HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 - 1694 Large Dog Park Update
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: November 21, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Potential Large Dog Park Discussion
Prepared by: James M Rodems, Parks and Community Services Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will discuss the potential of establishing a large dog park location in
east Dublin, as a follow up to a request made at the July 18, 2017 City Council meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report and provide further direction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this discussion item. Costs associated with
the construction of a large dog park would be budgeted into the overall project costs of
new park development.
DESCRIPTION:
At the July 18, 2017 City Council meeting, Staff was directed to look into potential sites
for a new large dog park, preferably on the east side of Dublin that could be
accommodated in a new park project.
Staff researched previous discussions on the topic of a large dog park and identified a
report brought to City Council on August 20, 2013 (Attachment 1). This report cites
survey results from 625 respondents regarding the quality of parks and park amenities
and included a specific section regarding dog parks.
At the time of the 2013 report, it was suggested that a new dog park be located within
the Jordan Ranch Community Park. This action was agreed upon by City Council
consensus with no vote taken. Since this report , the Community Park evolved into a
school/park site making the addition of a dog park at this location infeasible.
Page 2 of 2
Following the July 18, 2017 City Council meeting, Parks and Community Services Staff
worked with the Facilities Development Staff to identify potential sites that could
accommodate a two-acre dog park and required adjacent infrastructure. After
evaluating all possible sites and related constraints, Staff believes that the most feasible
location for a large dog park would be the future community park at Wallis Ranch. The
site includes three separate parkland areas and one of these areas could serve, in part,
as a large dog park location.
If the City Council were to agree with the location proposed by Staff, the large dog park
concept would be factored into the overall planning process and development of the
park. Currently, the City’s Capital Improvement Program anticipates work to begin on
this park in Fiscal Year 2020-21.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 20, 2013 City Council Staff Report
STAFF REPORT CITYCLERK
File #290-30CITYCOUNCIL
DATE:August20, 2013
TO: Honorable MayorandCityCouncilmembers
FROM: JoniPattillo, CityManager
SUBJECT: Community ParkSurveyandDogParkRecommendations
PreparedbyPaulMcCreary, ParksandCommunityServicesDirectorandJacqui
Diaz, SpecialProjects Manager
EXECUTIVESUMMARY:
TheParks andCommunityServicesDepartment conducteda “CommunityParksSurvey” during
JanuaryandFebruary2013. Thesurveyincludedquestionsabout thequalityofparksandthe
Department’sservices, inquiriesastoparkamenitiesdesired, andaspecificsectiondedicated
todogparksandamenitiesforthefuture. Therewere625respondentstothesurvey. Staffwill
provideasummaryoftheresultsandrecommendationsonafuturedogparkineasternDublin.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Theestimatedthecosttodevelopa2.0-acre dogparkwithinthecommunity parkis $1.1million,
andthecostofthoseimprovementswouldbefundedusingPublicFacilitiesFees, notthe
GeneralFund.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendstheCityCouncil receivethereportanddetermine whethertoconstruct
anotherdogpark, andifso, select JordanRanchCommunityParkasthepreferredpotential
developmentsiteforafuturedogpark
SubmittedBy ReviewedBy
DirectorofParks and AssistantCityManager
Community Services
DESCRIPTION:
TheParks andCommunityServicesDepartment conducteda “CommunityParksSurvey” during
JanuaryandFebruary2013. Thesurveyincludedquestionsofthequalityofparksandthe
Department’sservices, inquiriesastoparkamenitiesdesired, andaspecificsectiondedicated
todogparksandamenitiesforthefuture. TheonlinesurveywasavailablethroughtheCity’s
websiteandwaspublicizedthroughthelocalmediaaswellasplacedintheannualCityReport
ITEM NO. 8.2Page1of6
andtheSpringActivityGuide. Signsadvertising thesurveywerepostedinallparksand
includedaQuickResponse (QR) Codesothatvisitorscouldeasilytakethesurveyfroma
smartphone. Previousclassparticipantswerealsoemailedthesurveytoobtaintheiropinions.
Therewere625respondentstothesurvey. Thesurveyaskedfortherespondent’szipcode;
therewere531respondents tothisquestionresultinginthevastmajoritybeingDublinresidents
and1.6% asnon-residents.
