Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Fwd: Nealon Park Capital Improvement Project

From: domainremoved <Kate>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 14:48:03 -0800

Dear City Council,

In response to Cherise Brandell's helpful recent note explaining the
rationale behind the dog park proposal, I wanted to note two points that
seemed to be missed in the information she shared.

First, she shared that "Other open space areas exist in the park that can
still be used for other activities, including the open space in the sports
field when not in use for sports and spaces between the tennis courts and
the street." I feel that this is a misinformed statement. The adjacency of
the open space to the playground is critical. I have seen many children
(including my own) play fluidly between the two spaces. The adjacency
allows me to supervise both of my kids who like to go back and forth
between the spaces as their play evolves from one game to the next. I don't
consider having my small children play in the space between the tennis
courts and Middle Ave as a substitute to the current open space. It's
actually pretty shocking to me that a representative of the city would even
suggest that as a substitute. Middle Ave is so busy that it is a really
dangerous suggestion.

Second, she shared that "The dog park gets heavy use during its open hours
(50- 100 users each day)" It seems like a miss to collect data about dog
park usage without collecting comparable data about usage of the current
grassy open space adjacent to the playground. From my own experience, the
open space definitely gets traffic in the range of 50-100 users each day.
Shouldn't you collect a complete data set before making a decision that is
going to significantly impact the current park users?

Thank you for so being so active about taking the opinions of various
community stakeholders into consideration.

Regards,
Kate

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kate Piper <kate.c.piper_at_(domainremoved)
Date: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Nealon Park Capital Improvement Project
To: Elizabeth Houck <elhouck_at_(domainremoved)
Cc: "Brandell, Cherise E" <cebrandell_at_(domainremoved)
gopipers_at_(domainremoved)
ylieskovsky_at_(domainremoved)


Cherise,

Thank you for providing this detail on the rationale behind the proposal to
move the dog park. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting
b/c of the timing but I am actively encouraging others whom I know to be
heavy park users to attend and will plan to stop by the display boards you
mention.

I would like to add two points to those already noted by my neighbors:

- I think the adjacency of the open space to the playground is critical. I
have seen many children (including my own) play fluidly between the two
spaces. The adjacency allows me to supervise both of my kids who like to go
back and forth between the spaces as their play evolves from one game to
the next. I don't consider having my small children play in the space
between the tennis courts and Middle Ave as a substitute to the current
open space. It's actually pretty shocking to me that the city would even
suggest that as a substitute. Middle Ave is so busy that it is a really
dangerous suggestion.

- It seems like a miss to collect data about dog park usage without
collecting comparable data about usage of the current grassy open space
adjacent to the playground. From my own experience, the open space
definitely gets traffic in the range of 50-100 users each day. Shouldn't
you collect a complete data set before making a decision that is going to
significantly impact the current park users?

Thank you,
Kate


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Elizabeth Houck <elhouck_at_(domainremoved)

> Dear Cherise,
>
> With all due respect; the noise from barking dogs does bother residents -
> I can assure you residents have put up with it because it's only two hours
> a day.
>
> A full time Bark Park does NOT belong in Nealon Park.
>
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Elizabeth
> linkedin.com/in/elizabethhouck/
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabethhouck/>
> facebook.com/elizabethhouck.737
> 650.605.3549 - google voice
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Brandell, Cherise E <
> cebrandell_at_(domainremoved)
>
>> Menlo Park is fortunate to have a broad range of park spaces
>> accommodating the diverse needs of all our residents. Our park system
>> contains parks that are dedicated to open space activities, active park
>> uses, quiet park uses and playgrounds for small children only, just to name
>> a few. We’re also fortunate that parks in the center of town have the
>> space available to accommodate many user groups, like Nealon Park, with its
>> tennis courts, playing field, open spaces, senior center, playground and
>> existing dog park. Since the opening of the dog park over ten years ago,
>> dozens of dog park users each day have had a chance to not only exercise
>> their dogs, but to build community with other park users, dog owners and
>> non-dog owners alike.
>>
>> The ten year “pilot project” to use a playing field as a dog park part of
>> the day has provided the following data:
>>
>> · The dog park gets heavy use during its open hours (50- 100
>> users each day)
>>
>> · Presence of a dog park at Nealon does not adversely impact
>> area residents or other park users with noise or traffic
>>
>> · Although dog park users are responsible in picking up after
>> their pets, it is not desirable for children to play in the same area used
>> by the dogs. Maintaining the field at the level necessary for safe
>> activities is not possible with the volume of dog traffic, California water
>> restrictions and existing City resources – for sanitary reasons, dogs need
>> a separate area
>>
>> · Nealon Park has adequate space to accommodate the variety of
>> uses currently occurring at the park, including a separate space for people
>> with dogs
>>
>> · Dog park users have not negatively impacted the many other
>> users of the park, including tennis players, picnickers, pre-schoolers,
>> seniors and more, and staff believes the multiple uses of Nealon Park
>> continue to be compatible, desirable and appropriate.
>>
>> · It is not considered “best practice” for dogs and sports /
>> open play to share field space.
>>
>> Based on these facts, at their meeting on May 19, 2015 (a well-attended
>> meeting posted in the Almanac and at the Park that included various park
>> users), the City Council approved a Capital Improvement Project for the
>> 15-16 Fiscal Year to consider moving the dog park to another location at
>> Nealon Park. Although a final location has not yet been determined, staff
>> has tentatively focused on the open space between Little House and the
>> playground area because:
>>
>> · It is similarly situated (interior to the park and adjacent to
>> the preschool) as the *existing* dog park location on the sports field,
>> and furthest from neighborhood residents
>>
>> · Other open space areas exist in the park that can still be
>> used for other activities, including the open space in the sports field
>> when not in use for sports and spaces between the tennis courts and the
>> street
>>
>> We want to hear your ideas. A project open house to gather input on the
>> proposed location, possible amenities and any other questions or concerns
>> will be held on Tuesday, November 10 from 7pm – 8pm in the Cypress Room at
>> the Arrillaga Recreation Center. Stop by any time and leave your thoughts
>> on the display boards and talk to staff about the project.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 07 2015 - 14:49:51 PST

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)