be in the hospital tonight to accompany my wife for a chemo treatment. Hence I cannot make this very important meeting about the dog issue. I will appreciate if you can please my e-mail. If you recall, while you were running for the councilman position, I sent you a e-mail on the dog issue. I did NOT received your reply until after I talked to one of your volunteers. I hope you still remember your reply and my response. We are really counting on that you are not come in as Mark Santoro with a preformed agenda in mind and a strong will to push the off-leash dog area in our neighborhood parks. Please vote down the proposal to bring the dog issue back, which undoubtedly will bring the wound back to many of us. If you can please check records at Parks and Recreation, I was there for all citizen group meetings,the infamous survey, and the committee for various meetings. I also recommendec many solutions with or Julia Ramey who visited the suggested off-leash sites. The reality is that I witnessed how city council members Mark and Gilbert ignored the public opinions and try to please a few dog owners. We all know very well that nothing we have done has any impact on these dog owners, who are backing Mark Santoro and Gilbert Wang. You are now on the spot and we hope you can really listen to ':he public and vote for us. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Cecil Coe Cupertino Resident since 1992 i Donna Henriques From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:38 PM To: Donna Henriques Subject: FW: 2/21/12 Agenda Item 8: OLA's From: cfcoe0comcast.net [mailto:cfcoe(acomcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:22 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: 2/21/12 Agenda Item 8: OLA's Dear Mayor Santoro, I will be unable to attend tonight's council meeting but want to make clear my opposition to the reopening of this issue yet again. There is an unfortunate history of ignoring public input on this issue, including the work of citizens' advisory groups, public surveys, and community input at council meetings. I believe that the council has behaved badly by announcing one proposal in the agenda item, then wildly modifying it during discussion, thereby denying the public the ability to comment on the changes. I think that Cupertino needs to put this issue to rest once and for all. Our city parks are too small to fence off areas, and too well used to allow for unfenced areas. The city needs to follow the recommendations of the previous citizens' advisory group, or to drop the issue entirely. As well, I am aghast at Cupertino's refusal to deal with the issue of irresponsible dog owners who regularly flout the existing laws. Every single day there are dogs running off leash in city parks. I have seen city workers active in the park who do nothing about it, and I have seen sheriffs on drive bys also ignore it. What kind of example is being set here? You have heard this complaint again and again, yet you continue to represent only the folks who want dogs off leash in the parks, not those of us who see the problems every day. Please, vote to drop this issue and urge the council 1:o work on the real issues the city faces. Best regards, Catherine Coe 1025 Tuscany Place Karen B. Guerin From: Seibert[katgod @pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:58 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Dog Park Having lived in the Cupertino area since 1978 it seems reasonable that dog owners should have a place to let their dogs play. Here is a quote from the City of Cupertino's website,"The issue of off-leash opportunities for dogs has been discussed off and on in Cupertino since 1993." We have waited a long time for this and it is unfair to us and our neighboring cities to keep sending Cupertino residents to the surrounding cities to let their dogs play. Please do the responsible thing and provide this needed dog park for our residents. Thanks, Mark Seibert • 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Eleanor Muhlstein [muhlstein @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:33 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Ola No dogs off leash. Keep our parks safe for all especially young children Lado muhlstein Sent from my iPhone 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Kim Rennak [krennak @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:48 PM To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks Subject: Support for dog park Council members, Cupertino dog owners have been waiting a very long time for a dog park in our city. It is time to rectify this omission. Other cities have successful dog parks. Why is Cupertino different? Other special interests (eg sports) have park access that also make noise and mess. Dog parks are not that different! Kudos to staff who have proposed a minimal cost option. I only hope that at in the near future we can have more time at Library Field or somewhere else. Is there any space at Blackberry Farm? I am curious what dog license fees are used for if not for a dog park. Perhaps an additional dollar or two could be added that could help support a dog park with longer hours? I'm sure there are many people who have not registered their dogs. A licensing drive with an amnesty period might increase revenue for dog facilities. Dog parks are community building, much more so that just walking in the neighborhood because you spend more time together. I became a CERT member because of someone I met at a local park through our dogs. Dog parks are usually self-policed and kept clean due to peer pressure. If you have not been to a dog park please visit one before making your decision. Please give your support to the dog park! Kim Rennak 18 year resident 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Bryan & Carol Miller[bcsmiller @corncast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:24 PM To: Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Cc: Mark Linder; Julia Lamy Subject: Tuesday night's agenda Dear Council Members, I am in favor of our city having a place (or places) where dog owners can legally exercise their dogs off-leash. I first became involved with this "project" in 2008, and was part of the group which met Wednesday mornings. Many ideas were explored and discussed. Although I still like the idea of having multiple places around the city for off-leash activities so dog owners can WALK to the park with their dog (rather than drive), I support the current proposals. Normally I would attend the meeting in person to share my views, but unfortunately the meeting was scheduled during Winter Break for FUHSD and our family will be out of town. Cupertino residents should not need to travel to other cities to be able to legally exercise their dogs off-leash. I encourage each of you to vote "yes" to the staff recommendation. Thank you, Carol Miller 21702 Columbus Ave. Cupertino 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Kavi_surap [kavi_surap @yahoo.corn] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:40 PM To: City Council Subject: Off leash hours for Cupertino dogs Hi, We are Kavita and Vijay-Cupertino residents and part of the substantial imformal community of dog owners. I have heard that a discussion on off leash hours is coming up. It is high time the council grants the request of dog owners and set aside some off leash hours in the city parks. Apart from the benefits it provides, it is only a request to co-exist, which is democratic as well. Thank you, Kavita and Vijay Sent from my iPad 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Had Guleria [hariguleria @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 2:01 PM To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks; Mark Linder Subject: Cupertino for a friendly Dog Park- Dear Cupertino Council Members We live in Cupertino and we look towards your support for a dog park in friendly Cupertino. We now look forward to your leadership and backing in supporting the creation of a formal dog park, based on a time fence that does not interfere with other activities.We would like to see a dog park initiatied at the Library Park and Memorial Park at Fixed hours with clear notificai:ions for all to see. We all need to make Cupertino a'Dog-Friendly' city as dogs & Humans represent the greatest inter-species companions in all the anmial kingdom. With Best Regards and thanks in advance Hari & Gauri Guleria 7692 West Hill Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: betsy dougherty[betzd @pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:04 PM To: Mark Santoro; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Off leash area for dogs in Cupertinc The citizens of Cupertino need an area to gather and socialize and let their dogs play. Here is a quote from the City of Cupertino's website, "The issue of off-leash opportunities for dogs has been discussed off and on in Cupertino since 1993." We have waited a long time for this and it is unfair to us and our neighboring cities to keep sending Cupertino residents to the surrounding cities to let their dogs play. Please do the responsible thing and provide this needed opportunity for our residents. Thank you, Betsy Dougherty 1530 Primrose Way 1 Karen B. Guerin From: The Roberts Family [larsonroberts©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:34 AM To: Mark Santoro Subject: 2/21 Council Mtg -OLAs ♦ Ni _ f x „.:m0-4.0p---Al ? . s� .i I r 4{f.i ti fat i2 ' - 4,om.. Dear Council Member Mark Santoro, We urge you to vote NO on any OLAs in our small neighborhood parks at the 2/21 Council Mtg. Nancy Roberts Nancy Roberts 408-534-3112 Pager 408-756-5791 Work 408-742-3345 Fax 408-828-5329 Mobile 408-252-2916 Home Link to Webpager 1 Donna Henriques From: Bryan &Carol Miller[bcsmiller @corncast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:24 PM To: Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Cc: Mark Linder; Julia Lamy Subject: Tuesday nights agenda Dear Council Members, I am in favor of our city having a place (or places) where dog owners can legally exercise their dogs off-leash. I first became involved with this "project" in 2008, and was part of the group which met Wednesday mornings. Many ideas were explored and discussed. Although I still like the idea of having multiple places around the city for off-leash activities so dog owners can WALK to the park with their dog (rather than drive), I support the current proposals. Normally I would attend the meeting in person to share my views, but unfortunately the meeting was scheduled during Winter Break for FUHSD and our family will be out of town. Cupertino residents should not need to travel to other cities to be able to legally exercise their dogs off-leash. I encourage each of you to vote "yes" to the staff recommendation. Thank you, Carol Miller 21702 Columbus Ave. Cupertino 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Judy Uudyandwes @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 1:56 PM To: Subject: 3/2/10 Speech to City Council on OLA issue Attachments: 3-2-10 Speech to Cup. City Council by Judy Harrison.doc To our council members: As mentioned in my note to you yesterday, am sending you a copy of my 3/2/10 speech to city council on the OLA issue. Except for a few minor changes, everything remains the same. I gave copies of the ten pages to the council members at the mtg. and will send them to you now in separate msgs. Please vote No on the OLA issue tomorrow night. Judy Harrison • i 3/2/10 SPEECH TO CUP. CITY COUNCIL Honorable Council Members and City Staff, thanks for some time to voice our opinions. First,would everyone please stand up who's against having unleashed dogs in our city parks? Thanks...you may sit down. ** (I have laryngitis, so a friend will read my speech...Ardith West.) At the Dec. 15th council mtg., some people complained about the Godbe surveys done last fall. We agree that the surveys done IN THE PARKS were a TOTAL waste of time and effort. There were MANY problems and complaints with those park-user surveys. However, the resident mail-in surveys,which were carefully monitored and handled provided EXCELLENT feedback from the residents living near the 4 parks. As you can see from these results, 72% were OPPOSED to having unleashed dogs in our parks! Please note: These are not just "simple majorities!" An OVERWHELMING 72% of these residents OPPOSE this unsafe or undesirable idea! Whether the OLA would be fenced or not doesn't make that much difference. Having OLAs in our neighborhood parks would attract TOO MANY DOGS to our neighborhoods! Since we've become involved in this issue 18 mos. ago, our group has attended and spoken at FIVE Park & Rec. Mtgs., SIX Council Mtgs., turned in several petitions opposing this idea, sent you many letters, called your phone nos. or met with you individually, attended 14 Wed. morning mtgs., held two LARGE rallies here with LOTS of signs. We're just wondering, (pause) HOW MANY MORE TIMES AND MORE WAYS DO WE NEED TO SHOW YOU THAT AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THIS UNSAFE AND UNDESIRABLE IDEA???!!! Mr. Santoro,we're guessing that this OLA issue has divided our city more than ANYTHING ELSE in our history! Is all this anger really worth it to you? Can we please stop wasting taxpayer time and money on studying other proposals? Let's save our valuable time and resources for more important things! I have some papers to hand you in a minute. Page one states that Cupertino only has 992 licensed dogs, as of Jan. 12th. That's a MAJOR health problem for people AND dogs, if the dogs aren't getting their rabies shots! How do we solve this problem of so few licensed dogs out of an estimated 3 to 10,000 dogs? How do we solve the problem of unleashed dogs on public property?--the same way that most other illegal activities are handled: more education and stricter enforcement of the laws with fines. When the City Council voted to reduce the fines for unleashed dogs from $100 down to $50 last year, that was a BIG mistake! If anything, the fines should be increased, not decreased. Many dog owners with unleashed dogs on public property are given VERBAL warnings. Why are we only WARNING people about something that should be known by all dog owners? If you want a good deterrent to violating the leash law, the fines should be high. The city council can enact a new policy or procedure for our code enforcement agents, sheriffs and animal control agents to issue CITATIONS, not verbal warnings! When these irresponsible dog owners start paying hefty fines, then maybe they'll obey our leash law to keep everyone safe while on public property. When you see the signs stating how much your fine will be if you drive in the carpool lane illegally, that'll make you think twice before doing that! The police have several effective methods for catching drunk drivers, speeders and finding cars with expired DMV tags. Before state and court penalties are added on, a driver who drives over the speed limit will pay $100. A solo driver in the carpool lane will pay $374. Why can't our city do the same? Violators of our Leash Law should pay at least $100 for the first violation, $250 for the 2"d violation, and $500 for any more violations! That should help increase the awareness for the dog owners of unleashed dogs on public property and decrease the number of dog bites. (Pages 2 thru 7 show that Cupertino has had 21 dog bites reported in the last 2 yrs., per animal control and the Sheriffs Dept. (pause) 21 DOG BITES FOR A SMALL CITY LIKE CUPERTINO!! -- --that were documented! The City of San Jose has improved their dog licensing procedures by requiring all veterinarians to report to animal control which dogs have been given the rabies shots. An explanation of this procedure is shown on pages 8 & 9. Most of the major proponents of this dog proposal do NOT live beside a park. Isn't it interesting that they're so GUNG-HO for this OLA idea,when they won't be the ones who'll be hearing lots of barking dogs every day, nor have more dog poop left on their front lawns, nor have to worry about encountering unleashed or aggressive dogs while being in their front yards or sidewalks? As mentioned before,we learned at a recent Block Mtg. that some dog owners at Hoover Park let their unleashed dogs run around, even allowing 1 or 2 of them to cross Leeds Avenue to frighten young children who were getting ready to climb in their cars to be taken to school! The dog owners did NOTHING to corral their dogs or to apologize to the people involved. Like thousands of other Cupertino residents, I'm afraid of strange dogs. Why? When I was biking to school in the 6th grade, a small white dog rushed over and bit my ankle,which resulted in getting bandaged up and taking the painful rabies shot. It used to be 7 shots in the stomach; now it's only 5 shots...all VERY painful! This has left a horrendous image in my mind every time I see a strange dog. As a result, every time a new dog is near me I have to quickly decide if it's going to attack me (since dogs can sense my fear). If the dog is leashed, I have to determine if the dog owner has a strong enough grip on that leash in case the dog decides to rush toward me. When deciding where to buy a house here,we carefully selected our neighborhood, schools and surrounding areas. A BIG consideration in that process was whether or not it was near an unleashed dog area. Because of my traumatic experience,we would NEVER have bought a house close to a dog area. Now that you're considering setting up unleashed dog areas in some of our parks, then our city should absolutely get a majority approval from the surrounding residents. As you know, buying a house is the biggest monetary investment in your life. Our house is located about 200' from the proposed OLA at Hoover Park. I've worried a lot about encountering strange dogs while working in our front yard,visiting nearby neighbors or just getting in or out of my car. Isn't the City Council responsible for providing a safe environment for its citizens? At the Dec. 15th mtg. Mr. Santoro said that the OLAs in our parks would motivate more dog owners to get their dogs licensed and trained (in order to get a blue tag). That may "sound good." However, in reality, he proposed setting up an UNSAFE and UNDESIRABLE environment to try to solve some problems. Those of us who live close to these parks STRONGLY object to this idea for the reasons already stated. What do we suggest in place of unleashed dogs in our parks to solve these problems? Education and stronger enforcement of our leash law. 1) Change the procedure of licensing dogs to the same process that San Jose uses,which I explained earlier. 