Overalltheparksarevaluedandconsidered ofgoodqualitybytherespondentswith91% being
extremely ormoderately satisfied withtheirexperiencevisitingDublin parks. Thisincludes the
qualityofsportsfields, generalcleanliness, andsafetybothintheCityparksandontrailsandin
openspaceareas. ThemajorityofrespondentsindicatedtheyhavevisitedaCityparkover20
timesduringthepastyear.
Thesurveyaskedrespondentstoratebyimportance alistofpark typesoramenitiesasbeing
essential, veryimportant, somewhatimportant ornotatallimportant. Multiple usetrails, lighted
fieldsandcourts, shadestructures, anddedicatedareasfordogswerestatisticallyidentifiedas
essential. Passiveareas/openspace, grouppicnicareas, avarietyofsportsfields, outdoor
exerciseequipment, andcommunitygardenswereidentified asbeingveryimportant.
Interpretive naturepanels, publicart, allweather turffields, formalgardens, community
orchards, concessionstands, andavarietyofsports (bocce/volleyballcourts,
lacrosse/softball/cricket/footballfields, andbattingcages) wereidentifiedasbeingsomewhat
important. Therewerenoamenitiesthatrosetobeidentified ashavingnoimportance, but
somewere statistically closetothoselistedassomewhatimportant.
Respondentswereaskediftheywouldsupportafuturedogpark. Therewere602respondents
tothisquestionwith55% insupportand45% notsupportiveofanewdogpark. Aninteresting
resultwasfoundinthat55% oftherespondents werenotdogowners. Anotherinteresting
responsewasthat446 (73%) respondentsindicatedthattheydonot usethedogparksin
Dublinand374 (62%) ofrespondents answeredthatthey never visitdogparkswithintheTri-
Valleyarea. Inshort, aslightmajorityofrespondents wantadogparkbutrarelyorneveruse
theonesinthearea. Respondentsalsorankedamenitiesforboth dogsandowners, shoulda
dogparkbebuiltin thefuture.
Overallthemajorityofrespondentsrankedtheirsatisfactionwiththeparksasbeingextremely
satisfied (47.5%) ormoderatelysatisfied (44%). Respondents hadseveralsuggestions,
providedclarifying datatotheiranswer, orcommentstohelpshapethefutureofparks. The
ParksandCommunityServicesstaffwillincorporatethisinformation intotheParksand
Recreation MasterPlanforthecommunity, aswellastheupdatetotheDepartment Strategic
Plan.
SurveyResults
AnalysisofGeneralParkandAmenityQuestions
Surveyrespondentswereaskedtoratethefollowing aspectsoftheparks: qualityofparks;
qualityofCitysportsfields; maintenanceandcleanlinessofparklandscapes; cleanlinessof
restrooms; safetyinCityparks; andsafetyontrailsandinopenspaceareas. Theyratedthe
aspectsasbeingexcellent, good, fair, poor, ordidn’tknow. 94% oftherespondents rated the
overallqualityofparksasexcellentorgood. ThequalityoftheCity’ssportsfieldswereratedas
excellentorgood by71% ofrespondents. Landscapedareasreceivedover91% ratingasbeing
excellentorgood. Restroomcleanliness rated58% asbeingexcellentorgood. Almost54% of
therespondentsindicatedthattheyhavevisitedaCityparkover20timesinthatlasttwelve
months, whichindicatesthattheparksarevaluedandwellutilized. Therewere37responses
Page2of6
indicatingthattheyhadnevervisitedaparkinDublin; over48% baseditonnothavingenough
timetovisit.
