Exhibit CC 2-5-13 #15 rezoning Mary Avenue Isc (( 3
Staff Presentation Overview
Mary Avenue Dog Park
• General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Actions
- Colin Jung, Community Development
• Dog Park Project Details - Timm Borden, Public
Works
• Environmental Review Process: Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration- Steve
Noack, The Planning Center/DC&E
GPA-2012-01, Z-2012-02
(EA-2012-07)
General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land
Use Map designation from "Medium Density Residential (10-
20 du/gr. ac.)" to "Park &Open Space" for a 0.51 net acre
vacant parcel.
Rezoning a 0.83 gross acre vacant parcel from "P(R1C)-
Planned Development, Single Family Residential Cluster
Intent" to "Park and Recreation Zone"
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: City of Cupertino
Location: Corner of Villa Real & Mary Ave., APN 326-27-030
1
' Casa De Anza h . t , c ` ti
Condos -
r ✓` a --- it'
".
k k*i\ fli 11- 1 1111I .1`' d 1� �. A 1.`1 f l { Glenbrook -p
1 / I,.1.._t_ , 1 .I 1. l..__ ',\. c , Apartments r
--,--
! ,, '''.c.
4 Highway 85 'l l ;[ 1 '
•
Background
• Land deeded to the City by CALTRANS. Land was
residual from Highway 85 land acquisition and
development.
• On June 19, 2012, City Council adopted its 5-year CIP
which funded the planning, design and construction of a
dog park at the project location.
• Council decision culminated a four-year effort by the
City to find and develop off-leash area on City lands for
dogs and their owners.
• The effort included extensive research on dog parks,
community meetings, neighborhood surveys and public
meetings before a location decision was made.
2
Project Scope
• Develop General Plan Land Use and Zoning
Consistency with Proposed Use.
Designation v .. tF g t,.. S , . . . Proposed
General Plan Land Use Medium.High Density Park-Open Space
Residential(10-20 du gr.ac.)
Zoning P(RIC) - Planned Development PR- Park and Recreation
Single-Family Residential Cluster Zone
Intent
Park & Open Space General Plan Land Use Map
designation and PR - Park and Recreation Zoning
District are both consistent with a dog park land use.
Public Outreach
• Project notice signage posted on property.
• 30-day noticed comment period on Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ( 1,000-ft noticing
radius).
•1,000-ft noticing radius of property owners on public
meetings: Parks &Recreation Commission (Jan. 3rd) &
Planning Commission (Jan. Sth) &City Council (Feb. 5th)
t� $+� 4--.air s
it
Y m :. V
>_ e ._.�s.raa'#
3
Environmental Review
• Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
prepared by Planning Center-DC&E
• 30-day comment period on the IS/MND held between Nov.
1 - 30, 2012
• ERC recommended a MND on Nov. 15, 2012
• Planning Commission recommended a MND on Feb. 8,
2013
Public Comments on Initial Study and at Parks &
Recreation Commission and Planning Commission
Meetings
• Air quality concerns from park construction &tree removal.
• Noise concerns from park visitors and barking dogs.
• Potential traffic from park visitors.
• Pathogens and odors from dog waste.
• Aggressive dogs will be a safety issue.
• Property is inadequate in size for a dog park.
• Decrease in property values.
• Disturbance of lead-contaminated soils.
• Monitor park, review operations after one year.
• Consider other land uses: no change, residential, a traditional
park and a community garden.
4
Commission Actions
• Parks & Recreation Commission voted 2-1
(Budaraju opposed) to find the Park & Open
Space general plan designation consistent with
the proposed dog park use.
• Planning Commission voted 3-2 (Brophy & Sun
opposed) to recommend to Council the approval
of the MND, rezoning and general plan
amendment.
Recommendation
That the City Council:
• Adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the
project and the mitigation monitoring program, file
no. EA-2012-07;
• Approve the General Plan Amendment request,
file no. GPA-2012-01, per the draft resolution; and
• Approve the rezoning request, file no. Z-2012-02,
per the draft ordinance and conduct the first
reading.
