CCMIN101502 - Laserfiche WebLink

equipment. There is also a hill between the areas which keeps them out of sight and sound range of each other. The Nielsen Park plan proposes the dog park to be located forty feet fi.om play equipment. Nielsen Park is a five acre neighborhood park, not a community park. She said she asked for another example within 100 miles of a dog park near play equipment in a park of five acres or less and none could be found. She contacted a nationwide dog park website with a similar question and a response indicated this was irresponsible and dangerous to put dog parks and play areas so close. Nielsen Park is the center piece of the neighborhood for children of the apartments and other residents to play. She urged the new dog park to be located in a larger park at a safe distance from children. She was concerned about dogs fighting in the dog park and noted other cities have ordinances that prohibit children from being in dog parks. She referred to a newspaper article about a Colorado dog park in which one dog was attacked and killed by another and she did not want children exposed to that type of incident. She reiterated a dog park is not appropriate for a five acre neighborhood park. Bert Felix, 2860 Garden Creek Circle, indicated his major concern was the profanity of the dog park to the play area for children and the safety of the children. He noted people walk their dogs in Nielsen Park now and sometimes the dogs are off leash. He said within a fit~een minute drive from Nielsen Park there are 3,500 acres ( or 152,883,500 sq. ft.) in which dogs could roam offleash. Nielsen Park will add 14,000 sq. ft.(.009% more sq. ft.) and the gain is not worth the risk. In addition the dog park will be in the shade of the redwood trees, leaving the play area for children in the sun. He believed a comparison of Muinvood Park and Nielsen Park was like comparing apples and oranges. He suggested putting a dog park on the Banal property until it is developed. Ms. Michelotti said that could be considered when the Specific Plan for the Bemal property is considered next year. Mr. Felix indicated there are cities that have dog parks in commercial areas and he felt that was a good idea. People would take dogs to the parks when businesses are not open and no one would object. He objected to using Nielsen Park. Kevin Gumey, 2073 Eilene Drive, said he attended the meeting given by the Parks Department when the plan was presented and was amazed the plans have gone so far with color layouts. He asked about site selection criteria and was told there are no written criteria. He believed public safety and not displacing existing valid uses should be part of the criteria. There was no description of what kind of dog exercise was the goal. This area is only 14,000 sq. ft. and is too small for large dogs who want to mn and chase Frisbees, etc. Small dog owners will not want to mix with large dogs in such a small area. Pleasanton usually has more thoughtful planning and he was disappointed with this process. He urged Council to direct the Parks Department to develop a list of criteria and he indicated the neighborhood has a list of items for the Parks Depathnent to gather mom information. Muirwood Park seems to be great and he felt it was because of the 600 foot separation between play equipment and the dog park. He indicated his group had set up a table at the Farmers' Market and many people agreed it does not make sense to have the dog park in Nielsen Park. Pleasanton City Council 7 10/15/02 Minutes