2) Send postcards to EVERYONE in our city explaining the Leash Law requirements and include the city's webpage,where they can learn more detailed information. (A rough draft of that postcard is on page 10.) 3) Change the policy of our Code Enforcement Agents and Sheriffs of JUST giving"verbal warnings" to dog owners who have unleashed dogs on public property. Instead, all dog owners who violate the leash law would be given CITATIONS that include fines. Let's enact the leash law that we have with higher penalties! We urge you to vote against any kind of OLA in our neighborhood parks. ** (Copies of my 10 suggestions were handed out to council members, along with a copy of the Godbe Survey showing 72% opposition to unfenced OLAs in he 4 city parks.) Karen B. Guerin From: John Woolfolk [woolfolk @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:25 AM To: Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Off-Leash Dog Area in Cupertino City Parks Once again I see that this issue is on the Council's agenda.As when it was debated at great length in the past, I am opposed to the idea in general. Of the two suggestions I have seen, i.e., Memorial Park and Library Field, I find the idea that we would have dogs off-leash in an unfenced area in Memorial Park supposedly to chase away geese to be the most bizarre idea yet. Has anyone thought of what will happen if a dcog actually catches a goose? It wouldn't be a pretty sight. To have such activity sanctioned in our city's premier park is just a very,very bad idea. Of all the possible locations Library Field seems the least offensive though I would consider the input of those that live nearby before deciding on that option. In short I am opposed to the idea in any park in Cupertino. John Woolfolk 10123 Hillcrest Rd. Cupertino, CA 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Judy[judyandwes©comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:00 PM To: Subject: Vote No on#8--OLA Issue-2/21/12 Mtg. Attachments: Godbe Survey Results from Cup. Residents-72% overall opposition to OLAs-Oct. 2009.JPG; Ltr. from S.J. Animal Care Ctr.-Cup. Lic. Dogs-1-10-12.pdf Dear Council Members, As 39-year Cupertino residents, we're furious that our City Council is spending more taxpayer money and city resources discussing the OLA issue. This issue was discussed/analyzed by the P&R Dept. and several council mtgs. for over 18 mos. Other than the Mary Ave. site being voted down as a possible OLA site, nothing else has changed since 3/2/10. The Godbe Survey (completed in the fall of 2009) showed a 72% opposition rate to having OLAs in our small neighborhood parks (see attached). The only good location for an OLA in our city-wide area is Stevens Creek County Park. It's large enough for a fenced OLA, has more parking spaces, water for the dogs and owners, and is far enough away from houses or schools. All of our city or neighborhood parks are closely surrounded by houses, which can be a safety issue for everyone (along with a huge noise problem). Please vote I\o on any kind of OLA in our neighborhood parks. In case I don't give a speech at Tuesday night's Mtg., will send you the 3/2/10 speech tomorrow that I gave to CC on this issue (since everything is the same). Also attached is a recent letter from S.J. Animal Care Ctr. which shows only 1042 Cupertino dogs licensed a LONG ways from 7-10,000 dogs! Currently, all dog owners can take their leashed dogs to every city park. If they want to use an OLA, they're welcome to use Las Palmas Dog Park (in Sunnyvale) or Saratoga Creek Dog Park (in S.J.)...both of them are fenced/very nice and located less than 4 miles from City Hall. Judy & Wes Harrison P.S. Are you REAL sure you want dog manure tracked into the Community Hall, City Hall and Library bldgs.? That'll be happening with an OLA at the Library Field. As you know, dogs poop when/where they want to. With lots of dogs at the Library Field every morning,you can be assured that some of the manure will be tracked into the bldg. carpeting (with having dogs all around the Civic Ctr. and the parking lot there). Even with weekly rug shampooing, those 3 bldgs.will smell bad all the time and will be a health issue for everyone. 1 N <.. Su - C 5I Cl) @ 5' 1,r,-- -p a? -p a 3 co 5. -I Zy = O = t7 X. N q (© r...,,5 o - • CCDD 0 N v r. o N 0 cu p Cl. `� p co m CD ?C' 9C .. ('D n- N N N Co CD ii ii II it „„1, O '@ " O (D -,CD CU C., 00 .(7) CD p "p @ C CD 0);. X o o (D(D _ O CD ( }Un (7) o I ? o + v 4 (-7) < "(j` - n".i � D c ca 1 p° ` o Q- 0 CD -s a � CD N CD 1 o o o.o °\ o (D o •0 LZ tf U)(a ()G W Q R , r- ca D Cl)1 , . } V 1--�4 ( {n .+ (D (D D (D : Cr C 0 (D -s o c $ ,' p N " 0 = ID ca. (D J ; _.. (D co CD (D Z3 C a " ' : - • -w5 ` j{C� ; , t '� CD `� '� o� f/ 3 <l!! p 0- p to p - , # , ID CA `� 0 ! v (D f7 'Y, "x i j 4 .j' c 1.i CD 3 I1 rim - . -s ' --n rx t,: (7 (� 0 �5 4 -w C D' Sy `G (D sv ] to U) CD x o 0 i7 (D —, 0 Q r3 0 0 Z$ t�� g ;; in to O '' � CD a cn CITY OF et% SJ\I\JJcSE Animal Care & Service Division CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY January 10, 2012 To Whom it May Concern: Re: Licensed Dogs in Cupertino As of 1/9/12, our records indicate that there are 1,042 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 number of licensed dogs shown on our report. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Sincerely, i Dottie Barney, Program Mgr. City of San Jose Animal Care and Services Phone: (408) 794-7204 0 2750 Monterey Road San Jose,CA 95111 cei (408) 578-7297 fax (408) 229-2122 Karen B. Guerin From: Judy[judyandwes©comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:00 PM To: Subject: 3/2/10 Speech on OLAs-with attachments Attachments: Ltr. from S.J. Animal Care Ctr.-Cup. Lic. Dogs-1-12-10.JPG; Postcard note to dog owners.doc; San Jose's Dog Licensing Procedure.doc; Sign in Vet's Office-on Rabies Shots.JPG My 3/2/10 speech to city council on the OLA issue referred to 10 pages of information (given to each council member). Four of those pages are attached here: 1) Ltr. from S.J. Animal Care Ctr. stating that only 992 Cupertino dogs were licensed. (I sent you a copy of the current count of licensed Cup. dogs yesterday...1042.) 8 & 9) San Jose's Dog Licensing Procedure & a copy of a sign in a local vet's office on rabies shots 10) A rough draft note (that I composed)...as a suggestion that the city could send out to everyone (explaining city law on dogs--license/leashed/poop p/u etc.) The above nos. refer to the items mentioned in my speech. Will send you nos. 2-7 in another msg. Judy Harrison 1 CITY OF it"%i SANJOSE Animal Care f Service Division CAPITAL OF SILICON VAT I FY January 12, 2010 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 number 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, Dice, Dottie Barney, Program Mgr. Animal Care and Services Phone: (408) 794-7204 2750 Monterey Road San Jose,CA 95111 irl (408) 578.7297 j:x 1408) 229-2122 HOW THE CITY OF SAN JOSE INCREASED NUMBER OF LICENSED DOGS 1) The City of San Jose City Council modified one of their ordinances in July, 2008, in order for the following procedures to be put in place. 2) When a Veterinarian gives a dog a rabies shot, the Vet is required to submit the information (dog's name/gender, dog owner's name/address/phone number to the San Jose Animal Care & Services office) each month. 3) That information is checked to see if that pet is already in their database, and whether it's licensed or not. 4) If the dog has NOT been licensed with them, a letter is generated explaining to the dog owner 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 with a date that they will be cited (for non payment of license fee). 6) If the dog owner still doesn't license the dog(by the specified date), then the S. J. Animal Care & Service office sends the data to the City of San Jose Finance Department who issues an "Administrative Citation" to the dog owner. Collection proceedings are handled from the Finance Dept. from that point on. For questions on any of the above steps, please contact Dottie Barney, Program Manager at San Jose Animal Care and Services (Ph: 408-794-7204), dottie.barney @sanjoseca.gov 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. 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 . Karen B. Guerin From: Judy [judyandwes @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:01 PM To: Subject: 3/2/10 Speech on OLAs-with attachments on dog attacks Attachments: Cupertino Dogs Off Leash & Dog Bites.xls; Cupertino Dogs To S.J. Animal Care Ctr.-or Known About.xls The following reports were for 2008 and 2009 (two years of reports on Cup. dogs): Pages 2, 3 & 4 were from the Sheriffs office, showing dog bites and other 'dog problems'--ALL were Cupertino dogs. Pages 5, 6 &7 were from the S.J. Animal Care Ctr., again showing all problems from Cup. dogs (Any/all dog problems are handled either by a Sheriff or the S.J. Animal Care Ctr.) Grand total of dog bites in two years from Cupertino dogs 21 Judy Harrison 1 -r°r• V N 0 C LL 0 0) 0 7. C r 8- -0 0 d 0 a) R a) 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O = 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0'' N Si N N N N a a) O 0 N 0 a U) a a) a a 0 0 U) a a a 00000000 O C 0 0 t 000000 0 C' 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U Z Z O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U Z Z Z Z C . 0 us a) Z o c O a) I- Q o OJ oes a o Y Q Y Y Y Y Q Q Y Q Q Q Y Y Y Y N z' < a < < Y Y Q Q a d Y Y < u Y d d Q Q Q Q Q Q a> 0 ta. � a_ o_ � < aaaaIX ao- YW � Q ¢ aaaeL = 0- 0 0 aZQZZa0- ZZI- 1- na °- zQaa � � Qazzzz < 0 < <w ZZ > 2 2 > > z0 > 2 Ow z0 ZZ Q Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 N 0. J Q J J J_ O J J z z J_ D J W J J_ J J J J J J (v 3 0 = 00 OOOZZ > 0O = .- - 000000 o o -) I- -) -) > I -) -) J J > I -) I- > > J J ) ) -) -, -J -, W ,, a. 1%4 Ili _JJ a a a a a co a N O D U) O N N N CO N N d N N U) N W < J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0) 0 0 W CJ h 000O0000000000000 ° 0 ° 0 0 o > > > > > D » > > D > » » > > > > » » v ,',4000000000000000000000000 LIU Q � H C. n` 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Q 2 Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 Q 2 2 � kJ o_ a. aaaaaaaaa. a0a_ 0a. aaaaa_ oaQ (p (p CO co LO � M 0 N N 10 0 OD N O d' 0) U> O �-- O O ( ( — v O ,- M u) r () u) 0 v 6, N C) N _ O -it N (O 4 O) Cr) M 4 4 F- 4 N ,- M r- N CO d r 4 a) r b V# W CO CO CO CO CC CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OD CO CO CO CO CO CO CO �3 �d. 1*- 0p 00 co O O O O C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S < 0000000000' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /''.r �� O O O O N N N N NI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o.S J:`i N N O N N OD N CD ., '- ' ' =' N N N N N N N N 1- r- N N N C\1 in N 6O •S N N N N N N N N N LO Lo -a)a) tea) C) d tea) m O 0 CD 11 00 N 1✓ t t v 2 .= N a t= 1✓ t= t= t✓ H N t 1= -it t 1= t t= t= t_ i t✓ .t t= t v v 1= 1= t t C O O O O C O C O N 0 0 0 0 O C C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N CU N CD O N 0 CD y N a) CU N CV % N a) ill N N N CU N N N N N N N a) N N N N N � rtcerY � ACC � W NcCxeCD R faWrYCCW W W WLYcCcCrYcCW W W WcttIct cC 0 0 0 0 0 .t 0 R 0 0 0 0 0 e = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O U Z Z Z Z U Z U Z U Z Z Z Z Z U U Z Z "s'_ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z co U LLJ 0 C z o z 0_ >¢ Q Y U cD co z J I—` m N :V W a -§ U W 3 0 - > W O Cn MI O > H (/W) Z > Z DQ x CO _ U Cr N C L g �QW > Owa mm Cl) vY al . W o = Q OUCn � re ~Q -- mf> 5 W >- 0 0 < L� Z > I- W C j ...I aWm E (n -) -J I- > w n1) II— 0 to Y ©D � cc co C/) w ozs w o2 OD YYY Y . �, — efxW (n (nh vY Y • J (n 2wwwwi_ wQCrQY = fccQU � �wa > 0@ ± wor mojorswww _Iaaaapaaaa � mZaaw ,.2w(t < 10 . 0CUa. F- - < Q. 0 zzzz00z WzZaz � zz < < < ° 1— m < wzz ± � zwv z « « 0 < < < < m < 0Q (D W.D � c w0 > F_ QaQ > ou, o ¢ � z W2222 222Fw2 ~ 2re ct L > Ozci < Cn2O2Qw > z2 (nw 0 >- >- >- >- a >- 0 >- } > >- >- } DF- O0 > amww >7F- w J J JF- zQQ � w > U J J J J -1 J 2 J J 0 J 2 J J Z Z Z w O Z > ~ Z 2 J -J J Z Z g J 2 W z0000gow0000 QOOwmdawi- ? aw1 00owoow mooF- J -) -) -) -) -) 2 --) ") x --) , - --) aQctaif) JctU) m 2x , 2 -, 2Y D , mU) U) _c L .c L L N L N L L L L .0 w_ L L .c L .L L - L L . t L L .c L L .0 L L L U) U) U) U) U) Cl) V) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) CO U) U) U) co Cu CO CD N 0) N 0 CD CD CD CU CU m CO CO CD CU CD CU CD CU CD CD CD CD CD CU CU CD CD CD CD CD N a) N CD CD N d N N N CD CD CD CD CD CU N O CD N CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD U) a) CD C) J J J J C) J J J J J J J J J 0 C) J J .J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M M O O m M O O O O M M M O O O O O M O M M O O O M M M M O O M M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 aaa. aaaaaaaaa. aaa ¢ aNaa. < mmo_ < Qaao. aaQaaaa CO O V' CO V' M ti V' O M O 1` co Co co co O O 4 N to s- M s- ti s- N CA O Is O 0) 0) M 0) N (3) M s-- N Cr) to co N c> N v. co O 4 7 Co 4 N O co 6 0 s- N Co co N Co co 0 co O r Co 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 N 4 ti ti CD O O CD C7O r- C'7 ti s- O O N 7 A Lf) O N C'r) O) Co 7 0) O 0) 0) 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0) a) O) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) cm O O O O 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA CO O) 0) O 0) O O O 0) 0) 0) 0) O O O O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N O N N N N N N O O O O N O N N N O O O O N N N N O O O O N N N N N 0 0 N N0000) I- . NNNN C N I 0NNN (NI CO 0) NNNNONv ,a. Os- NN N a) 7 7 7 N N e- co CO ti 0 N a) s- N M CO CO CS) O s- s- N N ce ce Q. s- N N 0 0 0 0 0 N M V' CO CO CO CD ti ti ti CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0) 0) 0) a) 0) 0) 0) v ca 0 c O ca rn O n a) Q oo..0 0 O TO 0 0 0 0 ZLLZZZZ W W J Y 2 0 0 m Z 0 O W 1.1". W 0 CO < 2 z CO °� otS < o� UJ > >21 Q p 0 Y Y 0 W0D- � ag W o o W O J a) 0 c 0 L y .c L L .c U • (6 J Q a) a) J J 0 00000 O) N 0) 0) O) O) a• d 0 0 0 0 DDDDDD 0 0 0 0 0 0 an- CL mOo co co o v co M U') 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N �- N N N CUPERTINO DOGS TAKEN TO S.J. ANIMAL CARE CTR. OR KNOWN ABOUT (Unleashed/Stray/13iter Dogs) DATE BREED CUPERTINO LOCATION FOUND COMMENTS 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 RD. & DE ANZA BLVD. 3/24/2008 CHIHUAHUA (SH) HOMESTEAD RD. & 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 (BIT SOMEONE) 6/28/2008 PIT BULL HOUSE NEAR CRABTREE (BIT SOMEONE) 7/6/2008 DANDIE DINMONT BOLLINGER &TANTAU 7/17/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER GRENADA& STELLING 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 FINCH & CUPERTINO H. S. 10/15/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER MORETTI & LORE:E 10/26/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER STEVENS CREEK. BLVD. & FOOTHILL BLVD. 10/28/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER CARVER &TUGGLE 10/29/2008 SHIH TZU GREENLEAF & STELLING RD. 11/4/2008 BASSET HOUND WILLIAMS & MARILLA 11/6/2008 GREYHOUND MINETTE & NEWSON 11/20/2008 BORDER TERRIER PINNATAGE & RODRIGUES 12/1/2008 MIN. POODLE BYRNE &ALCAZAR 12/10/2008 LABRADOR RETRIEVER FINCH & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 12/14/2008 BICHON FRISE COLUMBUS & BUBB RD. 12/20/2008 BEAGLE PROSPECT RD. (FREMONT/ALDER PARK) 12/28/2008 BEAGLE LA RODA DRIVE & BLANEY AVE. 12/28/2008 TOY POODLE TANTAU & STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 12/29/2008 CHIHUAHUA(SH) STERLING & CYNTHIA 1/5/2009 SHIBA INU WUNDERLICH & MENHART 1/26/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER UPTON WAY & BUBB RD. 1/26/2009 PIT BULL UPTON WAY & BUBB RD. 2/1/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER STEVENS CREEK BLVD. &TANTAU 2/18/2009 SHIH TZU TILSON & CALVERT 2/23/2009 GOLDEN RETRIEVER PEARTREE & BLANEY AVE. CUPERTINO DOGS TAKEN TO S. J. ANIMAL CARE CTR. OR KNOWN ABOUT (Unleashed/Stray/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&TLILITA COURT 2/26/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER FLORA VISTA&TLILITA COURT 3/2/2009 PIT BULL STEVENS CREEK I3LVD. & STELLING RD. 3/17/2009 COCKER SPANIEL DE ANZA BLVD. & RAINBOW DRIVE 3/23/2009 ROTTWEILER STEVENS CREEK I3LVD. 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 & MEIGGS 4/14/2009 LABRADOR RETRIEVER JOHANSEN & MEIGGS 4/22/2009 ROTTWEILER STEVENS CREEK I3LVD. &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 5/22/2009 CHIHUAHUA(SH) SOMERSET SQUAIRE PARK & STOKES AVE. (BIT SOMEONE) 5/25/2009 BICHON FRISE CHELMSFORD & 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 RD. 8/20/2009 JOHN DRIVE 8/31/2009 STEVENS CREEK 13LVD. 