Thesurveyaskedrespondentstoratebyimportance alistofpark typesoramenitiesasbeing
essential, veryimportant, somewhatimportant ornotatallimportant. Followingisasummary of
theamenitiesthatwereratedasbeingessentialorveryimportantwiththehighestprioritiesat
thetop:
ESSENTIAL OR
VERY
PARKAMENITIES IMPORTANT
Multiple-usetrails (biking, hiking, walking, 92.3% running)
Shade structures 84.4%
Lightedsports fieldsandcourts 80.3%
Grouppicnicareas 78.8%
Passiveareas/lakes/openspacemeadows 73.1%
Waterplayfeatures 69.6%
Soccerfields 68.7%
Basketballcourts 64.4%
Tenniscourts 62.5%
Baseballfields 61.4%
Community gardens 61.2%
Dedicatedareasfordogstorunandplay 55.5%
Softballfields 54.8%
Outdoorexerciseequipment/ParCourse 51.4%
Thehighestnumberofvotesasbeingessential amenitiesincludedmultipleusetrails (57.2%),
shadestructures (48.5%), andlightedsportsfields (43.6%). Intermsofadedicatedareafor
dogs, there wereclosetoanequalnumberofvotesasbeingbothessential (30.3%) aswellas
onlysomewhat important (30%). Interpretive naturepanels, public art, allweatherturffields,
formalgardens, community orchards, concessions, andavarietyofsports (bocce/volleyball
courts, lacrosse/softball/cricket/footballfields, battingcages) wereidentifiedasbeingonly
somewhatimportant. Therewerenoamenities onthelistthatwasspecificallyidentified as
havingnoimportance, butsomewerestatisticallyclosetothoselistedassomewhatimportant.
Forexample, formalgardenswereranked24.8% asbeingveryimportant whilealsobeing
ranked20.9% asnotimportant.
AnalysisofDogParkQuestions
Duringthepastyear, theCityCouncildirectedStafftoresearchthepotentialinterestinbuilding
anew dogparkinthecommunityandidentifypotentialsitesineasternDublinshouldtherebe
support. Aspartoftheparkssurvey, asegmentofquestions addressedthistopic. Atotalof
602respondents answeredthequestionoftheirsupportforanotherdogparkinDublin; 55.5%
oftherespondents wereinsupport, and44.5% werenotinsupport. Thenextquestion
addresseddogownership and, interestingly, therewere609respondents tothequestionand
55.5% ofthosewerenotdogowners.
Currentlytherearetwo dogparkslocatedwithinDublin, andseveralthroughouttheTri-Valley
region. Whenasked iftheycurrentlyusetheDublindogparks, oftherespondentswhoare dog
owners, 43% (116) statedthattheydidnotvisitDublin’sdogparks. Whendogownerswere
Page3of6
askedhowoftentheyvisitdogparkswithintheTri-Valleyarea, over27% (73) statedthatthey
nevervisittheregion’sdogparks.
Thenextsetofquestionsaddressedlocation, transportandamenitiesofafuturedogpark,
shoulditbeconsidered. Thesurveyasked ifadogparkweretobedeveloped, wouldthey
preferitlocated nearoradjacenttoaresidentialareaorapark/openspace. Therewereatotal
of508respondentstothequestion; 75% favorednearapark/openspaceand25% preferred
neararesidential area. Inreviewingtheopenendedcommentsfromthisquestion, itis
apparentthattherewasapreferencetowardopenspaceareas, awayfromactivecommunity
parks. Many respondents expressed concernsaboutfearofdogsandsafety ofparkusers, and
thatadogparkshouldbeinaseparateareafromparksandresidential neighborhoods. The
surveyalsofoundthatover70% ofdogownerswhouse dogparkstendtodrivetothepark.
Twoofthequestionsaskedrespondentstoprioritizedogparkamenitiesforbothdogsand
owners. Whenaskedabout amenitiesfordogsthetopamenitieswerewater, gatesand
separateareasforsmallandlarge dogs. Thetopamenitiesforpeoplewere shade, waterand
benches.
DogParkSiteSelectionCriteria
Basedonthefeedbackfromrespondents andbestpracticesidentifiedbysurveyingother
communitiesStaffhasdraftedthefollowingsiteselectioncriteriaforafuturedogpark.
1. Thedogparkshouldbeinasafe, accessiblelocationwithinanopenspaceareaor
potentiallyadjacenttoacommunity parkwithgoodaccessfrommajorroads.
