HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 CommunityParkSurvey&DogParkRecommend. AGENDA STATEMENT
DCITY OF PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
UBLIN MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
SUBJECT: Community Park Survey and Dog Park Recommendations
Prepared by Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Director,
and Jacqui Diaz, Special Projects Manager
ATTACHMENTS: 1) Map Depicting Preferred Potential Site
RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and recommend to the City Council whether to
construct another dog park, and if so, recommend Jordan Ranch
Community Park as the preferred potential development site for a
future dog park
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION: The Parks and Community Services Department conducted a
"Community Parks Survey" during January and February 2013. The survey included questions of the
quality of parks and the Department's services, inquiries as to park amenities desired, and a specific
section dedicated to dog parks and amenities for the future. The online survey was available through
the City's website and was publicized through the local media as well as placed in the annual City Report
and the Spring Activity Guide. Signs advertising the survey were posted in all parks and included a Quick
Response (QR) Code so that visitors could easily take the survey from a smartphone. Previous class
participants were also emailed the survey to obtain their opinions. There were 625 respondents to the
survey. The survey asked for the respondent's zip code; there were 531 respondents to this question
resulting in the majority being Dublin residents and 1.6%as non-residents.
Overall the parks are valued and considered of good quality by the respondents with 91% being
extremely or moderately satisfied with their experience visiting Dublin parks. This includes the quality of
sports fields, general cleanliness, and safety both in the City parks and on trails and in open space areas.
The majority of respondents indicated they have visited a City park over 20 times during the past year.
The survey asked respondents to rate by importance a list of park types or amenities as being essential,
very important, somewhat important or not at all important. Multiple use trails, lighted fields and
courts, shade structures, and dedicated areas for dogs were statistically identified as essential. Passive
areas/open space, group picnic areas, a variety of sports fields, outdoor exercise equipment, and
community gardens were identified as being very important. Interpretive nature panels, public art, all
weather turf fields, formal gardens, community orchards, concession stands, and a variety of sports
(bocce/volleyball courts, lacrosse/softball/cricket/football fields, and batting cages) were identified as
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO: 8.1
GACOMMISSIONS&COMMITTEES\PARKS COMMISSION\AGNDSTMT\2013\5-20-13 Item 8.1 Park Survey and Dog Park Recommendations.doc
being somewhat important. There were no amenities that rose to be identified as having no
importance, but some were statistically close to those listed as somewhat important.
Respondents were asked if they would support a future dog park. There were 602 respondents to this
question with 55% in support and 45% not supportive of a new dog park. An interesting result was
found in that 55%of the respondents were not dog owners. Another interesting response was that 446
(73%) respondents indicated that they do not use the dog parks in Dublin and 374 (62%) of respondents
answered that they never visit dog parks within the Tri-Valley area. In short, a slight majority of
respondents want a dog park but rarely or never use the ones in the area. Respondents also ranked
amenities for both dogs and owners, should a dog park be built in the future.
Overall the majority of respondents ranked their satisfaction with the parks as being extremely satisfied
(47.5%) or moderately satisfied (44%). Respondents had several suggestions, provided clarifying data to
their answer, or comments to help shape the future of parks. The Parks and Community Services staff
will incorporate this information into the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the community, as well
as the update to the Department Strategic Plan.
Survey Results
Analysis of General Park and Amenity Questions
Survey respondents were asked to rate the following aspects of the parks: quality of parks; quality of
City sports fields; maintenance and cleanliness of park landscapes; cleanliness of restrooms; safety in
City parks; and safety on trails and in open space areas. They rated the aspects as being excellent, good,
fair, poor, or didn't know. There were 94%who rated the overall quality of parks as excellent or good.
The quality of the City's sports fields were rated as excellent or good by 71% of respondents.
Landscaped areas received over 91% rating as being excellent or good. Restroom cleanliness rated 58%
as being excellent or good. Almost 54% of the respondents indicated that they have visited a City park
over 20 times in that last twelve months, which indicates that the parks are valued and well utilized.
There were 37 responses indicating that they had never visited a park in Dublin; over 48% based it on
not having enough time to visit.
The survey asked respondents to rate by importance a list of park types or amenities as being essential,
very important, somewhat important or not at all important. Following is a summary of the amenities
that were rated as being essential or very important with the highest priorities at the top:
ESSENTIAL OR VERY
PARK AMENMES IMPORTANT
Multiple-use.trails(biking,;hiking,walking,running) 42.3%
Shade structures 844.4%
Lighted sports fields and courts 80.3%
Group picnic areas 78.8%
Passive areas/lakes/open space meadows 73.1%
Water play features 69.6%
Soccer fields 68.7%
Basketball courts 64.4%
Tennis courts 62.5%
Baseball fields 61.4%
Community gardens 61.2%
Dedicated areas for dogs to run and play 55.5%
Softball fields 54.8%
Outdoor exercise equipment/Par Course, 51.4%
2of6
The highest number of votes as being essential amenities included multiple use trails (57.2%), lighted
sports fields (43.6%), and shade structures (48.5%x). In terms of a dedicated area for dogs, there were
close to an equal number of votes as being both essential (30.3%) as well as only somewhat important
(30%). Interpretive nature panels, public art, all weather turf fields, formal gardens, community
orchards, concessions, and a variety of sports (bocce/volleyball courts, lacrosse/softball/cricket/football
fields, batting cages) were identified as being only somewhat important. There were no amenities on
the list that was specifically identified as having no importance, but some were statistically close to
those listed as somewhat important. For example, formal gardens were ranked 24.8% as being very
important while also being ranked 20.9%as not important.