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/Stray/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 BLVD. (BIT SOMEONE) Karen B. Guerin From: Vijay Kumar[nvijay @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:33 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: Please vote NO on any OLAs Dear Council Member Mark Santoro, We urge you to vote NO on any OLAs in our small neighborhood parks at the 2/21 Council Mtg. EVERY park in our city is a small neighborhood park, closely surrounded by houses, schools or office bldgs. After a terrible personal experience where an unleashed dog ran towards me and jumped on me in a Cupertino school playground, I feel it is dangerous to allow Off leash Dog areas in any public park unless it is far from the main city area. Thanks and best regards, Narayanan Vijaykumar 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Don Krenn [deckrel @sbcglobal.neti Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 4:13 PM To: City Council Subject: YES for off-leash dog parks Dear City Council Members: On February 21, you are considering an off-leash area for dogs. In past action, there appeared to be fearfullness and indecision regarding this issue, leading to results which did not address the needs of your constituents. You can change this now by voting "YES"for both off-leash areas, Memorial Park and Library Field Thank you, Don Krenn 1488 Aster Ct. 1 Donna Henriques From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:08 AM To: Donna Henriques Subject: Fwd: Dog Park Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Neil Chang <changneil @fhda.edu> Date: February 21, 2012 9:56:55 AM PST To: Orrin Mahoney <Omahoney @cupertino.org> Subject: Dog Park On February 21, you are considering an off-leash area for dogs. In past action, there appeared to be fearfullness and indecision regarding this issue, leading to results which did not address the needs of your constituents. You can change this now by voting "YES" for both off-leash areas, Memorial Park and Library Field!" Thanks for your considerations. -Neil- 1 Donna Henriques From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:07 PM To: Donna Henriques Subject: FW: Vote"NO" Dogs Off-Leash From: Ardith West [mailto:ardith.west(aatt.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:35 PM To: Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong Subject: Vote "NO" Dogs Off-Leash Dear Cupertino City Council Member, I am writing to ask that you vote against any proposed off-leash dog park being established in any of the existing Cupertino city parks, including the creation of a fenced off area for dogs to run off-leash. If the citizens wish to have an area in Cupertino to allow dogs to be off-leash, a new park should be created. I suggest that area can be created somewhere along the Stevens Creek County Park. Thank you, Ardith West 1021 Tuscany Place . Cupertino, CA 1 Donna Henriques From: Karen B. Guerin Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:08 PM To: Donna Henriques Subject: FW: Off Leash Dogs From: John Swensson [mailto:swenssonjohn@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Cc: Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang Subject: Off Leash Dogs Dear Orrin (and Gilbert & Barry), I have an appointment in San Francisco this evening so will be unable to attend the City Council meeting, and I am not a voter in Cupertino but am employed here at De Anza. De Anza College, my family, and the Zakerani/Motayor families have all purchased plaques at the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, which is a national treasure. The committee put those stars on the benches to keep the skateboarders off, but they dont help with the birds who foul our plaques. I am in support of the Off leash initiative, which has a chance of helping the situation and write in support of the initiative Thank you for hearing, John JOHN K. SWENSSON, M.A., M.S. Assistant to the President & Director, Global Education Partnerships (GEP) De Anza College cell: 408-590-4430 (Skype Handle Deanzajohn) Have two years of college and would like a job (w/ pay and benefits) teaching English in Korea? See h ttp://www.talk.go.kr "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." General George Washington The Imp: http://www.imperialclub.com/Yr/1955/Swensson/index.htm i Grace Schmidt From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:15 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Off leash hours From: Tom Dyer [mailto:tomdyer4@ earthlink.net] Sent: February 21, 2012 12:14 PM To: David Knapp; Mark Linder; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; Rod Sinks Subject: Off leash hours Please add my endorsement to favorable consideration of off-leash hours for dogs. While there will always be those with strong passions bordering on paranoia, we still are a community of many interests that can and should be accommodated as well. Thanks for your consideration. Tom Dyer 21835 Almaden Ave Cupertino 1 ac a falll� Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Sievert[spsievert@gmail.corn] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:51 PM To: City Council; City Clerk Subject: Written Communications, Item 8 Item 8: Consider locations(s) for an off-leash area for dogs Consider location(s) for an off-leash area for dogs and give direction to staff Dear City Council, The last time I looked, the Mary Ave property was still being used as an unofficial dog park/bathroom. if the lead contamination is a health risk that prevents it from being an official dog park/bathroom, then it should probalby be fenced off, and/or have warning signs posted in multiple languages. It doesn't seem right to not clean it up, and looking the other way sends the wrong message to tomorrow's leaders. Yes, it sounds like a lot of money, but if there aren't any other viable options for a dog park, maybe the 100k should be spent to clean it up, and finally be done with it. Bringing this issue back again, and again, and again is also costing a lot of time and money. Thank you. Susan Sievert C � 1`121 (t),_ Grace Schmidt # r From: Rod Sinks [rodsinks @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:09 PM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: SCVWD on Geese- Further input on Feb 21 Agenda Item 8 (off leash dogs) Hi Grace, This has some updated information from the email I asked you to circulate previously. Would you please send this to the council and appropriate staff and add to the record for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Rod Sinks Forwarded message From: Gary Nagaoka <GNagaoka @valleywater.org> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Geese Issues To: Rod Sinks <rodsinks @gmail.com> Hi Rod: We usually start about now until June. They patrol the following areas: 1) Sunnyoaks Ponds, Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell 2) Page ponds, Hacienda Avenue, Campbell 3) Budd Ponds, Budd Avenue, Campbell, CA 4) City of Campbell Ponds and Flashboard Dams, Campbell, CA 5) City of San Jose Ponds and Flashboard Dams, San Jose, CA 6) Church Avenue Ponds, Church Avenue and Monterey Road, San Martin, CA 7) City of Morgan Hill Ponds, Morgan Hill, CA 8) City of San Jose Ponds and Flash Dams, San Jose, CA 9) McClellan Ponds, Bubb Road and McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 10) McGlinecy Ponds, Camden Avenue, Campbell, CA 1 We currently deploy several methods to address the geese issue. 1) We hire a company called Goose Busters to patrol our ponds with dogs. This is mainly during the egg laying season and cost about $5,000/year, 2) We have an depredation "egg addling" permit from the Ca. Department of Fish and Game. This allows us to sterilize the goose eggs by applying oil and/or destroying the eggs, 3) We have installed a rubber coyote (don't laugh, desperate measures for desperate times!) and 4) we have installed floating strobe lights. The theory behind these is that the light disrupts the sleep of the geese and they move on to other areas. We are also looking into a flying remote controlled eagle to scare the geese (and sea gulls) away! We haven't tried any repellants that you spray on grass because our facilities do not have any grass. I believe there are some environmentally safe ones available. From a purely non-scientific point of view I believe that the methods we have tried have proven somewhat effective. Our complaints have certainly gone down. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you need more help please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards and good luck! Gary Nagaoka Field Operations Unit Manager Raw Water Field Operations and Pipeline Maintenance (Unit 585) Santa Clara Valley Water District 408.265.2607. extension 2568 From: Rod Sinks [mailto:rodsinks@ gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:28 PM To: Pat Showalter Cc: Gary Nagaoka; rsinks@@cupertino.orci Subject: Re: Geese Issues 3 2/21 /(2 4* 8 f EB 2 l 2012 ,,;, February 20, 2012 ' CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Kim Smith, City Clerk City of Cupertino—City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA Re: Memorial Park Geese Problem Dear City Clerk Smith, Ms. Sandra L. James, your City's former Mayor and present CEO of the Cupertino Veterans Memorial has informed me that on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 your City Council will be discussing the ongoing geese problem at your City's beautiful Veterans Memorial. Although I am not a resident of the City of Cupertino, I am a resident of the City of Santa Clara and a Korean War Veteran. Because of the latter and as one of the founders of the City of Santa Clara's Veterans Memorial, thanks to Sandra, I have been involved with your beautiful Veteran:; Memorial from the beginning. Also for your information, I am presently serving my 5th year as a member of the City of Santa Clara's Parks and Recreation Commission. As a member of the Commission, I am quite aware of the ongoing problem with resident geese population in our parks. We too, in Santa. Clara have this problem with geese at our Central Park. The main attractions for geese, as you may know, are beautiful ponds and green grass, the latter being their main diet. Because of this problem, I have searched the Web for information relating to the issue. The most informative document that I came across was an eight page 2007 document by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (see attached). This document describes the geese problem and outlines a number of proposed solutions. As Ms. Sandra James mentioned, a proposal before the City Council is to consider allowing the running of dog's off-leash during certain hours of the day at Memorial Park. This type of solution is documented in the aforementioned attachment. The information relating to this approach should be reviewed and 1 considered. You will also note in the attachment that trained dogs are used for the purpose of scaring geese. This option can be an ongoing expensive solution. The document also mentions the installation of fencing. Considering the design and layout of your City's Veterans Memorial, a properly designed and installed ornamental wrought iron fence around the Memorial with self-closing gates at each entry point may be another solution. This would be a one time expenditure and could be a viable solution to the problem. I wish I could attend your meeting tomorrow night and speak before the Council directly; however, Tuesday, the 21sst of February is our Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Good luck in solving your problem. We here in Santa Clara are still working on ours. Respectively yours, Ray�G. Gamma 975 Hilmar Street Santa Clara, CA 95050-5918 Home Phone: (408)243-7222 Fax Phone: (408) 249-3511 cc Ms. Sandra L. James Attachment 2 ®4IoRK stgr New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ♦ate Sep` 'f , • Division of Fish,Wildlife and Marine Resources N� �•� "'N 0 2 and 3 '' U.S. Department of Agriculture • ' ` Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AA ** midegi. ~ ,*d When Geese Become a Problem May 2007 Canada geese... Population Growth ...are a valuable natural resource that provide In the early 1900s,only a handful of Canada recreation and enjoyment to bird watchers, geese nested in the wild in New York State. hunters,and the general public throughout New These geese were descendants of captive birds York State. The sight of the distinctive V- released by private individuals in the Lower formation of a flock of Canada geese flying high Hudson Valley and on Long Island. Local overhead in spring or fall is a sign of the flocks grew rapidly and spread to other areas. changing seasons. But in recent years,flocks of During the 1950s and 1960s,game farm geese local-nesting or"resident"geese have become were released by the State Conservation year-round inhabitants of our parks,waterways, Department on wildlife management areas in residential areas,and golf courses,and too upstate New York(north and west of Albany). often,they are causing significant problems. Today,New York's resident Canada goose In urban and suburban areas throughout New population numbers close to 200,000 birds,with York State,expanses of short grass,abundant nesting documented all across the state. The lakes and ponds, lack of natural predators, estimated number of geese breeding in New limited hunting,and supplemental feeding have York has more than doubled since population created an explosion in resident goose numbers. surveys began in 1989(Fig. 1). While most people find a few geese acceptable, problems develop as local flocks grow and the •Pairs 0 Tagil geese droppings become excessive(a goose produces SIM about a pound of droppings per day). Problems 200000 include over-grazed lawns,accumulations of droppings and feathers on play areas and loam. -..- walkways,nutrient loading to ponds,public - _ - health concerns at beaches and drinking water 700°00 supplies,aggressive behavior by nesting birds, and safety hazards near roads and airports. , 11 . This document describes the most effective dbe , P ,p ,�� ,, • •e •d1 methods currently available to discourage geese from settling on your property and to reduce Figure 1. Estimated number of resident Canada problems with geese that have already become geese(breeding pairs and total birds)in New established on a site. For more information, York State,based on spring surveys, 1989-2006. contact any of the agency offices listed at the end of this booklet. Legal Status geese congregate at ponds or lakes that provide a safe place to rest,feed and escape danger. Severe conflicts with people often occur at this All Canada geese,including resident flocks,are time of year because the geese concentrate on protected by Federal and State laws and lawns next to water and can't leave during that regulations. In New York,management period. Before the molt,some geese without responsibility for Canada geese is shared by the young travel hundreds of miles to favored U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),U.S. molting areas. These"molt migrations"account Department of Agriculture(USDA),and the for the disappearance or arrival of some local New York State Department of Environmental goose flocks in early June. Conservation(DEC). It is illegal to hunt,kill, sell,purchase,or possess migratory birds or After the molt and through the fall, their parts(feathers,nests,eggs,etc.)except as geese gradually increase the distance of their permitted by regulations adopted by USFWS feeding flights and are more likely to be found and DEC. Special permits are required for away from water. Large resident flocks, some of the control methods discussed in this sometimes joined by migrant geese in October, booklet. may feed on athletic fields and other large lawns during the day,and return to larger lakes and Goose Biology ponds to roost at night. This continues until ice or snow eliminates feeding areas and forces Resident geese are long-lived in suburban areas. birds to other open water areas nearby or to the Some will live more than 20 years. Most geese south,where they remain until milder weather begin breeding when they are 2-3 years old and returns and nesting areas open up. they nest every year for the rest of their lives. They mate for life,but if one member of a pair "Resident"geese,as their name implies, dies,the other will mate again. Geese lay an spend most of their lives in one area,although average of 5-6 eggs per nest,and about half will some travel hundreds of miles to wintering hatch and become free-flying birds in the fall. A areas. Resident geese are distinct from the female goose may produce more than 50 migratory populations that breed in northern young over her lifetime. Canada. Banding studies have shown that resident geese are not simply migrant geese The annual life cycle for geese begins in late that stopped flying north to breed. In fact, winter when adult pairs return to nesting areas Canada geese have a strong tendency to return in late February or March,as soon as waters to where they were born and use the same open up. Egg-laying(1-2 weeks)and incubation nesting and feeding sites year after year. This (about 4 weeks)generally extend through April, makes it hard to eliminate geese once they with the peak of hatching in late April or early become settled in a local area. May,depending on location in the state. Geese will aggressively defend their nests,and may Discouraging Geese attack if approached. Non-breeding geese often remain nearby in feeding flocks during the There are many ways to discourage geese from nesting season. After hatching,goose families settling in your area. No single technique is may move considerable distances from nesting universally effective and socially acceptable. areas to brood-rearing areas,appearing suddenly Persistent