5
a 3 � 0
Gy t�' Cu " 3 c 0 -
u
�- a -1 O
� , a. Q su
'.< Z
Q OO rt
-....,.. Z"-----
3a) cc o) P. = N. r
(A (n "' O Z CD 0 a N n
-, N fD fD
4.,
-�G (D - W 0 `G C Y
CD : O * O N
3 N (D _a
Cl) = n
17 > il
_ �_
0
:7 N • O v
CA r.
(A 1, 0 0- M
F �_' ° N Q o Z
\n C = 6 IV CI
O
_ 0_ (Q 1 N
g a N0a j Z a) a9 0 CO IV
rn NI . 1.11
wJ -
----- (..„ c---, ..,.
- a
u.,.
f■_,
L-N3 C.
77 Z -0
e. —, ,.• "*-. 3 .=,:.
7
(_,...,
--
•„
) , cs
..s.,,_
..„... )
_L-...
6
r..)
-Fa
a) n)
1 ,
.____ ■ \ rri o
V --■
r..)
■,--,
---- c--)
(71..
-....
-g.
I =
.<' (
7 Q g c
.., z
0 -0
(r.
o..
.4....
(.} ,..
... >
co
.,.
r\ _.
.c -4...
7r.*L'• . r .7,
N
N.4,-.) 1■3
"
N)
r 04- cb
0.__
— fa n.)
t•-) n----- ---..._ a
‘N3
•••, N 7-,. V Iv
G\ Ch O
ki h -...„..
L?\. ■I
\..-...:,
. ■....v
..i.
--- >-• _.., .--".■
>
,......Z\ ...._ - ,.._.-
k- K.)
' •\
(-)
N.)
-----°?0 r-
(.
-
n.)
4, c.
O
M
_.„. --____ ,.._-__L._ -,... (4:ii• a
-......,...„ —,
'l,; -,......
i;„ 2- S 3 iu
cp
1S;.,
�� -� -L o
`/ N
�J ' N
-E: ) /p -
e..._ 7."..- ?S 6
• r.,\ N
cl
V N
O
N
- m
ti
,
-1.
.--. ... . —__.... ,
S :
.4,
•-:,. -
4:.
a z
M "0
M
›.--
I <5
..
k...-1
N
cl
.1J. `....
...t-'
(.3
-.1 ,11NT AA3
M >
1(3.___...,
a ....._
„.......,_
.--
k-) ekl
r..)
c'D
L'I
---..........
.....■.—LI\
NJ
%..PJ
J-'j —
...... ca
<,
A) a)
iv-) l,• \ c , 3 .i 2 3 I
0
.
)
;.•'? ' 0
—.%.
e\'
.) r\
L I
6 (1.- 2--
I e)
— -....„ r■
S ? .- f■.)
.f.... , C> CD
—47 .1.1.- ..i" ••■•■1 e
- —..r. f
ri)
.•
47 r s.1 ft
o
>
r...)
.t
_ m
•r,‘ ‘,i.‘. (N.
■.t
to
...-
n)
c)
_.
r..)
kr) _t, c•--
C
8
r' O_
c�
(AN 0— L SL \p o
O
N
m
ki it
✓n
a
om' U; 'c -� `! z__,
d
—c- ( -00 c ✓O) „` am' N
- . O
o
-.4',
N
v y
Q o
Ni N
vN b
■f,
nif
2 —t> ' in m
- .
o
cam- o
0
N
O
N
- n
v
C,
in D
CN
CD
P --,1
c`n3' J v \,v
.....„... .,) -... ___, • a
■ ‘A, .---
P ,
,. . z
in 3
co
. "-)
, ..■
-<. tss. ,, _. ..::. (7\Z
c-
c.._...c., ) (-- )
M ,
—CI
. N
0 n)
o
N.)
D r.)
-...
,....._. _
-..... -_.... .....- 0
..,..
--.......„........_ ) in 4>
ry----....,`.......4..„ -
.4J ...) I:
i O
... —J \ .
____:,
.:, - ...
6 1.- (...■ !`-/
\..k.,
\VNJ --..
. lis) ‘._..., (.)•4
XI T "a
...
