HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 Park Survey Dog Park Recomm
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
File #290-30
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:August 20, 2013
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Community Park Survey and Dog Park Recommendations
Prepared by Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Director and Jacqui
Diaz, Special Projects Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Parks and Community Services Department conducted a “Community Parks Survey” during
January and February 2013. The survey included questions about 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. There were 625 respondents to the survey. Staff will
provide a summary of the results and recommendations on a future dog park in eastern Dublin.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive the report and determine whether to construct
another dog park, and if so, select Jordan Ranch Community Park as the preferred potential
.
development site for a future dog park
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Parks and Assistant City Manager
Community Services
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
ITEM NO. 8.2
Page 1 of 6
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 vast 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 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. 94% of the respondents 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
Page 2 of 6
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 AMENITIES IMPORTANT
Multiple-use trails (biking, hiking, walking,
92.3%
running)
Shade structures 84.4%
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%
The highest number of votes as being essential amenities included multiple use trails (57.2%),
shade structures (48.5%), and lighted sports fields (43.6%). 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 City 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
Page 3 of 6
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.
Dog 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.
2. The size of the dog park should be as large as possible, with up to 3.0-acres but at least
2.0-acres 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
Page 4 of 6
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 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
Page 5 of 6
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.
Recommendation from Parks and Community Services Commission
The Parks and Community Services Commission considered the Staff report and
recommendation at the May 20, 2013 meeting. The Commission by a vote of 4-0-0 with two
Commissioners absent, the Commission voted to recommend to City Council to construct
another dog park and recommend Jordan Ranch Community Park as the preferred potential
development site for a future dog park.
Conclusion
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, and the recommendation of Commission, Staff recommends
identifying Jordan Ranch Community Park as a preferred potential development site for a future
dog park.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A meeting notice was sent to residents who spoke at prior public meetings on the matter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map showing location of proposed future Dog Park
2. 2013 Community Parks Survey Summary
Page 6 of 6
* DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN (Figure3-1)
DUBLIN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE February 2013
PUBLIC PARKS
Pl. Future Park P26 Ware Park
P2 Down Park P27 Future Park
P3 Shannon Park and Community Center p28 Future Pork
P4 Mape Memorial Park C I [ I) 11 R a III ,■ Il
PS Dubin Historic Park P29 Future Park ONTV
P30 Fuafe Park CO
P6 Dublin Heritage Center p31 Future Park COST P u N t V
P7 KOIbPark O$796 a C O
P8 Dublin Community Swim Center C ^H E O 1�,,../�•.
P9 Stagecoach Park I ,41. A t LLL i�����
P10 Dougherty HkH Dog Park ��•`• tv '!:: Parka Reserve Forces Training Area 'p
P11 AlamoCreek Park .
`.•` \\`` ��\_.� (Camp Parka) bra
Dublin Sporn Grounds �a ` '
P13 Future Park ••� .` 'T.Oli� �. ?4,. !•��1 �L .. 7 so- ^/,;a•
P34 Emerald Glen Park �`,.. -���j fitt\\ ta-r �i� ( I •I \� iv `-S'1' 3
P15 Ware Park ' ` ll� ����'
P16 Future Park �a t. ry 1' cwmr er'''"*" .*ate if
P17 Ted Fairfield Park ` � fie!`aa��Af/��`•�� r .1..i.fi..wrno.ir , I �t II-L is
`��I•fI`
P18 Future Park
•S ;� C � 9 C�?�\� �� r�2 kV74I VA:IA►pru .t • '
P19 Ware Park 3y 1111:=1,1, l • �"`�
ti 1 • (j' may. �` �`
P20 Future Park 1•. 1 +""1`��4 4,CV �. i' E ��Mill.- 1 •
P22 &aynSporhE a,` + �)/ �\r ) 1 ��f.� I s _-+: �_���' �i Q`r,;
P22 Bray Comoro Pork i t1" \'.' �i". _ � :� �,N''tri*.gr Mill.
�!g
P23 Ware Park ���1 � ���� �� �'� ��� '�1�i� \.l� ��•P24 Ware Park � *� l �ak—� �� �>�' � •�� I� � n
P25 Ware Park l� ,�/���! ` _
—
�l .ace I_ ,'! ' t!I ".'