application of a combination of "out of nowhere"at ponds bordered by lawns. methods is usually necessary and yields the best results. After nesting,geese undergo an annual"molt",a 4-5 week flightless period when they shed and Goose problems in suburban areas are especially re-grow their outer wing feathers. Molting difficult because birds are not afraid of people occurs between mid-June and late July,and the and may become accustomed to scaring birds resume flight by August. During the molt, techniques.Also,some techniques are not 2 compatible with desired human uses of less effective. Feeding may be unhealthy for the suburban properties. For example,loud birds too,especially if bread or popcorn become noisemakers in residential areas,putting grid a large part of their diet. Geese that depend on wires over swimming areas,or letting grass human handouts are less likely to migrate when grow tall on athletic fields are not practical severe winter weather arrives,and are more remedies in those situations. But don't rule out vulnerable to disease. Once feeding is any technique that might work;dogs under strict discontinued, some geese will disperse and supervision can safely be used in parks and revert to using higher quality natural foods. schools,and controlled hunting has been successfully used at some golf courses. Supplemental feeding should be stopped as a first step in any control program. Wild geese Begin control measures as soon as you notice are very capable of finding other food and will geese in your area,and be persistent. Once survive without handouts from humans. Some geese settle in a particular location,they will be success in reducing goose feeding may be more tolerant of disturbances and be difficult to achieved through simple public education,such disperse. No method works well with just a few as posting of signs. DEC can provide examples attempts,and a comprehensive,long-term of signs to help with this technique. strategy is usually needed. Control measures work in various ways. Some reduce the biological capacity of an area to support geese by reducing availability of food or habitat. Other methods disperse geese to other sites where,hopefully,they are of less concern. Some techniques reduce the actual number of PLEASE geese to a level that people can tolerate("social carrying capacity"). DON'T FEED WATERFOWL Control techniques described in this booklet REGULAR FEEDING CAN CAUSE: include only those that have the best chance for Unnatural Behavior =if Pollution success based on past experience. Other oa Overcrowding methods may work,and new techniques will Delayed Migration undoubtedly be developed in the future. We ' Poor Nutrition and Disease Mans people enjoy feeding watedoul,but the effects of this welcome reports on the effectiveness of any seemingly generous act car,be harmful. If you care about goose control measures that you employ. thtu 1,please stop(ceding them and allots them to return to their natural na natural habits. LET'S KEEP WILDLIFE WILD. Discontinue Feeding Support Federal,State.and Private Organizations and their efforts to consene watertouI and their natural habitats. Although many people enjoy feeding waterfowl in parks and on private property,this often contributes to goose problems. Feeding may Further reduction of feeding may require adoption and enforcement of local ordinances cause large numbers of geese to congregate in with penalties such as fines or"community larger numbers than natural habitats would service"(cleaning up droppings,for example!) support. Well-fed domestic waterfowl often act for violations. as decoys,attracting even more birds to a site. Feeding usually occurs in the most accessible areas,making a mess of heavily used lawns, Allow Hunting walkways,roads,and parking areas. More than 30,000 people hunt waterfowl in Supplemental feeding also teaches geese to be New York State each year,and close to 100,000 unafraid of people,making control measures Canada geese are taken annually. Hunting in 3 urban-suburban areas is often limited by lack of You can also plant grass species that are less open spaces and local ordinances prohibiting palatable to geese,including some that go discharge of firearms. However,open shoreline dormant in the winter. Geese tend to prefer areas,reservoirs and large private properties Kentucky bluegrass,and are less attracted to where access can be controlled(such as golf fescue. Also,minimize use of lawn fertilizers to courses)are good places to try hunting. reduce the nutritional value of grass to the birds. Where it can be done safely,hunting can help It is very difficult to eliminate goose nesting slow the growth of resident goose flocks. habitat. Geese rarely nest in open lawns where Hunting removes some birds and discourages they feed. Typically,they build nests on the others from returning to problem areas. It also ground close to water,hidden by vegetation. increases the effectiveness of noisemakers, However,geese are very adaptable and nest in a because geese will learn that loud noises may be variety of habitats, including woodlands, flower a real threat to their survival. gardens,and rooftops. Islands and peninsulas are preferred nesting sites,and often support Goose hunting is permitted in most areas of many more nesting geese than mainland New York State during September,when few shorelines. Avoid creating such features during migratory geese from Canada are present. landscaping of ponds in problem areas. Local Hunting is allowed also in fall and winter,but zoning regulations may be a way to discourage regulations tend to be more restrictive then to habitat developments that favor geese. protect migratory geese that may be in the state at that time. To hunt waterfowl in New York,a Install Grid Wires person must have a State hunting license(which requires a hunter safety course),a federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp,and be Geese normally rest on open water or along registered in New York's Harvest Information shorelines to feel safe from predators. They Program. Hunters should check local laws also tend to land and take off from open water regarding discharge of firearms. when feeding on adjacent lawns. Where practical,construct a system of suspended wires Landowners concerned about potential conflicts over the water to deny the birds access to such can easily limit the number of hunters and times areas. Single strands of#14 wire or 80-100 they allow hunting on their property. For more pound test monofilament line can be arranged in information about goose hunting regulations or a grid with 10-15 feet between wires. Each wire setting up a controlled hunt,contact DEC. must be secured so that it remains 12-18" above the water surface,and perimeter fencing may be needed to keep geese from walking under the Modify Habitat grid. To reduce the risk of birds flying into the wires,attach brightly colored rope,flagging or Geese are grazing birds that prefer short,green other markers to make them more visible. grass or other herbaceous vegetation for feeding. Well-manicured lawns and newly seeded areas Wire systems are not practical for ponds used provide excellent habitat for these grazing birds. for swimming,fishing,or other recreation. However,golf course ponds,reflecting pools, Wherever possible, let grass or other vegetation wastewater ponds,and newly seeded lawns with grow to its full height(10-14")around water limited public access,may be suitable. Human bodies so that it is less attractive to geese. In disturbance(vandalism)of grid wires may be a time,most geese will stop feeding in those problem in public areas. areas. Instead of grass,plant or encourage native shrubs or less palatable ground cover, Install Fencing such as ivy,pachysandra,or junipers,around the shoreline of ponds and along walkways where geese are a problem. Fencing or other physical barriers can be 4 effective where geese tend to land on water and tape along the water's edge. To ensure walk up onto adjacent lawns to feed or rest. maximum reflection and noise production,leave Fencing works best during the summer molt, some slack in the tape and twist the material as when geese are unable to fly and must walk you string it from stake to stake. between feeding and resting areas. In these situations,fencing,dense shrubbery,or other Another visual scaring technique is the physical barriers installed close to the water's placement of flagging or balloons on poles(6'or edge are effective ways to control goose taller)or other objects in and around an area to movements. Fences must completely enclose be protected. Flagging can be made of 3-6' the site to be effective. Fencing may also be strips of 1"colored plastic tape or 2'x 2'pieces used to block aggressive birds on nests near of orange construction flagging. Bird-scaring buildings or walkways. Although birds can get balloons,30" diameter,with large eye-spots and around most fencing,direct attacks may be helium filled,are sold at some garden or party prevented. Fencing around large open areas, supply stores. Numerous flags or balloons may such as athletic fields or ponds,has little effect be needed to protect each acre of open lawn. on free-flying birds. These materials should be located where they will not become entangled in tree branches or Goose control fences should be at least 30" tall power lines. They also may be subject to theft (48-60" to block aggressive birds)and solidly or vandalism in areas open to the public. If constructed. Welded wire garden fencing(2" x geese become acclimated,frequent relocation of 4"mesh)is durable and will last years. Less the materials is recommended. expensive plastic or nylon netting is effective, but will have to be replaced more often. Fences For small ponds,remote control boats have been may be hidden by planting shrubs close by. used to repel geese,and these may be practical Snow fencing or erosion control fabric may be if staff or volunteers are available on a daily used as a temporary barrier to molting geese. basis to help out. Fencing made of two parallel monofilament fish lines(20 pound test)strung 6" and 12" above Use Noisemakers ground and secured by stakes at 6'intervals can work,but is less reliable. Some success has Geese may be discouraged from an area through been reported with low voltage electric fencing. the use of various noisemakers or pyrotechnics. Shell crackers are special shells fired from a 12- Use Visual Scaring Devices gauge shotgun that project a firecracker up to 100 yards. Other devices, such as screamer Various materials may be used to create a visual sirens, bird-bangers,and whistle bombs,are image that geese will avoid,especially if they fired into the air from a hand-held starter pistol are not already established on a site,such as or flare pistol. These devices generally have a newly seeded areas. Geese are normally range of 25-30 yards. reluctant to linger beneath an object hovering over head. However,visual scaring devices are Automatic exploders that ignite propane gas to not likely to be effective on suburban lawns produce loud explosions at timed intervals are where trees or other overhead objects exist and effective for migrant geese in agricultural fields, where geese have been feeding for years. but are not suitable for residential or public areas. One inexpensive visual deterrent for geese is Mylar tape that reflects sunlight to produce a Noisemakers work best as preventive measures flashing effect. When a breeze causes the tape before geese establish a habit of using an area to move,it pulsates and produces a humming and where the birds are too confined to simply sound that repels birds. This product comes in move away from the noise. At sites with a 1/2"-6"widths. To discourage geese from history of frequent use by geese and people,the walking up onto lawns from water, string the birds may become acclimated in 1-2 weeks. 5 Noise devices are often not effective for moving Use Dogs to Chase Geese nesting geese. Before using any of these techniques,check Use of trained dogs to chase geese is among the with local law enforcement agencies(police) most effective techniques available today. It is about noise control ordinances,fire safety widely used to disperse geese from golf courses, codes,or restrictions on possession and parks,athletic fields and corporate properties. discharge of firearms. Obtain special permits Border collies or other breeds with herding instincts tend to work best. The dogs must be if necessary. In some areas,starter pistols are closely supervised during this activity. Except considered a handgun,and their possession and where permitted,compliance with local leash use may be regulated. Federal and state permits laws or park regulations is still required. are not necessary to harass geese with these Initially,chasing must be done several times per techniques,as long as the birds are not day for several weeks,after which less frequent physically harmed. but regular patrols will still be needed. Geese Where discharge of firearms is allowed, will not become acclimated to the threat of occasional shooting of geese can increase the being chased by dogs. effectiveness of noisemakers,as geese associate This method is most practical where the dog and the sound with a real threat. Special Federal and handler are on-site at all times,or where daily State permits are generally needed to shoot service(as needed)is available from private geese outside of established hunting seasons. handlers. Another approach is to allow dogs to roam freely in a fenced(above ground or Apply Goose Repellents "invisible"dog fence)area that is not open to the public,but this may be less effective. Dogs The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and generally should not be used when geese are DEC have approved the use of one product, nesting or unable to fly, such as during the molt ReJeXiT®,as a goose repellent on lawns. or when goslings are present. Use of dogs may Geese will feed less often on treated lawns not be practical near busy roads or where a because they dislike the taste.However,geese property is divided into many small sections by may still walk across treated areas to get to fences,buildings,or other barriers. Also,dogs adjacent untreated areas. can not easily repel geese from large water areas,but may be able to keep geese off The active ingredient in ReJeXiT®is methyl shoreline lawns or beaches. Although this anthranilate(MA),a human-safe food flavoring technique has proven effective,it can be derived from grapes. The material is available expensive and labor intensive. at some garden supply centers and costs about $125 per acre per application. Several Control Goose Nesting applications per year are usually necessary. Therefore,it is most practical and cost-effective Geese usually return in spring to the area where for homeowners with only small areas of lawn they hatched or where they nested previously. to protect. For best results,follow directions on Over time,this results in increasing numbers of product labels; if too dilute,it won't work,if too geese in areas that once had just a few birds. concentrated,it can kill the grass. Local population growth may be controlled by ReJeXiT®may not be used in ponds or preventing geese from nesting successfully. wetlands in New York State,and a DEC Article Although it is difficult to eliminate nesting 24(Freshwater Wetland)permit is needed to habitat,harassment in early spring may prevent geese from nesting on a particular site. apply it within 100 feet of a regulated wetland. However,they may still nest nearby where they No other repellents,including products are not subject to harassment. containing formulations of MA,have been approved for use in New York State. 