•,
C3 .) VN/ , .3 L"-::,..- "Z:N\
..r . C''''' F.;
/ ---:. --..- (..... ' 5'N,
(--...) cs;
> '.) ,,,j.---
---,:"."--
-
" cf--- 1
('-'-
,
r".---..
....--... , O.
Z
m
13
CD.
.=..
‘...........L... ,.., .. ..? <, _. 0
n.)
c,-) ....- .
Pli) n (•'
---,
s..... ........._ N
IV
0
--. 7S —a
---'•g7 r-‘,. I\3
6
N.)
- ,
m
-....
0 D.
.-.. ....... ......_.
,.., . to
-......,
CD 0
V.---/ N../
t..3 Vsj
-....)
Iv
-... •-•J
'
' .) NI ) , NJ
— c
. Os
C....
tfi
....A., ',..t) -,,
\Ai
-
=
el.
0
0....--..
Z -CI
J"--- 1
CD
(--
„
.7c::
( O....Z. r-,,c• r:, ,---„,
-----J -„.,.,
—.--
) ,,
-- _...s...7) c,
-.2'
so.
e ”) ,•.
r, nz , • __.
,..., ,
-,
('-.', N
--- r-, (."-i ri-, C v-, r.•:::, . -
n)
_G— O
---c— n.)
Fri
_
-- -
N)
-------_____ --- N,,,
.._.
V3
J'i
. - r
A. ...." 13
\ RI riP)2
,-...
_,-
iNk z
w -0
-4.-,-- ,
----.
-----.....,„- --.<-
, N)
c-- 0
_...
7 O•
tr.; (.)
--- ,,,, c-- ....... ,
-......47. , .7.-1:-)
(-\ ..*. -- c-' N
,, C:,
-.C.' -C N)
1,1 O
N)
. -•-• , c> u r . 0
>m
r(3
..„......„.___ ...
,,........ .,.
----„N„. -----,— m o
_.
IQ
"■,,,,,
\'1\).•.„, ., . \'`ei
1--- '7 -o
-..
,.., ' > m.
-
-4- i)(
- 3 - 0,-) --° Ft
. .... - _ a
/_ r. .::::, , --;--) z -t3
ecc,
c-
—_ZL
=
--s rt,
-- ,
(
)>_in -..-._ .-__)
(--- ,......›
,N.
r'
O
,-,0 - 0 er. '-' i,■.--' <:-.. VA n N
1:3
z- ..... .
r,
4:- --c--- , O
ry
Fn
6
0
su t>.,
----, --....:7 ---. .1.
.....,.. ,-.......,_,. M 3
---....„....
—
—
•-■„..,
\v'J
ILn)
....II
U
. „
ti+ -41
S'
,.-- C./
z ff.
--... ....
(5 Z 13
, \5 .....
•-•-.
..-,-
- .' -
r...)
K.)
r.)
___
0
1 — ,
0
r...)
t ...,
__ ----. Er a
', ...0
-__.. 6
... .. -,
,.... , .......,
( JO
(')
40,3
.......,
U.-)
ti..-
p
k-.1 V‘,1
=
1•) - .
Z 13
3 .=.:.
.-
--- p---,:, 71-, t■,, CD 0
,,-.
r- C
....,, ,...... .
„. — ,
>
\- r ,\
---4.)
c.' .
_i> <-. K.)
...4--. -........ , t,"Th (7-,
... ...) r)/ . N
N
n)
o
_.
n.)
6
r..)
c.) Fn
._. ._,
---„,............
,.......,,,,1
f\J - ' .P _.,
r..)
____
--..) —-
_....,
C. -4
,,.._.
)■J
F.-/ .....
-....,
,..).,
e4
—
--P-- -7-1 1.' --<- c_. –, ,
,
,..c' 17 - k. ,......_. el.
I
0 Tr. n c---- _ 0 c - t, G-- 3---
z -0
0,)
r t. "2„ ._. ■
.., --ZS 3 -=-.
,--.
---,C)
,... r
L
s r.)
6
---V-
...„4., .,•-,, ...,
■
a .....„
0 , o
n.)
_ 0 >
iit o
ckt,
-....„... —
k---' "
-.J 6
-........, -,, ..J
---...„.......... i
--.1
---_,... `,..„....