as Liiy Q L nr m
'ru n•
4 a I.. Preferred Pottentia e
i.7_4. Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary II City of Dublin •..e– Existing Bike Lane — Existing Trail ® Trailhead
D Primary Planning Area Boundary I I Sphere of Influence Proposed Bike Lane Planned Trail Parks
D Western Extended Planning Area Boundary MI Streets
ATTACHMENT 1
2013 Community Parks Survey
1. Please rate each of the following aspects of Dublin's parks.
Don'tRating
ExcellentGoodFairPoor
KnowCount
Overall quality of parks in Dublin39.9% (246)6.0% (37)0.2% (1)0.5% (3)617
53.5% (330)
Quality of City of Dublin sports
28.2% (173)7.8% (48)0.7% (4)20.2% (124)614
43.2% (265)
fields
Maintenance and cleanliness of the
38.8% (238)7.3% (45)0.8% (5)0.7% (4)613
52.4% (321)
park landscape areas
Cleanliness of the restrooms15.2% (93)20.2% (124)3.3% (20)18.6% (114)613
42.7% (262)
Safety in City of Dublin parks31.0% (190)8.8% (54)1.0% (6)5.5% (34)613
53.7% (329)
Safety on trails and in open space
23.5% (141)10.3% (62)0.8% (5)15.5% (93)601
49.9% (300)
areas
Additional comment, if needed
109
answered question618
skipped question7
park ? (select
one)
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
1 to 4 times9.4%58
5 to 12 times22.2%137
13 to 20 times14.4%89
Over 20 times53.9%332
answered question616
skipped question9
1 of 13
3. If you never visited a park, which of the following describes
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Too busy or not enough time to
48.6%18
use any parks in Dublin
I never visit any parks, even
2.7%1
outside of Dublin
parks do not have features or
40.5%15
amenities that appeal to me
Locations of the parks are
27.0%10
inconvenient
I recently moved to Dublin8.1%3
Lack of transportation to get to the
2.7%1
parks
Physically unable to use the park
0.0%0
areas
Other (please specify)
8
answered question37
skipped question588
2 of 13
4. Please rate how important you think it is for the City of Dub
types of parks or park amenities listed below.
SomewhatNot at all Rating
EssentialVery Important
ImportantImportantCount
Multiple-use trails (biking, hiking,
35.2% (216)7.5% (46)0.2% (1)614
57.2% (351)
walking, running)
Passive areas/lakes/open space
33.7% (203)22.1% (133)4.8% (29)603
39.5% (238)
meadows
Interpretive panels regarding the
11.4% (68)22.8% (136)16.8% (100)596
49.0% (292)
natural environment
Lighted sports fields and courts36.7% (224)16.6% (101)3.1% (19)610
43.6% (266)
Shade structures35.9% (218)13.8% (84)1.8% (11)608
48.5% (295)
Dedicated areas for dogs to run
25.2% (153)30.0% (182)14.5% (88)607
30.3% (184)
and play
Group picnic areas32.0% (193)20.4% (123)0.8% (5)604
46.9% (283)
Baseball fields26.1% (157)31.8% (191)6.8% (41)601
35.3% (212)
Soccer fields32.1% (193)27.1% (163)4.2% (25)601
36.6% (220)
Tennis courts25.7% (155)32.7% (197)4.8% (29)602
36.7% (221)
Water play features30.7% (186)23.9% (145)6.4% (39)606
38.9% (236)
Softball fields20.3% (121)34.5% (205)8.6% (51)595
36.6% (218)
Batting cages10.6% (62)27.2% (159)17.9% (105)585
44.3% (259)
Community gardens24.0% (144)29.6% (178)9.2% (55)601
37.3% (224)
Community orchards16.8% (100)28.6% (170)16.3% (97)595
38.3% (228)
All weather/synthetic turf fields21.3% (127)23.8% (142)19.1% (114)597
35.8% (214)
Basketball courts25.5% (151)29.3% (174)6.2% (37)593
39.0% (231)
Formal gardens10.1% (60)24.8% (147)20.9% (124)593
44.2% (262)
Amphitheaters12.8% (76)27.5% (163)17.4% (103)593
42.3% (251)
Public Art12.7% (76)26.2% (157)20.0% (120)599
41.1% (246)
3 of 13
Bocce ball courts11.2% (66)26.6% (157)22.0% (130)591
40.3% (238)
Volleyball courts11.9% (71)31.9% (190)13.4% (80)595
42.7% (254)