6 If nest prevention fails,treating the eggs to received source of food for needy people. prevent hatching is an option. This can be done However,this method is controversial. Media by puncturing,shaking,freezing or applying interest,protests and legal challenges from 100%corn oil to all of the eggs in a nest. The animal rights activists can be expected. female goose will continue incubating the eggs until the nesting season is over. If the nest is Relocation of geese is not an option at this time. simply destroyed or all the eggs are removed, In the past,DEC captured thousands of geese the female may re-nest and lay new eggs. from problem areas and shipped the birds to other states that wanted to establish their own Federal and state regulations apply to any resident goose populations. Opportunities for disturbance or treatment of Canada goose out-of-state transfers have been exhausted as nests or eggs. However,federal rules only resident goose flocks now occur throughout the require that persons register on-line at: U.S. In some states,problem geese are moved https:licpermits.fws.govieRCGR before to public hunting areas to reduce the likelihood conducting this activity. This website is also a of the birds returning. In New York State,there good source of information about egg treatment. are no known areas where problem geese from other areas would be welcome. Egg treatment helps in several ways. First,it directly reduces the number of geese that will be Relocation of geese is also less effective than present on a site later in the year. Second,geese permanent removal. Banding studies have without young will be more easily repelled from shown that some relocated geese return to their a site after the nesting season. Finally,if initial capture locations by the following conducted on a large enough scale(throughout a summer. Some have returned to New York town),it can help slow the growth of a local from as far away as Maine,South Carolina and goose population,and over time lead to stable or Oklahoma. Geese taken short distances(less declining numbers. Egg treatment may be than 50 miles)may return soon after they are necessary for 5-10 years before effects on goose able to fly. Adult geese are most likely to numbers are evident. return,whereas goslings moved without parent birds will often join a local flock and remain in Capture and Remove Geese the release area. Birds that don't return may seek out areas similar to where they were An effective method of relief for sites with captured,and may cause problems there too. problems during the summer,or to help reduce Many wildlife and animal health professionals year-round goose numbers in an area is capture are concerned that relocating problem wildlife and removal of geese.Federal and state increases the risk that diseases may be spread to permits are required for this activity. wildlife or domestic stock in other areas. Geese are easy to capture during the molt by simply herding them into holding pens. In large Not Recommended areas,it may be necessary to remove geese for several years to get maximum results. After For almost any goose control method that has geese are removed,the capture site will have been tried,there have been successes and substantially fewer geese for the rest of the failures. However,the following methods are summer or longer. Over time,geese from not recommended at this time for various surrounding areas may move in if preventive reasons: use of swans(real ones create other measures are not in place. problems; fake ones don't work);bird distress calls(effective for some bird species,but not Geese removed from problem areas can be proven for geese); scarecrows or dead goose processed and donated to charities for use as decoys(ineffective for resident geese);use of food. If properly handled by a licensed poultry trained birds of prey to chase geese(labor- processor,goose meat is a healthy and well- intensive,generally not available); sterilization 7 (very labor-intensive for surgery,no chemical Plan Ahead contraceptives available in the foreseeable future);fountains or aerators in ponds(not Property owners and communities that have effective,may even attract geese);introduction of predators(already present where habitat is experienced problems in the past can expect suitable,and none take only geese);disease geese to return again unless control measures (impossible to control and protect other are implemented.The best time to act is in late animals);and use of poisons(illegal). winter,before nesting begins,or as soon as geese show up where they are not wanted. If any permits are needed,allow plenty of lead "Community-based" time(45-60 days)for processing. Goose Management For more information... Simply chasing geese from one place to another does not address the underlying problem of too If the techniques described in this document are many geese,and may simply move the problem unsuccessful,or if you want more information, from one property owner to another. This is not contact USDA-Wildlife Services or any DEC an effective strategy for communities with regional wildlife office for assistance. widespread goose problems. Therefore,DEC and USDA encourage local governments and USDA can provide information by phone or by landowners to work together to implement mail and will conduct site visits in some cases. comprehensive management programs that USDA also can provide control services on-site include a variety of techniques. Control under funded cooperative agreements(for a fee). measures will be most effective if coordinated For help in New York State,contact: among nearby sites in a community. USDA APHIS-Wildlife Services While some measures can be tried at little or no 1930 Route 9 cost,others are more costly and beyond the Castleton,NY 12033-9653 means of some property owners. In these Phone: (518)477-4837 instances,local governments may want to hire a local"goose control officer"to work throughout DEC can provide technical information and a community,similar to other animal control advice,and refer you to licensed wildlife control work. Duties could include posting"no specialists who can help. DEC generally does feeding"areas,installing fences,handling dogs, not provide field assistance to landowners with treating eggs,and removing geese. This way, goose problems,but will work with local the cost of goose management would be shared governments to help develop community-based by all the residents of a community,including management programs. For assistance,contact those who benefit from the geese as well as the nearest DEC regional office,and for other those who may experience problems. DEC publications,go to: www.dec.ny.gov. Permits An excellent reference for goose control planning is"Managing Canada Geese in Urban Federal and State laws and regulations Environments:A Technical Guide". This govern the capture,handling,or killing of manual provides details for selecting and Canada geese,including disturbance of goose implementing various techniques to reduce nests or eggs. Permits are required for some conflicts with geese. To order or download a activities,but there are exceptions. For more copy,try an Internet search for the publication information, see the DEC publication "Permit title or contact Cornell Cooperative Extension, Requirements for Take of Canada Geese in Ithaca,NY 14853 (607)254-6556. New York-Questions and Answers". Good luck! 8 Co— 212- 1 ( v1_ - b 2/21/2012 Cupertino Parks v,- N >fr. * Park/Open v'' yPaSn , l P�< ask Space site 1 S' ,Y '- Mary Ave. f�d nGrrnrr Pn t StEVEN G Eca B LV�D l ef k Y. r,m�fgg.P-- ^Nparcel site \\ o _ - LfNriici,l J7 MCCLELIAN RD Cr n< h1 r:Clrtll.�clf Park \<- ' m u II ney�i arY, L,,,,►n_' La'Sa Party 4. ' II r=' II \ P Hoover Park Vicinity aay' .wha oft f w — al . .. i F}r ti ' ,11 i , ,.,. .". iii. •y . W ; I . gy m rrEr t r } aA , tR x •1 s'exy,.� ` ' E ' ' .. '- N f' {p �1 y s,,k, t,,•'x, \�.aX r4 „;,A y �. fir , i Y� r '3 'i 1'R "x' '.,- it ,,, t `. L ER .,, CM T` �,� � �Ahs►V t # r�tt+��'"''' k n' art a r }.. ��.r m ''-'''v ita '„y 1 i b qi " y xr a. ; y, '14 i .....%‘'',,4,,ALL;,, ''\.„, :.;:* ',,,4,1."eilit.:74 ",. 'r” 1C : ' —'1-,. .-*=, ' ...'t ' ., a , \i 1t ») .s''y i `4v9 *:. 3 ,5 .? +.'7 1, '" '}!a$,rt a I J 1• ...$ r :, '^r. 0-'0.i lfli mom 3 ' , . .`$ 4',, }N,- ■ ','t': 4 -,4..ict„;;i:;4L.4 - 1 2/21/2012 Hoover Park k #�.�,, 1 w • ' tyk 1 .•w .- r, , h ' • 1 i 1�.• AS.T 1CT+,4. ., ti' ,,,. ,?,i4',.;--..-A R It t t t 1P0„ "r, I fir -:''4. ,, 5t a i 2 f !`"I+s h .+-r« �� ! r*�� a.M'. ui C .1 •:5 317 �R. 'p•V 0-'3,, gyp{. j x yr r , • 4 r �N4- 7 ' s ;Afi� ti. .1,30,:i ,i Y ".,, 'r '^ ,.• .e uA O. �6 « r, �` r,•: a �i tai."�'G.'1 ,`F , 1.`.-� rcr"11.1�t,.,.N.+rla�ST -`: rr�!""7d��'t ' ' " 'r�� Memor:lialip,,,a.,,i,,..,„l, Vicinity ,..., .. „.4• C' �'I e ,.... J �z v 4 _x;`761 "�.+4 [ p _ j }•':',. df--^,F„.RISIISS N """4W y. y.F '-'4",:. re-'.*: , -' - .C.7:r - .t...!''' :'--•'oh..."- . "' '. ::''''7,dr '16.'4'1.e21' � t'.;:'I '�*4'4.y ir.� y, ;;sue,. iiklitO 5 1 „ F T Mna ' _,�...+"k A 78.... ,..e'wk`�,.rrn..iw '$` ./a ry .�.,E(�i-� "fir d, Y- /Yltri�`i[oY�` i "� r � � �a =1 . y,y, ,: ; � E 0.orJ (, U . �' .....�.. e � i } 0 1 �. 7t `� c �^ . 0 4133CesSLt V,. I 2 2/21/2012 Memorial Park -,'ia . 1 . ''.'...."..- -7iir'p,„' ,./ (,2":,' . 10,::',..•7"-...,'„.'.,f: ' ,it":.,,,:.') ...: ..,*„...„.., i.,,,,f:777—-H-:--"--------... ..,:—.7,,, ;,,.!,_:,' ,01;::'„Ili''-'it 7 i i,1.1...14)II . , - ..„, . . ,,r , ,..., „ ....7, a - -';'''F*0!..!!!:";;;;' 4 I ro `• L r w r ,,,4L-1, � ( �,'� .. (� . • f 7i•v.,.,]EVEN.REE f:L.e,. s t ..,�: .._ +�:�. Memorial Park north portio i of site �. w,� �. s 1` 11 ° � ryV�� " � u , ;717!' G:HR S +ENSEN k� i ��■�,t :HR.�," ---.,It F✓ .. 7 t L :r X ei pi tF" _ "D • lr b ' t Y sa- ,. ,,,t " ,r ;,ti .*.^•"'""' � •C�••..•w,��..e"fi � ; ;x*n++�.rt :.....*r ...+.. "'g"�i` :( V S Dn :v �_ mot: r 4._. .�{{ ( - 1 - "111 �"'r i °k'^` 7.' '• 4 rn' * '��EEDOM non`' !' ?. 3 2/21/2012 Library Field Vicinity b 7 � lark� �/ �`'� .e�: z�yr s '� °!°' a ' � : ' fir t � � t I I ! E� •C [p� t '^F< �Lt�'�"y. Mt n fir+. ,....��»+r. k�.. 1�2 a T r �� ;. 1 ;'''' ,.,:"....,=4', �At .y� � S 4+"„,-- , l' e , , k ''� : ,� �.. > ..- '0 - r• ice. r 1 -1 t ;• 11".1.1 '}j..�f•' ,Y ,Mlle .,r 1;4—kb ,+ . Y� ,+F { , ��: 7 1 .T.. .MFG'ft 1 , u.-; 4;:-;mss! � } t 6a 3x, ttP ,�fl9 �” 1. Library Field — r I.1 RJ -. , . il. ,'5,' .,,, 1 � '�' �t •-,s� �1 1 y !$ ,1 71,rP . 4lF �. 5 # ::.,,:„.,, • `,am 7� k f } 1 dq g'` j� fi 4,4,., ,,,,,, . .,:,,,,,,:_ .,-.,.„ 4 d E; 2/21/2012 Linda Vista Park Vicinity 41-)il,,- v...rt -.7.1-,+- -.1-4.+TT":"'ir'::—.7""*.'11.7' i,7'.■11' ',-':','- '...7,..1,4■1'..?:4^.-*4-L',„",Ili': ',-,':-'''` , '"; t '''''' '''.',*„ ' ltiiiii1/4%., '''1, t' ; CY■■••:'• '*1 : >.; I. _. _A:74,10,3-- 1 ,‘4;';';'1.-11.e,■ )1.: ‘''' ;44'NIC., t*'',* yrailVi 1;• A' 4 ;44V47:1i64*.f::101-"*.! • .•47.""'',T■ii.j,0471': 4 f.„. ,.. ,i,.:,.., !,. :,..1 ..i,, ,...,„..,,.. .,_., ., 0 , ..„,,,,,t ,:.,,,,,,,. .,. .„:„..-_,,,:,,.. , ,,,,,.,,, ,,,,.•, . , „ „,.„ „.... ., _ 1,, ! .. 11,...:‘, ., ..) .-- , ,. -,,,'. v,1 -,,..-,c/7:.. --, ...,, ,,,,, .-, • .:, -:,,,, ,. 't : ,..:‘'- 4-,s.k.-V i: : .i47.7-iii.. ',,,i...1,. 1.;-., • Jit...:',„'-'t..4..' - At, '444.-414- *;""*.,;';''il,"l'''- .*:' ., . ';'.1 ',:.f,'''.!.`.--., '''.t'' r,',. '::, 4 ,‘":'gk::''6,..'•err-4-:::''',F .',P:4 4'. ..' -t4-r•—,-et,freskii„:01:1:c, 1:P;-'''il: ..'\ .4i ' 1; -' . , . " - • ',Y,.‘ ''''!'...': ..' , _,,,,, ';`• ';"0,' .,..5.144.f."4..": 4iLlitt,..34,' ,,,,, ".* ,,,i 7Nr.,%..::''.'ll 44•••"*'. 'i4P'i','•$11i-le F.,k,''',rt`iiii .,.. ",": ,,.',..,, 4::, ' f,`!:/: ,::- ,',,.'''''' * y4''''-1" ,::' '-1- 4,,kgq-F441' ''''' qa,t.:..'''iri.`:•-:' :' t' , fa ,. fs '' ,1,, ,-,,., ,', --.:', ,,,", ,-„,,.: ,, • 14, ';. -1:17.5%,„ :,..',,IF,'-'il,-`4„1,1. ''... „;::.„,'s ' -, -..,;,," `',,--;,1%,,,torCl: -1#''';.( ' ' '''`"!''.9,,'' ' `i,1':`,1,-'e,,Y. I,'. ■.$,' i ',G.1. , .,,OA ,, '4' _ .., .,...,,,t Fu,A i,41 • :,,..... ....:',,,,!,it—) ;04 1 :1•r: ..., 1-4:' 4,,-44.:- 4444„47 44—1J°R- '14, '"•,;'-' ;.. i,v,$,=';.',':4'',,ti",..1, )',,.' ::",,j;'41,4"'-'''' 2 i '':`,,,--,,,.".'14,",‹','',,.",,,,,,,-„,,,,,,,,,,. - ., -, • Li:441.1aVista 1.s:a Pi::1:k-1.:"1'lt`'1,.'''';',:ir'141, l'''',.1'-',"'• 7.:;A:f7:1,:11.c:17-,'71':;: i. ':,40 ','2' -,4i iA.''' '1% I. Vf, y", • :. ttitk.; ,..4,,.',:.' `.'- ■ ''!"1Vtail "iit ...!....• %,,,.- ,„, ,,i'-,,, '',1,' . ",, . , ^t. i,".:131'4,.„,,,:tY,t Il.., '4.,,,, -,,,it'7...-=,,,.Z s,, ;, , V.:70 0 ,'''',Irl'f.',,'..,t-,,;- ;ilt"— ;k1'..• '';',.''''',!1.;;'..,..-1''--t; t;i';;' ..6;';' . 14,014.4, 't•I'f" 1)t ;""'''' 474 1 : t:4,,- 1 itZ•A.,' :, A ','4,, ' '411.---fl • ..!/ • ,,,,, , '',, • '. ; ";, '-w:',.,.4411,11 ..10.,,,. 'C,'''` lell'''•' ' tit,x-t ",t ,- ,' , 1 '"' '-",,... .■.;,'',),` ''•-,', ', .4''', ' ,i, - 4 .":, :':`, ,,.' ,..,. ' '. ',' ,-- ,''` ; , ":: ."`"4 ',--,,',',, .,'',„-, .'. ::,,,, :‘,1 :it' ,-,,'P St • •■''1,:42' ''',C;A!ii,'')',..: ,..4'it., ' '''% ; • ), •se.''', ',,''‘','4,i':' "O.,-,,'" .?' 0 'Y. re*1.4 :r't.VC.'''',P tr'e:.':.'4 .'''',' `. s% '.■:„-.4 ,'''','';', ''is'n -;,—:,*`, :-:, l'''-, . ' , ',,l'e,6", , ,o„ <NA :41:-.1, ,,.;°-' ..:-. , 1'•, ':;5 ,,1,rt.t, ,= tai,1 art* ''';','-'s::.,"•';. - i.: ,;';'; ,' ,` '''' =;t1:2,,,,,...• ,. . .ft.1'1.':;'''''''! ,..1..,`,.,:`,-„,:#57,,"';':zt",'"I;v77,, -,H,,*;'4't.4, :#4 ,7' $4.. ir ',',',.''.: 'it.,';-,::,110':,..'„ImUlc7c t':;!"111.,-,.:,,,4,i+4..i''',4,,Y.-",,,,:ii$41,7::,4':',,e,..•- T.,,f, '' 'f'--;;;;•,4,,'tj"; .,) 114:.`'I'i g■414,'""1"4 ;'4.,,i",44,,I il,'":4 ‘,"`P . ''t'' ' ,,fk 11■± 4% , 4, a 4 ,, tr,, :) ,:r '',. ' '' ',.,. ...V;,,,,,- 5 2/21/2012 �y Jollyman Park Vicinity f `� i, F 4 ., �a.. W4: ' ' .:!r•`L� ' ' ,, .. �, ,, I ,r ..,..;.4.,:i..:'� �ti J av T'�p� , �� Y r 1 t ti+. 'R*1U° . 17°�...'y?DUM11 A�SpRS� A�RIA1G U. . f..Yq;y u... Fs r f ' A _ m4 $ g P * •} _"::::::::-.7.1:;..il';,. .--, tft..,,z,„.1.4..i?,..,,,..64,7„:„. ,....,,,,ivic.,.....:.,,,„..N, ,..,,,,.....,„.„ fr- N i4"'-' r x , * U � .. i'i*i., k,,--1' \''''-,\.-:' '''''''Z' ...".i''' ' .'::.:''' ','6',1 41:',:k:':-", 10v'.vett.,.i,::„44:,,,,,.., . -, t jolly man Park , ^7, ;s mot ° .a N of=$ s 5 bra' 0, 2 M;^ :i. y• .r r ' -G >LV 7 r.4 ' b ha 4'. a Wr,.; ,61.1 11R LtPie," ,y ..� T � r �y 1 r f �E7 i �-�---- mot_ r , . ; ...'1...' ',Ali;Y:t.-re.•.,.I .....x..,•,:t ':',,,:-..."..-'-,,,........'•;,,..... !,--.-. ,f11-4:-7.i.77.;.4.F5... 7,'..,-...L....,:t1:*,;:..;1:..".....'7:•7=.7."7::.1. 6 2/21.2012 Wilson Park Vicinity ft . F, � Y � o b- ` '' �; + �3L} 'MKS~? a 'ti '► '�,,. . q ""ter:' , ) ' 9 �.a s 6, 1 ... yY ....'.-4'.- ,T.y yt � �° x Le...... i E fie �E F '�' ,',e.�e�as. t.7i le.. -w' ,V !qf, J K7, ,: ` yam, ,R, vr, s .. ty ro M �oR , �.;e( s ' ¢ f ; fig€r ,Y t 11. �. # }# � �f'-.,��i d ,p3 1r if,�: r J.:''.:7$4,7,;,:: ),-! !-.-;5/4:'4 :':r.'M } r�s aq g ARl °' xd • J� � 3 �� i , kd�S Pt ♦ � r� . v..ba m1 Cst.c „ E: *...#.,:z*.- � Y'AK ( P Wilson Park wa ,, ° .-.. x s "� 4W j' I rw ,, � x ' i k�{�a 1 � a = r � � � d.4 J r Y N v [� "q�� ..' F o a A✓;' �� s �:� � t � X*' ^� �'way��n�?�.""1"rvet 7 2/21/2012 Mary Avenue Vicinity 1p��, 1 S 71'11: .i" jy,a, 7 G.S�-+ C i.,4.,:j'. } .--' JPb ¢.„,t- . Ama:0aR.!°,1, a L hxNr 1 ti �: t': �'t” S ( x r 1 LA '!:TAd .5t " I "Al,, .i +,i •u+.°y j i t, �5.. y= 4 rr 4 Ap Y�' w.' i : S L '`V, kY „'1 ' `�.''�;°d x't v d` �,.. r 477, # t �+.� L� S} .Li M `ice` � si`��, 7 �q, '��i 4.,.� t p 1 i �6z��'� ,'7':.'.1 4` ^V �C + ;t �t q: t,.,-- ii X 3X a.�r E -D .'- _,,•.` ^;=--rye i` yR `` �,E GREKBLV�� Y parce l el m�venue 4.x"3 8 s Mary A a k, : 9 1 'h. , A � �fr �� Y •---w . a,-.404,,,,,„ :te w jr7.t��+ ; t V. . g + i - S: tSi C -1( > 4 • --mom a;'; , y . :„'-,-:',....•':-•.:='-'•;..,:',v,7f.4:. \:'' ....!c,:::::::,..\ '.1. r Yx' 'I { Y fi i S' ..w .r ill v �F f ,,,.. : Mt t ,r„h,h , y ,t '' `� S s, l s ' t� _,; ." it 1 { ��:3a`S t C ,R ':;. .' ' %' z1t 'i A q r' ---.-.--- 8 4 � , Cc 24 2-1 ( r". 8 • Front Page • About the Dispatch • Email Officials EXHIBIT • Got News? • Subscribe • • - The most complete news for America's premier planned community City Failed To Disclose Lawsuit; MacLean's Actions Cited by MissionViejoDispatch.com on November 18,2009 A lawsuit regarding the previously approved dog park site was filed apinst the City on November 12. The Council never publicly disclosed that fact,either before or during its vote to cancel the site on November 16. An agenda for last Monday's meeting included an item by Trish Kelley proposing to reverse the previous Council decision selecting Oso Viejo Park for a dog park. She said she wanted to change her vote due to an outpouring of opposition from the neighborhood adjacent to the Park. The failure to disclose the lawsuit prevented the public from assessing wl'ether the reversal was in whole or in part due to valid or embarrassing allegations in the 18-page lawsuit. The Dispatch previously reported Lance MacLean and Frank Ury seemed to join the reversal reluctantly. MacLean, who led the dog park proponents in obtaining the site,was uncharacteristically subdued and completely silent during the deliberations. The lawsuit was filed by the Oso Viejo Neighbors Association. The Introduction summarizes the allegations: 1. At the heart of this action is a dog park and a controversial elected official facing the prospect of being recalled at a special election next February. For years the City of Mission Viejo ("C rty") has been carrying out a methodical process of conducting public hearings to vet with the community various locations within the City where it might be feasible to develop a special park where dog owners in the community could take their pets to run about off-leash.Last month,the member of the City's city council ("Council")facing recall abruptly short-circuited the City's vetting process for the siting of a dog park by prevailing on the Council to(1)appropriate funding to begin developing the dog park,and(2)decree the specific location for the dog park. 2.Normally, this would not be an issue for the courts.However,perhaps following W.C.Field's adage—"A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for"—several corners were cut by the Council in hastily making these two discretionary decisions; corners that the law does not allow the Council to cut. 3. First and foremost,Petitioner contends that, in cutting those legal corners to fund and site the dog park, the Council completely forgot about the California Environmental Quality Act(Public Resources Code § §21000 et seq.:"CEQA")and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Tit. 14, California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.:the "CEQA Guidelines"), a statutory and regulatory framework often referred to as the"Holy Grail"of California's environmental laws.Three days after the Council took its actions, a City staff person apparently realized the oversight and tried to put a fig leaf on it by filing a document claiming that the Council's two dog park approvals were"categorically exempt"from CEQA. 4. But in trying to conceal one problem,the City staff person inadvertently created an even bigger one.The City's Municipal Code dictates that mailed notice must be given to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of a project for which a CEQA categorical exemption is claimed. However, what with the CEQA exemptions the staff person claimed for the dog park being an afterthought on his part, this meant that the City had violated its own Municipal Code by failing to provide the necessary prior written notice that the twin issues of dog park funding and siting were going to be on the City Council's meeting agenda. 