'.1\1 ■A) , .,
, .. ..
C.__ , -,- �1 r� „fir 0.
'•.i. \ / r
F
S4-z":'
R) N
N
} O
N
O
N
G D
TT--:
--
N
_ .v.......... — ----- O
0 -- C,
-o
=
-- 0.
,-l---
.--- ••••:,..
------"
........ f ----.
(..."--_.. ,
\
_s..... . _.........
..... <— >
1:3
N.)
N
-... .....< _
0
r-- _J,
(4 Q
...a
N)
O
N)
m
0 >
--.. .--...,...
r....., _.,
N)
d' --:-- — ....) 1." dp
_....._
\r.) ...,..
,-J --.1
.......... - i ,
S9__)S9__) ..,
\.) ...,
,
LA)
-t.
ca
•
11) 13
c... ... < a.t.__
i....) r.
--4■ -
‘I\ 3
=
5'
I a).
_....>
3 •_)
,i.\ •-
( r.
?•2, -N, — <1- b
''`........... •-••••... <--..,,..L,.
‘. ...........,,,.. Cj •
1 1\)
0..r..-
r..)
4> <1
r
...--.8
ry
(‘' 0
n.)
---. "
C O
r.3
r A
a) m
Er D
..., cs
,..)
ry
( \ O
-4.4
-.4
0 0"
N
--+."3 \r.
-)'--;
,----- 'm
-,„
CD a
12.
.......>
=
>
,
3
m
c
a
Cl, 3
i ,, (if
a)
c c
(- c
m
73
0
hi
CD
L e% =
0
1 -..)- • .,-Z~
_
?' *
=
> 0
M. 0.
..------ i
... . C .
0
....1 >
c3Z '-----
-4:--
5'
ID
-..
o
=
Z
& -----..„ -7.-
,....--'
,—, .-:---• 2
' J >
—V
„
i\, rZt —1
.-..t ■-)' r\)
6
N.)
.---E--','
Fn
0 >
r.)
—....._ .._ ,
I
LP)
....._
'I\h
Colin Jung
CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: Jim Luther Uumplong@rnac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Carmen Lynaugh
Subject: Mary Avenue Dog Park
Hello,
I've been a homeowner in Cupertino for 13 years, and have worked in Cupertino at Apple for
the last 24 years.
I see the Cupertino City Council is going to discuss the Mary Avenue Dog Park project in the
near future, so I want to voice my support for this project. Today, my family has to drive to
Sunnyvale, San Jose, or Campbell to visit a dog park, and so having a dog park in Cupertino
would be great addition to the city.
Since I have experience visiting other local dog parks, here are some observations to counter
opinions I've read against the Mary Avenue Dog Park:
• Dog Parks aren't smelly. Dog owners who use dogs parks are very good about cleaning up
after their pets. The few owners I've seen who haven't cleaned up after their pets are shamed
by other users of the dog park (and since we don't want our pets playing in messes, the
messes of unknown offenders are quickly cleaned up anyway).
• Dog parks aren't very noisy. Most dogs bark less at a dog park than they do when someone
leaves their dog with nothing to do in their back yards. Children playing in people parks can
be just as noisy or noisier.
• I've never seen a dog escape from dog park. I guess it could happen, but a loose dog is
more likely to someone dropping a leash than a dog jumping over a 4 foot fence.
• I haven't seen heavy traffic caused by the other dog parks I've visited. Mary Ave along
that stretch alway has plenty of on the street parking (unless there's a big event at
Memorial Park).
Sincerely,
James Luther
1103 S. Stelling Rd.
Cupertino, CA
1
Karen B. Guerin CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: Duleep Pillai [duleepg @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:00 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Mary Avenue Dog Park
Respected Mayor and other council members,
Since the council is meeting today to discuss the Mary Avenue dog park, I am writing again to express my
opposition to the proposal to build a dog park in such close proximity to residential area.
Please note that the proposed budget had gone up to $450,000 which is another cause of concern not just
for me, but for all the residents of this city.
We, the residents of Mary Avenue, have expressed repeatedly our concern with the many safety and
health issues that the proposed dog park entails.