Analysis of Dog Park Questions
During the past year, the Council directed Staff to research the potential interest in building a new dog
park in the community and identify potential sites in eastern Dublin should there be support. As part of
the parks survey, a segment of questions addressed this topic. A total of 602 respondents answered the
question of their support for another dog park in Dublin; 55.5% of the respondents were in support, and
44.5% were not in support. The next question addressed dog ownership and, interestingly, there were
609 respondents to the question and 55.5%of those were not dog owners.
Currently there are two dog parks located within Dublin, and several throughout the Tri-Valley region.
When asked if they currently use the Dublin dog parks, of the respondents who are dog owners, 43%
(116) stated that they did not visit Dublin's dog parks. When dog owners were asked how often they
visit dog parks within the Tri-Valley area, over 27% (73) stated that they never visit the region's dog
parks.
The next set of questions addressed location, transport and amenities of a future dog park, should it be
considered. The survey asked if a dog park were to be developed, would they prefer it located near or
adjacent to a residential area or a park/open space. There were a total of 508 respondents to the
question; 75%favored near a park/open space and 25% preferred near a residential area. In reviewing
the open ended comments from this question it is apparent that there was a preference toward open
space areas, away from active community parks. Many respondents expressed concerns about fear of
dogs and safety of park users, and that a dog park should be in a separate area from parks and
residential neighborhoods. The survey also found that over 70% of dog owners who use dog parks tend
to drive to the park.
Two of the questions asked respondents to prioritize dog park amenities for both dogs and owners.
When asked about amenities for dogs the top amenities were water, gates and separate areas for small
and large dogs. The top amenities for people were shade, water and benches.
Doe Park Site Selection Criteria
Based on the feedback from respondents and best practices identified by surveying other communities
Staff has drafted the following site selection criteria for a future dog park.
1. The dog park should be in a safe, accessible location within an open space area or potentially
adjacent to a community park with good access from major roads.
3 of 6
2. The size of the dog park should be as large as possible, with up to 3.0-acres but at least 2.0-
acreas to accommodate sufficient space for separate run areas for large and small dog; enabling
large dog owners to allow their pets to run more freely, while protecting smaller dogs that may
not be suited to the enthusiastic play of larger breeds. There also needs to be sufficient acreage
for circulation, setbacks from other uses (particularly youth activities and amenities if adjacent to
a community park), dog run entry and parking. Developing a larger sized dog park is less
expensive and easier to maintain than developing a high number of small dog parks. The larger
the grass area is; the easier it is to maintain, as there is less concentrated use. The larger size
also enables segmenting off-leash areas to allow rotation of use for lawn surfaces.
3. The dog park should not be directly adjacent to residential property lines to help decrease the
chance of actual and perceived problems with noise or other nuisances. However, the park
should be close enough to a residential area that dog owners will take their dogs to the park and
not allow them off-leash elsewhere. Staff should consider utilizing alternate or nontraditional
locations in the Open Space, to help decrease the chance for conflict with other neighbors and
other park users.
Potential Sites for Future Dog Park in Dublin
As directed by City Council, Staff reviewed potential sites in eastern Dublin for a future dog park using
the criteria listed above. Staff also considered sites in western Dublin to provide more alternatives.
Based on the community input from the online survey, neighborhood parks were excluded from the site
selection process.
Since there was a preference in the survey to locate the dog park in an open space area, away from
residential development and active park uses, Staff identified two open space areas owned by East Bay
Regional Park District (EBRPD) in eastern Dublin as potential sites for dog runs. These included the
staging area for the Tassajara Creek Regional Park on Tassajara Road, and the future Regional Park that
will be adjacent to Moeller Ranch. Staff discussed the concept with staff from EBRPD who indicated no
interest in allowing a dog park in current or future regional parks in Dublin.
Staff considered City owned open space areas including Martin Canyon Creek Trail and Dougherty Hills
Open Space. Staff would not recommend either of these areas for a dog park. Martin Canyon Creek
Trail is surrounded by residential development and has very little flat usable spaces. Additionally there
are parking and access constraints with this site. Dougherty Hills Open Space already has a dog park and
there are no other areas in that open space that would allow for access to another flat usable space.