5. It gets worse. In order to truncate the City's methodical vetting process for the dog park involving public hearings before various City commissions,the Council member facing recall brought the issue before the Council as part of his personal"comments"at the public meeting. Treating his"comments"as action items,he made motions for the Council to approve both finding and siting for the dog park which were approved despite numerous protests. Petitioner contends that the Council could not, under the Ralph M. Brown Public Meetings Act(Gov. Code § § 54950 et seq.:the "Brown Act"), legally take action on items that were not listed as "action items"on the Council's meeting agenda. Click here to view the entire lawsuit. The law firm did not respond with a comment before this article was posted. It appears a dismissal will be in order since the City cancelled the Oso Viejo Site. 0 Share/Save et {4 comments... read them below or add one } ..Larry Gilbert November 18,2009 at 139 pm Congratulations to the Dispatch for publishing this story. Interesting.Trish Kelley listened to the adjacent homeowners and had a change of heart?Perhaps the pending lawsuit played a role in that action. Wasn't she listening to the homeowners when they pleaded with her at a prior council meeting? The local residents,who do not oppose a dog park,should be commended for their joining together in shutting down this targeted site which did not meet any of the criteria established by the city council Carl Schulthess November 18,2009 at 221 pm It seems to me that we need a new Law Firm.How could they permit so many errors in Law to go on for so long? John Lusk November 18,2009 at 2:33 pm It seems that Mr. Mac Lean is not the only problem on this City Council. I was under the impression that the City Attorney and City Clerk were usually in attendance at Council meetings to advise and direct the seated council as to the proper rules. It looks like the City Attorney needs to take some blame here as well. Audra Smith November 19,2009 at 11:34 am I commend all those who quickly jumped into action to not only get to the bottom of this,but shed light on what might be an even bigger issues at a city leveL I know the neighbors are not against having a dog park.They are just exercising their rights to be properly notified and be able to put it to a vote.Kudos to them for demanding what should have been fill disclosure and due process from the get-go,and shame on the city for not allowing them that right! Leave a Comment 1Name * E-mail j Website . • ORIGINAL • ()55? O:9 JD 1 JOHN G. McCLENDON (State Bar No. 145077) 5P. ALISHA M. WINTERSWYK (State Bar No. 240969) SUPERIOR Fi L CE TER 2 LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN CCO pOFRANQEW A Professional Corporation cENT uN�u `" NGE° 3 23422 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 105 Laguna Hills, California 92653 NOV 12 2009 ��- 4 Telephone: (949)457-6300 ALAN CARLSON,C Facsimile: (949) 457-6305 °rme 5 eMail: john @CEQA.com /eY J iroEas . alisha @CEQA.com 6 Attorneys for Petitioner OSO VIEJO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 11 30.2009 12 OSO VIEJO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, Case No. 0 0 3 1 8 6 1 an unincorporated association, 0 13 Petitioner, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT R 14 OF MANDATE 43 a v. [Public Resources Code § 21168.5; z 15 Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 z CITY OF MISSION VIEJO CITY and/or 1094.5] c 16 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION 6 VIEJO, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, ± '' 17 NOTE TO COURT CLERK: THIS a o Respondents. PETITION INCLUDES A as °" 18 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") CAUSE 19 OF ACTION TO BE ASSIGNED TO A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE 20 DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC RESOURCES 21 CPA_'es * , Pi" EXCODE §PERTISE IN 21167.1(b) TO DEVELOP 22 ��R �PpFi 23 coG4'T�4 e .fie 24 cqt 1OPY L�,Alt 25 'A cV) 1 Rc %).°4:s. 26 y o 27 28 VERIFIED PETmON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • • 1 ', INTRODUCTION 2 Petitioner Oso VIEJO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION("Petitioner") alleges as follows: 3 1. At the heart of this action is a dog park and a controversial elected official facing 4 , the prospect of being recalled at a special election next February. For years the City of Mission 5 Viejo("City") has been carrying out a methodical process of conducting public hearings to vet 6 with the community various locations within the City where it might be feasible to develop a 7 special park where dog owners in the community could take their pets to run about off-leash. 8 Last month, the member of the City's city council ("Council") facing recall abruptly short- 9 circuited the City's vetting process for the siting of a dog park by prevailing on the Council to 10 (1) appropriate funding to begin developing the dog park, and (2) decree the specific location 11 for the dog park. 12 2. Normally,this would not be an issue for the courts. However,perhaps following z 13 W.C. Field's adage — "A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for" — several corners 14 were cut by the Council in hastily making these two discretionary decisions;corners that the law 8 5 15 does not allow the Council to cut. a z 16 I 3. First and foremost,Petitioner contends that, in cutting those legal corners to fund (8 o g 17 and site the dog park,the Council completely forgot about the California Environmental Quality m Q 18 Act(Public Resources Code§§21000 et seq.: "CEQA")and the Guidelines for Implementation a 19 of CEQA(Tit. 14,California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.: the"CEQA Guidelines"), 20 a statutory and regulatory framework often referred to as the "Holy Grail" of California's 21 environmental laws. Three days after the Council took its actions,a City staff person apparently 22 realized the oversight and tried to put a fig leaf on it by filing a document claiming that the 23 Council's two dog park approvals were "categorically exempt" from CEQA. 24 4. But in trying to conceal one problem, the City staff person inadvertently created 25 an even bigger one. The City's Municipal Code dictates that mailed notice must be given to 26 owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of a project for which a CEQA categorical 27 exemption is claimed. However, what with the CEQA exemptions the staff person claimed for 28 the dog park being an afterthought on his part, this meant that the City had violated its own -1- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 41/ • 1 Municipal Code by failing to provide the necessary prior written notice that the twin issues of 2 dog park funding and siting were going to be on the City Council's meeting agenda. 3 5. It gets worse. In order to truncate the City's methodical vetting process for the dog 4 park involving public hearings before various City commissions, the Council member facing 5 recall brought the issue before the Council as part of his personal "comments" at the public 6 meeting. Treating his"comments"as action items,he made motions for the Council to approve 7 both funding and siting for the dog park which were approved despite numerous protests. 8 Petitioner contends that the Council could not,under the Ralph M. Brown Public Meetings Act 9 (Gov.Code§§ 54950 et seq.: the"Brown Act"),legally take action on items that were not listed 10 as "action items" on the Council's meeting agenda. 11 6. Petitioner also contends that the City's failure to appropriately agendize the dog 12 park funding and siting as "action items" on the Council's meeting agenda violated the z 13 I procedural and substantive due process rights of the City's citizens who, but for the improper E. 14 agendizing of the matter as a "council comment" wanted to appear, and would have appeared, z $ 15 before Council to express their views on it and provide relevant evidence regarding impacts. z 16 7. Finally,Petitioner contends that, in rushing to truncate what had previously been 17 an open and deliberative process by voting to fund and site the dog park, the Council's haste 2 a 18 made a mess of City laws. The City's Municipal Code requires dog owners to keep their pets 19 on leashes at all times when they are on public property, and particularly in City parks. 20 Ironically,by authorizing the development of a dog park—the whole purpose of which is so that 21 dogs can run off-leash—without first amending its Municipal Code to make that activity lawful, 22 the Council approved a facility that will facilitate the violation of that Code. 23 8. Petitioner requests that this Court vacate and set aside the Council's approval of 24 the dog park funding and siting by issuing a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure 25 sections 1085 and/or 1094.5. Petitioner's claims are based on the following allegations: 26 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27 9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to sections 1085, 1094.5,and 28 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and section 21168.5 of the Public Resources Code. -2- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • • 1 10. Venue for this action properly lies in the Orange County Superior Court because 2 Respondents are located in Orange County. 3 PARTIES AND BENEFICIAL INTEREST 4 11. Petitioner is an unincorporated association composed of and supported by 5 individuals devoted to the preservation of the environment. Petitioner is a grassroots community 6 group that(among other things) was organized for the purpose of representing the interests of 7 the public in assuring compliance with the State's environmental and open meetings laws. 8 Members of Petitioner reside within the City and/or own real property within the City. On 9 behalf of these and other City and county residents,Petitioner challenges the Council's October 10 5, 2009, decision to allocate $258,060 plus professional design service fees from reserves to 11 construct a dog park in the City at Oso Viejo Park(the"Project"). 12 12. Petitioner is a party beneficially interested in the issuance of the requested writ of 13 mandate and injunctive and declaratory relief(i) because certain members of Petitioner (such 14 as David Gove,James Krutcik,Lara and Myron Sipp,J.C.&Lisa Moreno,and others)complied 8 � 15 with Public Resources Code section 21177(b) by timely commenting on and objecting to the � 16 contents and adequacy of the EIR, and(ii)because the environmental impacts of the Council's 0 17 decision will extend to areas in which citizens represented by Petitioner own property and/or Q 18 live. Unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate, the impacts resulting from the 19 City's decision to approve the Project will extend to areas in which numerous citizens 20 represented by Petitioner live and will directly and adversely affect their health and living 21 environment. Consequently,Petitioner is directly and beneficially interested in the issuance of 22 the requested writ of mandate. 23 13. Respondent City is a general law city organized and existing under and by virtue 24 of the laws of the State of California, and is situated in the County of Orange. The City of 25 Mission Viejo is responsible for regulating and controlling land use in all areas within the City, 26 including (but not limited to) implementing and complying with the provisions of CEQA, the 27 CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Municipal Code. 28 14. Respondent Council is the duly constituted legislative body of the City. -3- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • • 1 15. Respondents City and Council are collectively referred to herein as"Respondent." 2 16. Petitioner is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the respondents named 3 herein as DOES 1 through 10,and the real parties in interest named herein as DOES 11 through 4 25,inclusive, and therefore sues those respondents and real parties in interest by such fictitious 5 names. Petitioner will amend this petition to allege the true names and capacities of those Doe 6 parties when ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes,and on that basis alleges,that each 7 of the parties designated herein as a Doe is responsible in some manner for the events and 8 actions referred to herein. 9 17. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all relevant 10 times Respondent and the Doe real parties in interest and respondents were and are the agents 11 of each other,authorized to do the acts herein alleged,each of which was ratified by the others. 12 Reference to"City,""Council,"or"Respondent"herein shall mean the named respondents and 13 Does 1 through 10. g 14 18. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Respondent and S 15 each of the Does proximately caused the acts, omissions to act, and/or injuries herein alleged. 0 16 19. Respondent is, and at all times relevant herein has been, charged by law with the 90 17 performance of all duties arising under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including (but not o Q 18 limited to) the preparation and certification of a legally adequate environmental impact report 19 ("EIR") for the Project. 20 20. Petitioner has exhausted all legally available administrative remedies against 21 Respondent's decision to approve the Project without any prior CEQA determination. The 22 decision of Respondent to approve the Project is a final determination. If the Court does not 23 grant the relief prayed for herein, Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury for which it has no 24 adequate remedy at law,there will be a waste,and the failure to enjoin further conduct may tend 25 to render the judgment in this action ineffectual. 26 21. Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Public Resources Code 27 section 21167.5 by sending,via United States Mail, written notice of this action to Respondent. 28 -4- VERIFIED PETmON FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 A copy of the written notice provided to Respondent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and 2 incorporated herein by this reference. 3 22. Petitioner shall cause a conformed copy of this Verified Petition for Writ of 4 Mandate to be served on the California Attorney General in accordance with Public Resources 5 Code section 21167.7 and the Code of Civil Procedure section 388. 6 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7 23. The proposal to develop a"leash-free"dog park in the City has been circulating 8 around the City for years. As far back as the Council's April 7,2003 meeting,"the City Council 9 directed staff to return with a cost, site and benefit analysis for the possible location and 10 construction of a leash-free dog park." I I 24. Thereafter,City staffprepared an Agenda Report for the Council's meeting of June 12 16, 2003 titled "Leash Free Park Alternatives" evaluating "a number of possible locations for 13 potential siting of a leash free park." According to the official Minutes for that meeting, `By 14 consensus, the Council directed that this item be referred to the Community Services S15 Commission to be considered as part of the Master Plan." 16 25. For several years thereafter little progress was made on identifying an appropriate Y) .. 17 site for the dog park, except that, in 2006, the Council directed staff to develop a dog park c0 18 committee to refine the actual needs of a dog park." Following an update to the Council from 19 staff on the dog park at the Council's June 4, 2007 meeting, "By consensus, the City Council 20 directed staff to be prepared with facts and figures for the proposed dog park at the upcoming 21 budget workshop." 22 ! 26. At the Council's December 3, 2007 meeting, the Council unanimously removed 23 one location from consideration"and directed that this issue go back to the Community Services 24 Commission with the goal of having the Commission identify alternative sites." 25 27. According to the Agenda Report prepared by City staff for the Council's June 22, 26 2009 workshop, the committee staff had developed to study the dog park issue "felt that a 27 potential dog park should not be near a residential area." Nevertheless,on January 15,2008,the 28 Community Services Commission, by a 4-3 vote, passed a motion recommending approval of -5- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • 1 a dog park location at Oso Viejo Park, a location that was near, and would adversely impact, 2 numerous existing residences. 3 28. At the Council's June 22, workshop, the Council unanimously adopted a motion 4 "to evaluate location,budget, size, and see if we can't find an area where a compromise can be 5 brokered" and also "directed staff to return with a report outlining the [Community Services] 6 Commission recommendations within 3-4 months." 