Please keep in mind that just because the city has the space doesn't mean it needs to utilize every inch of
it for a totally unnecessary purpose. A dog park at this site is not only unneeded, but causes problems for
its neighbors. We enjoy that space filled with trees just the way it is. There is no need to change it on the
basis of a whim.
I urge you again to reconsider this problematic proposal.
Thank you.
From: Duleep Pillai <duleepq vahoo.com>
To: "citvcouncil(a cupertino.orq" <citycouncil @cupertino.orq>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:54 PM
Subject: Mary Avenue Dog Park
Dear Council member,
We hereby object to the proposed Dog Park at the corner of Villa Real and Mary Ave, APN 326-27-030 and
request that this environmentally unpleasant proposal be put on permanent hold.
The proposed Dog Park involves cutting down fully matured trees next to our Casa De Anza Community.
Casa De Anza is situated on the side of Highway 85, and despite the moderately effective sound wall, we
are exposed every day to dust, exhaust gas, and sound. Many of our residents are constantly being
exposed to this travesty and would be impacted greatly were it not for our trees. These trees act as a
protective Green Barrier, and do much to absorb the sound and air pollution that we would otherwise be
affected by.
The Dog Park would not only add the further inconveniences of unwelcome noise, smells, and
uncleanliness, but it would also require chopping down the trees that protect us from Highway 85. This is
the only Dog Park which is in such close proximity to a residential area in Santa Clara County and we
refuse to be punished in this manner.
C C z 1.0/3
� [S
Grace Schmidt
From: Gary Chao
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:06 PM
To: Grace Schmidt
Cc: Aarti Shrivastava;Timm Borden; Mark Linder
Subject: FW:Items for tonight's City Council Meeting, Public Hearings,Item number 15. Mary
Avenue Dog Park
Importance: High
Grace, a new desk item for the Council tonight. Thanks.
Gary Chao
City Planner
Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
sit 408-777-3247
408-777-3333
El «A)) ( ALERTSCC
\ uJ
J.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Ted Hattan f mailto:ted(aaccomanagement.coml
Sent:Tuesday, February 05, 2013 3:05 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Gary Chao; Colin Jung
Subject: Items for tonight's City Council Meeting, Public Hearings, Item number 15. Mary Avenue Dog Park
Dear Sirs,
As the property manager for Avery Construction Company (the owners of Glenbrook Apartments,
across from the proposed dog park), I would again like to express our objection to this project. I
questioned the $250,000 price tag, at the time, for a place to let a few Cupertino residents exercise
their dogs. The proposed increase in the budges:to $450,000 is absurd.
While I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting this evening, I would like to suggest one
item that I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting. Would it be possible to have a review
of this project in six months or a year, similar to the Farmers Market that was started at the Oaks? I
believe this will allow the neighbors to voice their concerns with any noise, smell or parking issues
that they may encounter. After the review process, all of the complaints or praises will be based on
facts and not conjecture.
1
This plan seemed to work well for the Farmers Market. During the review timeframe, all of the
neighbors were able to report violations committed by the Farmers Market, and then those
violation would be discussed at the review process. To my knowledge, there were no complaints at
the review. In fact many of our residents enjoy the market and it's convenient location. Hopefully this
will be the case for the proposed dog park.
I don't believe the residents at Glenbrook will be quite as content with the new dog park, as we have a
very strict no pet policy (Except for ADA allowed pets). While we are concerned about barking dogs
on a weekend morning and the increased traffic on our property, we are hopeful that the proposed
dog park works out as well as the Farmers Market. I realize that the City has spent an enormous
amount of money on this project to date, but it would be nice to know that if there is indeed a problem
that a resolution would be possible.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Thank you for your time,
Ted Hattan
Regional Property Manager
Avery Construction Company/ACCO Management Company
2
Brittany Morales _
CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: Karen B. Guerin
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:20 PM
To: Brittany Morales
Subject: FW: Proposed Dog Park Concerns.