Staff also evaluated current community parks for a potential dog park including Emerald Glen Park,
Fallon Sports Park, Dublin Sports Grounds and Shannon Community Park. Emerald Glen Park will be an
active park at build-out with many uses including sports, group picnics, large community events, large
children's playgrounds, skateboarding, basketball, walking paths and numerous activities at the
Recreation and Aquatic Complex. Due to the intensity of the uses Staff does not recommend adding a
dog park to the final phase of Emerald Glen.
The Dublin Sports Grounds and Fallon Sports Park would not be appropriate sites for a dog park due to
the high intensity of youth activities, and lack of additional space in those parks.
Shannon Park also has a high intensity of uses with facility rentals, classes, the water play area and
picnicking. In addition St. Raymond's Catholic Church is located across Shannon Avenue and when there
4 of 6
are competing events parking spills into the neighborhood. Therefore Staff does not recommend adding
a dog park to Shannon Community Park.
Currently there is one more community park planned for eastern Dublin, which will be located in the
Jordan Ranch development. This 18-acre site is south of Central Parkway and just east of Fallon Road.
The park topography will feature three rolling hills with breathtaking 360-degree views of Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore from the top of the hills. There is no conceptual plan for the park yet;
however, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the park will need to generally include the
following amenities; two baseball/softball diamonds; two soccer fields; six tennis courts; playground and
group picnic facilities; and, natural areas and trails. Although the park is 18-acres, which is 4.0-acres
smaller than the Dublin Sports Grounds, it is not a level site and therefore will be challenging to fit the
amenities envisioned as well as a dog park. Therefore if a dog park was included in the Jordan Ranch
Community Park Conceptual Plan, it is likely that one or more of the sports fields would not be included,
and be located in eastern Dublin neighborhood parks instead.
Although not an entitled project, there is a conceptual plan for a large community park in the proposed
Dublin Crossing project at Camp Parks. However the park would eventually become the home of a
50,000 square foot Children's Museum, which will be a regional draw and increase the intensity of the
park.
Recommended Site
Using the selection criteria to evaluate potential sites for a future dog park, Staff recommends selecting
Jordan Ranch Community Park as the preferred potential dog park development site. It is an accessible
site off of Central Parkway which is a major arterial road. It is surrounded by open space on west and
south sides, with housing directly adjacent to the east, and across Central Parkway to the north.
Therefore the dog park could be located away from residential properties, while still being close enough
to a residential area that dog owners can take their dogs to the park and not allow them off-leash
elsewhere. The hills on the site will create a unique opportunity to blend the dog park with the open
space areas and keep it away from other park uses and children's play areas. The park will be large
enough to accommodate at least a 2.0-acre site for two dog runs and the necessary amenities and
parking.
If this site was selected the dog park would be on parkland that will be dedicated by the developer and
included in the Public Facilities Fee program, so the City would not need to expend funds to acquire
additional parkland for the dog park. The estimated the cost to develop a 2.0-acre dog park within the
community park is $1.1 million, and the cost of those improvements would be funded using Public
Facilities Fees, not the General Fund. Additionally all necessary utility connections and meters for the
dog park would be included in the development of the overall park.
The timing of the first phase of the park is unknown at this time. Grading of the park site and
surrounding residential areas in Jordan Ranch began this spring, and infrastructure will be constructed
over the next year with residential development following soon after. The timing of development of the
first phase of the park is currently outside of the five-year CIP and will be dependent on the pace of
growth in eastern Dublin and subsequent collection of impact fees.
Conclusion
5 of 6
The 2013 Community Parks Survey was a successful tool in obtaining a solid number of residents who
responded to the questions. Respondents were generally very satisfied with the existing parks and
amenities, and provided a large basis of feedback for developing future parks and amenities. There
were many comments provided to help Staff improve conditions of existing parks (e.g. specific restroom
issues, geese at the sports park). The concept of a new dog park is one that will need further discussion
by the Commission and City Council. The trends showed interest in developing one near open space and
in the eastern Dublin area. However, equally vocal were those respondents who said that they were not
in support of more dog parks in the community, and concerns with locating them within active parks.
Based on the input received,the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and best practices identified in other
communities, Staff recommends identifying Jordan Ranch Community Park as a preferred potential
development site for a future dog park.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Parks and Community Services
Commission receive the report and recommend to the City Council whether to construct another dog
park, and if so, recommend Jordan Ranch Community Park as the preferred potential development site
for a future dog park.
6 of 6
^ M
r � w••-s _ter--_�._::__ = "p
C31 ` e
LU
a
LL-
IL H
LLLi
w 0- - - - -
TFr
_ C
LL E J
N
O y C1.
X p
d
W
�y 3
!^mot
'y C
4— N
s .. Cl
b
a LV i iI
a %A = L
OC qE
Z 0
LJJ N.1 _... j m
cu
W 0
LL LL LL I ;C a
dEL
J H E .�
E C C
m V
a Y v z o o X (0 X
>' i
d i< c � = = -L' v ory asaa ooY a�
'� LLo � � oouo oaoLLwLLwLL LLmLLLLLL W
�€m
✓---" E d a a n a d d a a d a a a a a a a a a a n a a a( K� I� � Li