7 29. Following this Council action, the Community Services Commission, by 8 Memorandum dated September 15,2009,informed the public that the dog park issue would be 9 on the Commission's October 20, 2009 agenda and that"[t]he October 20, 2009 Commission 10 meeting will be publicized to the public and to those who have expressed an interest in the 11 possibility of a dog park." 12 30. However, before this public meeting could occur, the Council's Mayor pro z 13 tempore Lance MacLean,who is facing a recall election next February,agendized the dog park 14 issue for the October 5, 2009 Council meeting as part of his "council comments." Instead of a 8 15 City staff preparing a neutral Agenda Report for the matter, MacLean himself prepared an d6 16 Agenda Report for the item in which he argued that, "[t]o continue study and debate without � o c17 making a decision would be a waste of time . . . It is a disservice to our residents whether 4t18 proponents or opponents not to make a definitive decision . . . whether the city will develop a 19 dog park" and also urged that the dog park be sited at Oso Viejo Park. 20 31. On its face, MacLean's Agenda Report says nothing about any review of his 21 proposal pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 22 32. As a result of MacLean agendizing this item as his "comment" instead of as an 23 action item, a number of Petitioner's members were misled and did not attend the Council's 24 October 5, 2009 meeting. Had the dog park issue been properly agendized, those members 25 would have appeared before the Council to express their views on the issue and present evidence 26 that the siting of the dog park at Oso Viejo Park would cause significant adverse environmental 27 impacts. Moreover, none of Petitioner's members who reside within 300 feet of the proposed 28 Oso Viejo dog park received mailed notice regarding MacLean's proposed"comments." -6- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • 1 33. By a vote of 4-1 the Council approved funding for the dog park and, by a vote of 2 3-2, the Council approved siting the dog park in a portion of Oso Viejo Park adjacent to 3 numerous residences. In connection with those approvals, the Council made no comments or 4 finding regarding CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,and simply overlooked their obligation to 5 comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 6 34. On October 7,2009,a member of Petitioner submitted a letter to the City's Mayor 7 requesting"any and all information related to the research,investigations,studies,and analyses 8 regarding the consideration of any Dog Park(s) to be located in the City of Mission Viejo." 9 35. The next day (October 8, 2009), a City staff person filed a Notice of Exemption 10 for the Project in the official records of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder as instrument 11 No. 2009-85000877. 12 36. On or about October 29,2009, a member of Petitioner gave the City a "Demand 13 to Cure & Correct City Council's Illegal 10/5/09 Dog Park Vote," noting the Council's 14 violations of the Brown Act in making its October 5, 2009 votes on the dog park issue and g 15 demanding that the Council cure it violations. 0 16 37. On November 2, 2009, the Council agreed to agendize the "Demand to Cure & 17 Correct City Council's Illegal 10/5/09 Dog Park Vote" for its November 16, 2009 meeting. 0 18 38. Section 10.01.200 ["Restraint of dogs."] of the City's Municipal Code provides 19 (in pertinent part) that: 20 "(b)No person owning or having charge, care, custody, or control 21 of any dog shall cause or permit, either willfully or through failure 22 to exercise due care or control, any such dog to be upon any public 23 property unless such dog be restrained by a substantial chain, or 24 leash not exceeding six feet in length, and is under the charge of a 25 person competent to exercise care, custody, and control over such 26 dog, unless the owner or operator of such public property grants 27 , written permission for such dog to be on such property without such 28 chain or leash." -7- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • 1 39. Section 13.04.030["Rule;,and regulations applicable in city parks."]of the City's 2 Municipal Code provides "[t]he following rules and regulations apply in all city parks unless 3 expressly stated otherwise elsewhere in this title: 4 "(c) Prohibition of animals, fowl or reptiles in the park. No person 5 shall cause, permit, or allow any animal, fowl,or reptile, owned or 6 possessed by him/her or any animal in his/her care, custody, or 7 , control to be present in any park except: 8 * * * 9 (3)Dogs or cats when led[by a cord or chain not more than six feet 10 long, or when confined within the interior of a vehicle." 11 40. In approving the Project, the Council failed to amend the City's Municipal Code 12 in order to authorize persons to lawfully use a dog park. 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 14 AGAINST RESPONDENT) z 15 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA 0 16 41. Petitioner realleges paragraphs 1 through 40. 2 17 42. CEQA applies to all "governmental agencies at all levels" and requires public o P g q c 18 agencies to prepare an EIR whenever the approval of a project may cause significant adverse 19 effects or impacts on the environment, Respondent's decision to approve the Project was a 20 I project approval causing significant adverse environmental impacts. 21 43. CEQA requires lead agencies to review the environmental impacts of all projects. 22 Under Public Resources Code Section 21065, a project is any discretionary public "activity 23 which may cause either a direct physicall change in the environment,or a reasonably foreseeable 24 indirect physical change in the environment." Respondent's decision to approve the Project was 25 a discretionary decision by Respondent that will result in "reasonably foreseeable" adverse 26 environmental impacts. 27 44. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061, after the lead agency has 28 determined that the activity constitutes a"project"for purposes of CEQA,the"lead agency shall -8- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE . 0 I ; determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA." There is a dearth of evidence in the 2 administrative record regarding preliminary review of the Project to determine the applicability 3 of a CEQA exemption. Respondent completely shirked its responsibility to conduct this review. 4 But for staff's after-the-fact filing of the Notice of Exemption on October 8,2009,no evidence 5 exists that Respondent considered CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines before approving the Project. 6 45. In the Notice of Exemption, Respondent claimed the Project was categorically 7 exempt pursuant to"Class 1" and"Class 4"categorical exemptions. Based upon the evidence 8 in the record, neither a "Class 1" nor a "Class 4" categorical exemption applies to the Project. 9 46. The "Class 1" categorical exemption is set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 10 15301 and is applicable to projects that involve the"operation,repair,maintenance,permitting, 11 leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities . . . 12 involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time the lead agency's 13 determination." The administrative record contains no evidence to suggest that the construction 14 of a dog park at Oso Viejo Park will involve"negligible or no expansion of use." In fact, the 43 g 8 g 8 15 record shows to the contrary that development of a dog park at Oso Viejo Park will result in z 16 significant adverse impacts to (among other things) noise, traffic, trash, and aesthetics. U Q am 17 47. CEQA Guidelines Section 15304,commonly referred to as a"Class 4"categorical w18 exemption, provides that "minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, a 19 and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy,mature,scenic trees"are not subject 20 to CEQA. Because Respondent failed to proceed in a manner required by law,the record does 21 not contain evidence that supports the conclusion that the Project will not involve removal of 22 healthy, mature, scenic trees. Moreover, the record fails to present evidence to support a 23 conclusion that construction of the Project is a minor alteration to the condition of the land. 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE 26 48. Petitioner realleges Paragraphs 1 through 47. 27 49. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the City typically 28 follows the noticing provisions of Title 9 of its Municipal Code -9- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • 1 50. Section 9.56.010 ["Application processing.") of the City's Municipal Code 2 provides (in pertinent part) that: 3 "Not less than ten days before the date of a scheduled hearing, 4 public notice shall be given by all of the following methods: 5 s * * * 6 (b)By mailing, not less than ten days prior to the hearing,postage 7 prepaid, to the owners and tenants of property within a radius of 8 , 300 feet for projects determined to be categorically exempt . . . ." 9 51. Members of Petitioner who reside within a radius of 300 feet of the Project did not 10 receive mailed notice that the Project was agendized as an action item on the Council's October 11 5,2009 meeting agenda; therefore, notice for the Project was legally defective. 12 52. Respondents' approval of the Project based on a defective notice constitutes a 13 violation of the due process rights of Petitioner's members who reside within a radius of 300 feet 4c 0 14 of the Project. z 15 53. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that MacLean 16 improperly agendized the Project as merely his "comment" in order to skirt the requirement of U U 17 Section 9.56.010 of the Municipal Code to provide notice to persons residing within a radius of P p P g o a d 18 300 feet of the Project violated the due process rights of those residents. ,TJ 19 54. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that MacLean 20 improperly agendized the Project as merely his "comment" with the intent to preempt the 21 public's input on the dog park issue at the upcoming October 20, 2009 public hearing of the 22 Community Services Commission and thereby violate the due process rights of all City 23 residents. 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (AGAINST RESPONDENT) 26 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE PURSUANT TO 27 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 1085 ET SEQ. AND/OR 1094.5 ET SEQ. 28 55. Petitioner realleges paragraphs 1 through 54. -10- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • 1 56. Respondent has the legal duty in making their determinations to comply with the 2 applicable law governing such legislative acts. In particular, Respondent has the legal and 3 nondiscretionary duty to act in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA 4 Guidelines,the Brown Act,the City's Municipal Code and other applicable laws and regulations. 5 57. Respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, irrationally, and unreasonably, and 6 without any or an adequate evidentiary basis in failing or refusing to comply with the 7 requirements of CEQA,the CEQA Guidelines, the Brown Act, the City's Municipal Code and 8 other applicable law. At all times material hereto, Respondent had, and continues to have, the 9 ability to comply with its legal duties. Notwithstanding the efforts of Petitioner and others to 10 ! inform Respondent of its legal duties,and to induce Respondent to comply with its legal duties, 11 Respondent has failed and refused to perform these duties as described herein. 12 58. The decision of Respondent to approve the Project constitutes a final decision as z 13 contemplated in Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6 r 14 59. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies. There is no z o 15 provision known to Petitioner for any further administrative remedial action from the decision z 16 of Respondent to approve the Project. U 0 a17 60. Respondent has prejudicially abused its discretion by approving the Project a18 permitting the acts and omissions described herein to occur. 19 61. In acting and failing to act in the mariner described above, Respondent has acted 20 in an arbitrary, capricious, and irrational manner lacking any reasonable basis, in violation of 21 Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 et seq. 22 62. Petitioner is beneficially interested in issuance of the writ of mandate as prayed 23 for hereafter. Petitioner will be seriously harmed if Respondent proceeds with the Project. 24 63. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been able to perform its duties and 25 obligations as demanded by Petitioner. Respondent has, however, failed and refused to 26 undertake its obligations. Respondent has failed and refused to require or to perform any of the 27 above, notwithstanding the substantial evidence presented to Petitioner and others that such 28 failures and refusals are contrary to law and will have adverse consequences on Petitioner. -11- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • • 1 64. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the relief 2 sought in this petition. In acting and failing to act in the manner described above,Respondent 3 has prejudicially abused their discretion in approving the Project, in violation of Code of Civil 4 Procedures Section 1094.5 et seq. 5 6 PRAYER 7 WHEREFORE,Petitioner prays as follows: 8 1. On the first cause of action, for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and 9 permanent injunctions setting aside and rescinding Respondent's approval of the Project and 10 further prohibiting Respondent from implementing the Project; or,alternatively, for a judgment 11 granting a peremptory writ of mandate commanding Respondent to set aside its approval of the 12 Project,and ordering Respondent to take no further steps toward implementing the Project unless 13 and until it fully complies with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines; 0 14 2. On the second cause of action, for a writ of mandate pursuant to the Code of Civil $ 15 Procedure section 1085 et seq. and/or section 1094.5 et seq., commanding Respondent to set 5 0 16 aside and rescind its approval of the Project and to command that Respondent take no further A17 steps toward implementing the Project unless and until it fully complies with the City's 0 o < 18 Municipal Code and properly notices and agendizes the Project; 19 3. On the third cause of action, for a writ of mandate pursuant to the Code of Civil 20 Procedure section 1085 et seq. and/or section 1094.5 et seq., commanding Respondent to set 21 aside and rescind its approval of the Project and to command that Respondent take no further 22 steps toward implementing the Project unless and until it fully complies with the requirements 23 of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, the Brown Act, the City's Municipal Code and all other 24 applicable laws and regulations. 25 4. For reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief granted; 26 5. For cost of suit incurred herein and for reasonable litigation expenses; and 27 6. For such other and further relief'as the Court may deem just, equitable, or proper. 28 -12- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE • I 1 Dated: November 12, 2009 LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C. 2 3 By: ,0, _ l� 1 '11 . •c enuon 4 Attorneys for Petitioner OSO VIEJO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 z g 14 z 15 zL) z v x 16 n0 17 < 18 w 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE �! • 1 VERIFICATION 2 State of California, County of Orange 3 4 ` 1, David W. Gove, declare as follows: 5 6 I am a member of OSO VIEJO NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION, the petitioner in this action. 7 I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and am familiar with its contents. 