Attachments: Dog Park Feb 5.docx
Original Message
From:jean [mailto:jeanschwab @aol.com]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney
Cc: Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks
Subject: Proposed Dog Park Concerns
Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council Members Chang, Santoro and Sinks:
Attached is a letter that I plan to read at the City Council meeting tomorrow night. My husband and
I are long time owner residents of the Casa De Anza the townhome complex directly adjacent to the
proposed dog park. This letter reflects our concerns regarding this project in light of the changes
necessitated by soil mitigation.
Sincerely,
Jean Schwab
10353 Mary Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
1
Concerns Regarding Proposed Dog Park and Soil Mitigation
February 4, 2013
We were not too alarmed about the proposed dog park at first, but the soil mitigation and recent
detailing of the plans for the park has changed the complexion of the project. It now involves:
• Taking down full-grown trees on our property as well as on city property,which would
otherwise, provide something of a privacy, sound and smell barrier between our complex
and the dog park.
• Replacement trees have been proposed, but they would not have to be the same size as the
ones being removed according to the tree replacement ordinance.
• An additional $100,000 plus, of taxpayer money has been added to the $250,00 project for
soil mitigation. Staff at the planning commission meeting indicated that if additional
mitigation is required, and it may well be, there is no budget for it so it will have to be paid
for by reducing the planned amenities which undoubtedly means fewer tree replacements,
garbage receptacles and maintenance.
As we have become more familiar with the details of the project,we believe that it reflects little
sensitivity or consideration for the impact on our complex and properties across Mary Ave.
• For the units, in our complex,that will directly face the park and will be only a few feet
away, I believe that there is a real threat to their property values, and that threat could
extend to other units in our complex.
• With the removal of trees,they will face a barren space and will be subject to additional
noise and smells from dog excrement that is left to seep into the soil or that goes into waste
receptacles.
Does Cupertino really need a dog park so badly that it has to be built at great expense and to the
detriment of our neighborhood? There was only one pro dog park person speaking at either the
Parks and Recreation or Planning Commission meetings. Several members of each of these
commissions admitted that this location on Mary Ave was not a good place for a dog park, even
though the majority of each commission voted to rezone this as parkland.
If the council decides to go forward with this dog park in spite of these concerns,we have several
questions:
• If there turn out to be complaints about the park like, noise, odor, safety, vandalism etc.,
how long will it take the city to react and act on these complaints? If the geese problem in
Memorial Park is any indicator, it could take years for action.
• If the city goes forward with the park,would representatives from our complex have input
into the size,type and number of replacement trees?
• Would the council also be willing to provide any additional amenities for our complex such
as the replacement of the dilapidated fence, on city property at the other end of our
complex? This is a request we have made in the past and it has been denied.
Sincerely,
Jean and Chris Schwab, 10353 Mary Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014
Coin Jung CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: priya sumal [pnksumal @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 1:13 PM
To: Carmen Lynaugh
Subject: Cupertino Dog Park
Dear Carmen Lynaugh,
As a Cupertino resident, the proposal of a dog park in Cupertino is exciting. My dog and I would be very excited to see
this become a reality. Please let me know how I can help and if I can help. I know many dog owners in my neighborhood,
who live close enough to the proposed site, that would be excited to see this come to be.
Thank you,
Priya Sumal
1
Colin Jung CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: Diane Moran [diane.moran17@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:19 PM
To: Carmen Lynaugh
Subject: Dog park
It would a great ideal for Cupertino to have it own park. After 25 years I just got another
dog 3 months ago. I have gone to a dog park daily with exception of 2 days(rain) . The best
parks have fake grass and a big dog,little dog park. With approx. 40% household have a dog
and of those 28% have more than one dog, this is a great for Cupertino.
Sent from my iPad
Colin Jung CC 2/5/13 Item No. 15
From: Cynthia St. John [cynthiastjohn @mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:24 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Carmen Lynaugh
Subject: Cupertino Dog Park
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to let you know that as a long time Cupertino resident and home owner a dog park
would be a wonderful thing for Cupertino.
I have to drive to Sunnyvale, Los Gatos and sometimes even San Jose to take my dogs to a
place where they can play off leash.
I've seen some of the objections that the public has noted, but if they ever actually went to
a dog park then they would realize that most of the objections are baseless.
Dog parks are often cleaner than our sidewalks as people always pick up after their pets in
the dog park.