Cricket fields7.3% (43)14.2% (84)35.1% (208)593
43.5% (258)
Lacrosse fields7.0% (41)17.0% (99)32.9% (192)583
43.1% (251)
Outdoor exercise equipment/Par
16.3% (98)34.3% (206)14.3% (86)601
35.1% (211)
Course
Football fields11.5% (68)28.5% (169)20.8% (123)592
39.2% (232)
Food and beverage concession
12.9% (77)26.1% (156)23.2% (139)598
37.8% (226)
stands
answered question619
skipped question6
4 of 13
5. Now please rank your top THREE (3) park amenitites that you tr
12345678910
Multiple-use trails (biking, hiking, 21.4%11.0%14.6%4.3%1.5%1.1%1.1%0.8%0.7%
42.6%
walking, running)(131)(67)(89)(26)(9)(7)(7)(5)(4)
(260)
Passive areas/lakes/open space 6.4%15.5%17.2%16.0%4.6%2.3%1.8%1.1%1.3%
27.5%
meadows(39)(95)(105)(98)(28)(14)(11)(7)(8)
(168)
Interpretive panels regarding natural 0.5%1.3%3.9%19.0%17.3%4.6%2.8%1.5%2.9%
26.8%
environment(3)(8)(24)(116)(106)(28)(17)(9)(18)
(164)
5.1%11.0%10.3%7.9%20.6%11.0%2.5%2.9%1.0%
21.6%
Lighted sports fields and courts
(31)(67)(63)(48)(126)(67)(15)(18)(6)
(132)
10.5%9.7%10.5%5.4%9.8%18.2%5.7%1.8%1.5%
22.7%
Shade structures
(64)(59)(64)(33)(60)(111)(35)(11)(9)
(139)
Dedicated areas for dogs to 10.0%6.9%4.9%2.1%2.8%11.9%16.2%5.6%1.8%
22.1%
run/play(61)(42)(30)(13)(17)(73)(99)(34)(11)
(135)
1.6%6.7%10.1%4.9%4.7%5.2%21.1%12.6%4.4%
21.9%
Group picnic areas
(10)(41)(62)(30)(29)(32)(129)(77)(27)
(134)
1.0%2.5%1.1%1.0%1.1%1.5%4.7%25.0%13.4%
29.1%
Baseball fields
(6)(15)(7)(6)(7)(9)(29)(153)(82)
(178)
4.1%2.5%2.8%2.6%1.0%1.1%1.6%5.4%24.1%
29.8%
Soccer fields
(25)(15)(17)(16)(6)(7)(10)(33)(147)
(182)
3.4%2.5%1.8%0.8%0.5%1.0%1.0%1.6%4.7%
32.1%
Tennis courts
(21)(15)(11)(5)(3)(6)(6)(10)(29)
(196)
5.2%5.1%6.1%3.3%1.8%2.1%2.1%2.0%1.8%3.6%
Water play features
(32)(31)(37)(20)(11)(13)(13)(12)(11)(22)
0.0%0.5%0.5%0.2%0.3%0.5%0.8%0.7%1.1%1.8%
Softball fields
(0)(3)(3)(1)(2)(3)(5)(4)(7)(11)
0.0%0.2%0.8%0.3%0.0%0.3%0.2%0.5%0.5%0.7%
Batting cages
(0)(1)(5)(2)(0)(2)(1)(3)(3)(4)
1.1%2.5%4.1%3.4%2.3%1.5%1.6%1.3%1.3%1.5%
Community gardens
(7)(15)(25)(21)(14)(9)(10)(8)(8)(9)
0.0%0.3%1.0%0.3%1.6%0.7%0.7%0.5%0.8%1.1%
Community orchards
(0)(2)(6)(2)(10)(4)(4)(3)(5)(7)
5 of 13
2.8%2.3%1.6%1.3%0.5%0.7%0.3%0.7%0.8%0.7%
All weather/synthetic turf fields
(17)(14)(10)(8)(3)(4)(2)(4)(5)(4)
0.3%0.7%1.6%0.3%1.0%1.1%0.5%1.8%1.5%1.6%
Basketball courts
(2)(4)(10)(2)(6)(7)(3)(11)(9)(10)
0.2%0.2%1.8%0.8%0.7%1.0%0.7%0.3%1.5%0.3%
Formal gardens
(1)(1)(11)(5)(4)(6)(4)(2)(9)(2)
0.3%1.6%1.0%0.8%1.0%0.7%0.3%1.0%1.1%1.6%
Amphitheaters
(2)(10)(6)(5)(6)(4)(2)(6)(7)(10)
0.3%0.2%1.1%0.3%0.8%0.5%0.3%0.8%0.5%0.7%
Public Art
(2)(1)(7)(2)(5)(3)(2)(5)(3)(4)
0.7%0.8%0.8%0.0%0.5%0.2%0.3%0.5%0.2%0.5%
Bocce ball courts
(4)(5)(5)(0)(3)(1)(2)(3)(1)(3)
0.0%0.8%0.5%0.5%0.2%0.5%0.7%0.7%0.5%0.3%
Volleyball courts
(0)(5)(3)(3)(1)(3)(4)(4)(3)(2)
0.3%0.2%0.3%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.2%0.3%0.0%0.0%
Cricket fields
(2)(1)(2)(0)(0)(1)(1)(2)(0)(0)
0.3%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.0%0.3%0.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Lacrosse fields
(2)(0)(0)(1)(0)(2)(1)(0)(0)(0)
Outdoor exercise equipment/Par 1.0%2.6%2.1%1.3%0.8%0.7%2.0%1.0%0.7%1.1%
Course(6)(16)(13)(8)(5)(4)(12)(6)(4)(7)
0.2%0.2%0.2%0.3%0.2%0.0%0.3%0.3%0.7%0.3%
Football fields
(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)(0)(2)(2)(4)(2)
Food and beverage concession 0.0%0.5%1.3%0.7%0.5%0.3%0.3%0.2%1.1%0.8%
stands(0)(3)(8)(4)(3)(2)(2)(1)(7)(5)
2.1%1.6%1.5%0.2%0.2%0.3%0.0%0.2%0.0%0.2%
Other
(13)(10)(9)(1)(1)(2)(0)(1)(0)(1)
6 of 13
6. If you answered "other" in the last ranking question, what park amenity do you feel is a
priority and was not listed?