8 All facts alleged in the Petition not otherwise supported by citations to exhibits or other 9 documents are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged 10 on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 11 12 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 13 foregoing is true and correct. z g 14 g o 15 Executed this 12th day of November, 2009, at Laguna Hills, California. H 16 17 David W. Gove ga 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE •IBOLD MCCLENDON BSANN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 23422 MILL CREEK DRiVE, SUITE 105 LACUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 (949) 457-6300 FAX: (949) 457-6305 ALISHA M. W1N'TERSWYK ahsha(w(I'U.A.COrn November 11, 2009 Via United States Postal Service City Clerk of the City of Mission Viejo MISSION VIEJO CITY HALL 200 Civic Center Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Re: NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION Mission Viejo Dog Park Please take notice that OSO VERDE NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION intends to commence an action against the City or Mission Viejo to set aside its City Council's approval of an allocation of$258,060 plus appropriate professional design service fees from the General Fund for the purpose of constructing a dog park in Mission Viejo at the Oso Viejo Park north of Oso Viejo Community center and adjacent to Village Green (the "Project"). The litigation will challenge (among other things) the City's filing of a Notice of Exemption for the Project and will allege(among other things)the City's violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Codes section 21000 et seq._ "CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15000, et seq.). This notice is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21 167.5. Very truly yours, LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN, P.C. /4,a-15:44,zo'l By: Alisha M. Winterswyk PROOF OF SERVICP I declare that I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California, and my business address is 23422 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 105, Laguna Hills, California 92653. On November 11, 2009, 1 served the foregoing document entitled "Notice of Commencement of Action" on the City of Lancaster by placing a true copy of such document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as followings: City Clerk of the City of Mission Viejo MISSION VIEJO CITY HALL 200 Civic Center Mission Viejo, CA 92691 N BY MAIL: 1 am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed with postage thereon fully prepaid at Laguna Hills, California, in the ordinary course of business. Following ordinary business practice, I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed for collection in the United States Mail at Laguna Hills, California. ❑ BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused such envelope to be deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by J OVERNITE EXPRESS; ❑ FEDERAL EXPRESS; ❑ ]specify name of service] with delivery fees fully provided for, or I delivered the envelope to a courier or driver of such service. ❑ BY FACSIMILE: I served a copy of said document(s) on the parties in this action. The facsimile transmission was reported as complete and without error, and a copy of the transmission report issued by the facsimile machine is attached hereto. © [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. ❑ [Federal] 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on November 11, 2009, at Laguna Hills, California. (10/14Atik. Carmen Ortiz e 421 (I)._ Grace Schmidt r From: Rod Sinks [rodsinks @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:09 PM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: SCVWD on Geese- Further input on Feb 21 Agenda Item 8 (off leash dogs) Hi Grace, This has some updated information from the email I asked you to circulate previously. Would you please send this to the council and appropriate staff and add to the record for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Rod Sinks Forwarded message From: Gary Nagaoka <GNagaoka @valleywater.org> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Geese Issues To: Rod Sinks <rodsinks @gmail.com> Hi Rod: We usually start about now until June. They patrol the following areas: 1) Sunnyoaks Ponds, Sunnyoaks Avenue, Campbell 2) Page ponds, Hacienda Avenue, Campbell 3) Budd Ponds, Budd Avenue, Campbell, CA 4) City of Campbell Ponds and Flashboard Dams, Campbell, CA 5) City of San Jose Ponds and Flashboard Dams, San Jose, CA 6) Church Avenue Ponds, Church Avenue and Monterey Road, San Martin, CA 7) City of Morgan Hill Ponds, Morgan Hill, CA 8) City of San Jose Ponds and Flash Dams, San Jose, CA 9) McClellan Ponds, Bubb Road and McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 10) McGlinecy Ponds, Camden Avenue, Campbell, CA 1 Here is the contact info for GooseBusters: GooseBusters 228 St.Denis Ct. •San Ramon,CA 94583 Phone 925-829-3706 goosebustersa..sbcolobal.net Jan Scott,owner This website has some good info on geese management, http://www.geesepeace.com/. Gary From: Rod Sinks [mailto:rodsinks@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:07 PM To: Gary Nagaoka Cc: Pat Showalter; rsinks©cupertino.orq Subject: Re: Geese Issues Thanks, Gary, much appreciated! You clearly have pursued this problem with many creative ideas. When exactly during the year do you retain Goose Busters and how big an area do they patrol? Rod On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Gary Nagaoka<GNagaoka @valleywater.org> wrote: Rod: Here at the water district we do receive complaints (noise, excrement) regarding geese around our percolations ponds from the public. 2 We currently deploy several methods to address the geese issue. 1) We hire a company called Goose Busters to patrol our ponds with dogs. This is mainly during the egg laying season and cost about $5,000/year, 2) We have an depredation "egg addling" permit from the Ca. Department of Fish and Game. This allows us to sterilize the goose eggs by applying oil and/or destroying the eggs, 3) We have installed a rubber coyote (don't laugh, desperate measures for desperate times!) and 4) we have installed floating strobe lights. The theory behind these is that the light disrupts the sleep of the geese and they move on to other areas. We are also looking into a flying remote controlled eagle to scare the geese (and sea gulls) away! We haven't tried any repellants that you spray on grass because our facilities do not have any grass. I believe there are some environmentally safe ones available. From a purely non-scientific point of view I believe that the methods we have tried have proven somewhat effective. Our complaints have certainly gone down. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you need more help please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards and good luck! Gary Nagaoka Field Operations Unit Manager Raw Water Field Operations and Pipeline Maintenance (Unit 585) Santa Clara Valley Water District 408.265.2607. extension 2568 From: Rod Sinks [mailto:rodsinks @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:28 PM To: Pat Showalter Cc: Gary Nagaoka; rsinks @cuoertino.orq Subject: Re: Geese Issues 3 Thanks, Pat. Nice job on the brochure! Gary, I'd much appreciate your advice. One of the proposals is to have dogs run off leash to chase the geese away. Memorial Park has artificial ponds, is very large, and is currently unfenced. Despite signs, people feed the geese. The water and grass is often in a bad state thanks to the geese. Since all our parks in Cupertino currently require dogs to be kept on-leash, making any change will be a big deal, with vocal, organized groups on both sides of the issue. What methods do you know of that work to get the geese to move on? I've heard that applying chemicals to the grass works but may not be environmentally sound. I've heard that a city can hire a company to bring in dogs to patrol such an area, but it is expensive to do so. Do you have this problem in the percolation ponds and surrounding areas, and if so, what have you found that works best? Or what examples have you found that are employed elsewhere? Thanks, Rod Sinks Cupertino Council Member 4 3/2/10 SPEECH TO CUP. CITY COUNCIL Honorable Council Members and City Staff, thanks for some time to voice our opinions. First,would everyone please stand up who's against having unleashed dogs in our city parks? Thanks...you may sit down. ** (I have laryngitis, so a friend will read my speech...Ardlith West.) At the Dec. 15th council mtg., some people complained about the Godbe surveys done last fall. We agree that the surveys done IN THE PARKS were a TOTAL waste of time and effort. There were MANY problems and complaints with those park-user surveys„ However, the resident mail-in surveys,which were carefully monitored and handled provided EXCELLENT feedback from the residents living near the 4 parks. As you can see from these results, 72% were OPPOSED to having unleashed dogs in our parks! Please note: These are not just "simple majorities!" An OVERWHELMING 72% of these residents OPPOSE this unsafe or undesirable idea! Whether the OLA would be fenced or not doesn't make that much difference. Having OLAs in our neighborhood parks would attract TOO MANY DOGS to our neighborhoods! Since we've become involved in this issue 18 mos. ago, our group has attended and spoken at FIVE Park & Rec. Mtgs., SIX Council Mtgs.,turned in several petitions opposing this idea, sent you many letters, called your phone nos. or met with you individually, attended 14 Wed. morning mtgs., held two LARGE rallies here with LOTS of signs. We're just wondering, (pause) HOW MANY MORE TIMES AND MORE WAYS DO WE NEED TO SHOW YOU THAT AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE AGAINST THIS UNSAFE AND UNDESIRABLE IDEA???!!! Mr. Santoro,we're guessing that this OLA issue has divided our city more than ANYTHING ELSE in our history! Is all this anger really worth it to you? Can we please stop wasting taxpayer time and money on studying other proposals? Let's save our valuable time and resources for more important things! I have some papers to hand you in a minute. Page one states that Cupertino only has 992 licensed dogs, as of Jan. 12th. That's a MAJOR health problem for people AND dogs, if the dogs aren't getting their rabies shots! How do we solve this problem of so few licensed dogs out of an estimated 3 to 10,000 dogs? How do we solve the problem of unleashed dogs on public property?--the same way that most other illegal activities are handled: more education and stricter enforcement of the laws with fines. When the City Council voted to reduce the fines for unleashed dogs from $100 down to $50 last year, that was a BIG mistake! If anything, the fines should be increased, not decreased. Many dog owners with unleashed dogs on public property are given VERBAL warnings. Why are we only WARNING people about something that should be known by all dog owners? If you want a good deterrent to violating the leash law, the fines should be high. The city council ca.n enact a new policy or procedure for our code enforcement agents, sheriffs and animal control agents to issue CITATIONS, not verbal warnings! When these irresponsible dog owners start paying hefty fines, then maybe they'll obey our leash law to keep everyone safe while on public property. When you see the signs stating how much your fine will be if you drive in the carpool lane illegally, that'll make you think twice before doing that! The police have several effective methods for catching drunk drivers, speeders and finding cars with expired DMV 'tags. Before state and court penalties are added on, a driver who drives over the speed limit will pay $100. A solo driver in the carpool lane will pay $374. Why can't our city do the same? Violators of our Leash Law should pay at least $100 for the first violation, $250 for the 2"d violation, and $500 for any more violations! That should help increase the awareness for the dog owners of unleashed dogs on public property and decrease the number of dog bites. (Pages 2 thru 7 show that Cupertino has had 21 dog bites reported in the last 2 yrs., per animal control and the Sheriffs Dept. (pause) 21 DOG BITES FOR A SMALL CITY LIKE CUPERTINO!! -- --that were documented! The City of San Jose has improved their dog licensing procedures by requiring all veterinarians to report to animal control which dogs have been given the rabies shots. An explanation of this procedure is shown on pages 8 & 9. Most of the major proponents of this dog proposal do NOT live beside a park. Isn't it interesting that they're so GUNG-HO for this OLA idea,when they won't be the ones who'll be hearing lots of barking dogs every day, nor have more dog poop left on their front lawns, nor have to worry about encountering unleashed or aggressive dogs while being in their front yards or sidewalks? As mentioned before,we learned at a recent Block Mtg. that some dog owners at Hoover Park let their unleashed dogs run around, even allowing 1 or 2 of them to cross Leeds Avenue to frighten young children who were getting ready to climb in their cars to be taken to school! The dog owners did NOTHING to corral their dogs or to apologize to the people involved. Like thousands of other Cupertino residents, I'm afraid of strange dogs. Why? When I was biking to school in the 6th grade, a small white dog rushed over and bit my ankle,which resulted in getting bandaged up and taking the painful rabies shot. It used to be 7 shots in the stomach; now it's only 5 shots...all VERY painful! This has left a horrendous image in my mind every time I see a strange dog. As a result, every time a new dog is near me I have to quickly decide if it's going to attack me (since dogs can sense my fear). If the dog is leashed, I have to determine if the dog owner has a strong enough grip on that leash in case the dog decides to rush toward me. When deciding where to buy a house here,we carefully selected our neighborhood, schools and surrounding areas. A BIG consideration in that process was whether or not it was near an unleashed dog area. Because of my traumatic experience,we would NEVER have bought a house close to a dog area. Now that you're considering setting up unleashed dog areas in some of our parks, then our city should absolutely get a majority approval from the surrounding residents. As you know, buying a house is the biggest monetary investment in your life. Our house is located about 200' from the proposed OLA at Hoover Park. I've worried a lot about encountering strange dogs while working in our front yard,visiting nearby neighbors or just getting in or out of my car. Isn't the City Council responsible for providing a safe environment for its citizens? At the Dec. 15th mtg. Mr. Santoro said that the OLAs in our parks would motivate more dog owners to get their dogs licensed and trained (in order to get a blue tag). That may "sound good." However, in reality, he proposed setting up an UNSAFE and UNDESIRABLE environment to try to solve some problems. Those of us who live close to these parks STRONGLY object to this idea for the reasons already stated. What do we suggest in place of unleashed dogs in our parks to solve these problems? Education and stronger enforcement of our leash law. 1) Change the procedure of licensing dogs to the same process that San Jose uses,which I explained earlier. 2) Send postcards to EVERYONE in our city explaining the Leash Law requirements and include the city's webpage,where they can learn more detailed information. (A rough draft of that postcard is on page 10.) 3) Change the policy of our Code Enforcement Agents and Sheriffs of JUST giving "verbal warnings" to dog owners who have unleashed dogs on public property. Instead, all dog owners who violate the leash law would be given CITATIONS that include fines. Let's enact the leash law that we have with higher penalties! We urge you to vote against any kind of OLA in our neighborhood parks. ** (Copies of my 10 suggestions were handed out to council members, along with a copy of the Godbe Survey showing 72% opposition to unfenced OLAs in the 4 city parks.) control and the Sheriffs Dept. (pause) 21 DOG BITES FOR A SMALL CITY LIKE CUPERTINO!! -- --that were documented! The City of San Jose has improved their dog licensing procedures by requiring all veterinarians to report to animal control which dogs have been given the rabies shots. An explanation of this procedure is shown on pages 8 & 9. Most of the major proponents of this dog proposal do NOT live beside a park. Isn't it interesting that they're so GUNG-HO for this OLA idea,when they won't be the ones who'll be hearing lots of barking dogs every day, nor have more dog poop left on their front lawns, nor have to worry about encountering unleashed or aggressive dogs while being in their front yards or sidewalks? As mentioned before,we learned at a recent Block Mtg. that some dog owners at Hoover Park let their unleashed dogs run around, even allowing 1 or 2 of them to cross Leeds Avenue to frighten young children who were getting ready to climb in their cars to be taken to school! The dog owners did NOTHING to corral their dogs or to apologize to the people involved. Like thousands of other Cupertino residents, I'm afraid of strange dogs. Why? When I was biking to school in the 6th grade, a small white dog rushed over and bit my ankle,which resulted in getting bandaged up and taking the painful rabies shot. It used to be 7 shots in the stomach; now it's only 5 shots...all VERY painful! This has left a horrendous image in my mind every time I see a strange dog. As a result, every time a new dog is near me I have to quickly decide if it's going to attack me (since dogs can sense my fear). If the dog is leashed, I have to determine if the dog owner has a strong enough grip on that leash in case the dog decides to rush toward me. When deciding where to buy a house here,we carefully selected our neighborhood, schools and surrounding areas. A BIG consideration in that process was whether or not it was near an unleashed dog area. Because of my traumatic experience,we would NEVER have bought a house close to a dog area. Now that you're considering setting up unleashed dog areas in some of our parks, then our city should absolutely get a majority approval from the surrounding residents. As you know, buying a house is the biggest monetary investment in your life. Our house is located about 200' from the proposed OLA at Hoover Park. I've worried a lot about encountering strange dogs while working in our front yard,visiting nearby neighbors or just getting in or out of my car. Isn't the City Council responsible for providing a safe environment for its citizens? At the Dec. 15th mtg. Mr. Santoro said that the OLAs in our parks would motivate more dog owners to get their dogs licensed and trained (in order to get a blue tag). That may "sound good." However, in reality, he proposed setting up an UNSAFE and UNDESIRABLE environment to try to solve some problems. Those of us who live close to these parks STRONGLY object to this idea for the reasons already stated. What do we suggest in place of unleashed dogs in our parks to solve these problems? Education and stronger enforcement of our leash law. 1) Change the procedure of licensing dogs to the same process that San Jose uses,which I explained earlier. 2) Send postcards to EVERYONE in our city explaining the Leash Law requirements and include the city's webpage,where they can learn more detailed information. (A rough draft of that postcard is on page 10.) 3) Change the policy of our Code Enforcement Agents and Sheriffs of JUST giving"verbal warnings" to dog owners who have unleashed dogs on public property. Instead, all dog owners who violate the leash law would be given CITATIONS that include fines. Let's enact the leash law that we have with higher penalties! We urge you to vote against any kind of OLA in our neighborhood parks. ** (Copies of my 10 suggestions were handed out to council members, along with a copy of the Godbe Survey showing 72% opposition to unfenced OLAs in the 4 city parks.)