Dog parks aren't any noisier than my neighbors house when he leaves his dog out alone.
People that actually take their dogs to dog parks care about their dogs and make sure they
are well behaved while out in public.
And traffic really? I don't think if you put in a little dog park that you're suddenly going
to have huge traffic jams.
I think Cupertino deserves a dog park.
Respectfully,
Cynthia St. John
1103 S. Stelling Road
Cupertino, CA
1
EXHI13IT cc ,451,3
Dog Park Environmental Issues
Here are some dog park statistics and their environmental impacts.The document provided was
produced at the request of the Planning and Development Depart in Lowell, Mass. It can be read HERE.
Below is a summary of the document written by Dillon Sussman of the Conway School of Landscape
Design.
Aesthetic Issues of Dog Waste
1. It's unsightly, smelly, and messy
2. Dog waste can spread harmful bacteria and parasites
3. Excess nutrients are released
Dog waste is cited as the 3rd or 4th largest contributor of bacterial pollution in urban watersheds. E coli,
salmonella and giardia readily infect humans and can cause serious illness or death. Parasites:
hookworms, roundworms, and tapeworms can be passed from dog feces to humans.Typically
transmission occurs when skin comes into contact with the larva. Roundworm eggs can't be seen by
human eyes.They hatch in human intestines and attacks can include attacking the retina, causing
blindness.
1. Each gram of dog feces can contain 23 milllion fecal coliform colonies.
2. A study done at a Seattle watershed found 20 percent of bacteria in water could be attributed
to dogs (EPA, 2001).
3. Dog feces have higher phosphorous rates than that found in cow manure, broiler chicken litter
or swine manure.
4. Anyone that owns a dog knows urine burns grass. It contains nitrogen.The higher the
concentration and more frequently applied,the worse the problem becomes.The contaminated
runoff can lead to serious water quality problems.
The EPA says nutrient pollution is"worthy of environment concern." Nutrient pollution has consistently
ranked as one of the top causes of degradation in some US waters for more than a decade. (EPA
website, 2008)
Dog parks may amplify the aesthetic, sanitary and environmental problems caused by dog waste by
concentrating it in smaller areas. (Lewiston fenced 1.3 acres for approximately 1,600 dogs.)
Smaller dog parks host 50 dogs at a time and they are often overrun with dog droppings.A 1998 Los
Angeles study counted 2,000 dogs using a 3/4 acre park in a single week. The average dog produces 3
/4 pounds of poop every day. 1,000 dogs doing their daily duty in a park will produce 750 pounds of
excrement in a week.The park will be speckled wil:h approximately 1 poop every 33 square feet.There
isn't room for it to decompose as it does in the open. Even if picked up and removed it may leave
bacteria and parasites behind.
The negative effects of excess nutrients in a Boulder,Colorado dog park found that native grasses,
are accustomed to low nitrogen levels were unable to compete with nitrogen-loving exoti-invasive which
species that flourished when dog waste increased on the site(Watson, 2002)
Environmental Impact of Dog Waste
San Francisco recently determined that pet waste accounted for 4 percent of their residential waste
stream (Jones, 2006)
Typically, dog waste is picked up in plastic bags and taken to a landfill. Plastic bags do not decompose for
decades,effectively mummifying the waste and taking up valuable landfill space. Dog waste p
decomposition also produces methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide.
,.
;it
-'41kA---_,,,_ it- ' _ - Alf.t...46101/40,01. st; ;-,--' 14.4ii 4 tb.-r' 0 e dr , -.- All*, 10***-.'__'� g
4 °
tkr Am,
40,
. . 4 , ::
yam.�E
it-
*' # ..
l'-
F' {✓ ''-
.P•.—, 'i'k..e-.-''.j t4 N* ,,1_
3
-4 8,- _,,-4
+4 dF r - °.'' ... f''''-
,_ ,_ # ¢yam ,„.
•
h
or
F
!la°
.ulb
dr
,
,
3.
/.
i
t '
' 4 +� s .. w a.
IP
t 1' 4 `
1 4*
s
or
A . . t
a
a
/ e' _• -. r
sr