Response
Count
79
answered question79
skipped question546
7. Would you support future development of another dog park in D
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
55.5%334
No44.5%268
answered question602
skipped question23
8. Are you a dog owner?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes44.5%271
No55.5%338
answered question609
skipped question16
7 of 13
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes26.6%162
No73.4%446
answered question608
skipped question17
10. How often do you visit dog parks in the Tri-Valley area?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
1 or more times/week14.5%87
1 time/month7.3%44
4 times/year5.2%31
2 times/year4.8%29
1 time/year6.0%36
Never62.2%374
answered question601
skipped question24
8 of 13
11. If a new dog park were to be built in Dublin, would you pref
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Residential area25.0%127
Park or open space75.0%381
Other (please specify)
61
answered question508
skipped question117
12. Do you walk or drive to the dog parks that you frequent?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Walk37.2%97
Drive62.8%164
Other (please specify)
74
answered question261
skipped question364
9 of 13
13. Is parking a factor when you visit a dog park?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes46.8%156
No53.2%177
Additional comment (please specify)
54
answered question333
skipped question292
14. What physical features do you think are important at or near
Please rank the following by importance with "1" being most important, and so on.
RatingRating
12345
AverageCount
31.8%19.1%13.6%
32.3%
Water3.2% (14)2.24434
(138)(83)(59)
(140)
20.0%25.1%15.2%
31.3%
Shade8.3% (36)3.19434
(87)(109)(66)
(136)
Separation by size (large/small 15.2%21.2%22.6%17.3%
23.7%
2.94434
dogs)(66)(92)(98)(75)
(103)
21.9%18.2%15.4%15.4%
29.0%
Gates2.98434
(95)(79)(67)(67)
(126)
14.3%14.3%12.9%
48.7%
Waste bags9.7% (42)3.64433
(62)(62)(56)
(211)
answered question434
skipped question191
10 of 13
15. What features do you think are important at or near a dog park for OWNERS? Please
rank in order of importance, with "1" being most important, and
RatingRating
123456
AverageCount
19.6%15.1%20.3%13.6%6.4%
25.0%
Water3.03404
(79)(61)(82)(55)(26)
(101)
21.8%24.3%15.9%7.9%5.2%
24.8%
Shade2.79403
(88)(98)(64)(32)(21)
(100)
14.1%22.8%22.0%10.1%3.2%
27.7%
Benches3.01404
(57)(92)(89)(41)(13)
(112)
16.8%10.6%12.6%24.5%9.7%
25.7%
Parking3.61404
(68)(43)(51)(99)(39)
(104)
20.3%11.1%10.1%9.2%16.8%
32.4%
Bags and receptacles3.73404
(82)(45)(41)(37)(68)
(131)
7.4%6.2%9.7%8.2%10.1%
58.4%
Restroom access4.83404
(30)(25)(39)(33)(41)
(236)
answered question404
skipped question221
16. Are there any other features that you think are important fo
dog park, that were not mentioned in the previous questions?
Response
Count
115
answered question115
skipped question510
11 of 13
17. What dog park use issues should be considered or addressed (
restrictions, dog size, behavior, safety, hours of operation, im
other)?
Response
Count
200
answered question200
skipped question425
18. What is your zip code?
Response
Count
535
answered question535
skipped question90
19. In general, is there anything else you would like to tell us
for our parks, facilities, events or classes provided by the Cit
Community Services Department?
Response
Count
248
answered question248
skipped question377
12 of 13
20. Overall, how satisfied are you with with your experience vis
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Extremely satisfied47.5%291
Moderately satisfied44.0%269
Slightly satisfied4.7%29
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied2.1%13
Slightly dissatisfied0.8%5
Moderately dissatisfied0.7%4
Extremely dissatisfied0.2%1
answered question612
skipped question13
13 of 13