2. Thesizeofthedogpark shouldbeaslargeaspossible, withupto3.0-acresbutatleast
2.0-acrestoaccommodate sufficient spaceforseparaterunareasforlargeandsmall
dog; enablinglargedogownerstoallowtheirpetstorunmorefreely, whileprotecting
smallerdogsthatmaynotbesuitedtotheenthusiastic playoflargerbreeds. Therealso
needstobesufficientacreageforcirculation, setbacks fromotheruses (particularly youth
activitiesandamenities ifadjacenttoacommunitypark), dogrunentryandparking.
Developingalargersizeddogparkislessexpensiveandeasiertomaintainthan
developing ahighnumberofsmalldogparks. Thelargerthegrassareais, theeasieritis
tomaintain, asthereislessconcentrated use. Thelarger sizealsoenablessegmenting
off-leashareastoallowrotationofuseforlawn surfaces.
3. Thedog parkshouldnotbedirectlyadjacenttoresidential propertylinestohelpdecrease
thechanceofactualandperceivedproblems withnoiseorothernuisances. However, the
parkshould becloseenoughtoaresidential areathatdogownerswilltaketheir dogsto
thepark andnotallowthemoff-leashelsewhere. Staffshouldconsiderutilizingalternate
ornontraditional locationsinthe OpenSpace, tohelpdecreasethechanceforconflict
withotherneighborsandotherparkusers.
PotentialSitesforFutureDogParkinDublin
Asdirected byCityCouncil, Staffreviewedpotential sitesineasternDublinforafuturedogpark
usingthecriterialistedabove. StaffalsoconsideredsitesinwesternDublintoprovidemore
alternatives. Basedonthecommunity inputfromtheonlinesurvey, neighborhoodparks were
excludedfromthesiteselectionprocess.
Sincetherewasapreference inthesurveytolocate thedogparkinanopenspacearea, away
fromresidentialdevelopment andactiveparkuses, Staffidentifiedtwoopenspaceareasowned
byEastBayRegionalParkDistrict (EBRPD) ineasternDublinaspotential sitesfordogruns.
TheseincludedthestagingareafortheTassajaraCreekRegionalParkonTassajaraRoad, and
Page4of6
thefuture RegionalParkthatwillbeadjacenttoMoellerRanch. Staffdiscussedtheconcept
withstafffromEBRPDwhoindicatednointerestinallowingadogparkincurrentor future
regionalparksinDublin.
StaffconsideredCityownedopenspaceareasincludingMartinCanyonCreekTrailand
DoughertyHillsOpenSpace. Staffwouldnotrecommendeitheroftheseareasforadogpark.
MartinCanyon CreekTrailissurrounded byresidentialdevelopment andhasverylittleflat
usablespaces. Additionallythereareparkingandaccess constraintswiththissite. Dougherty
HillsOpenSpacealreadyhasadogparkandtherearenootherareas inthatopenspace that
wouldallowforaccesstoanotherflatusablespace.
Staffalsoevaluatedcurrentcommunity parksforapotentialdogparkincludingEmeraldGlen
Park, FallonSports Park, DublinSportsGroundsandShannonCommunityPark. EmeraldGlen
Parkwillbeanactiveparkatbuild-outwithmanyusesincluding sports, grouppicnics, large
communityevents, largechildren’splaygrounds, skateboarding, basketball, walkingpaths and
numerous activitiesattheRecreationandAquaticComplex. Duetotheintensityoftheuses
StaffdoesnotrecommendaddingadogparktothefinalphaseofEmeraldGlen.
TheDublinSportsGroundsandFallonSportsParkwouldnotbeappropriatesitesforadog
parkduetothehighintensityofyouthactivities, andlackofadditionalspaceinthoseparks.
ShannonParkalsohasahighintensityofuseswithfacilityrentals, classes, thewaterplayarea
andpicnicking. InadditionSt. Raymond’sCatholicChurchislocatedacrossShannonAvenue
andwhentherearecompeting eventsparkingspillsintotheneighborhood. ThereforeStaff
doesnotrecommend addingadogparktoShannonCommunityPark.
Currentlythereisonemorecommunity parkplannedforeasternDublin, whichwillbelocatedin
theJordanRanchdevelopment. This18-acresiteissouthofCentralParkwayandjusteastof
FallonRoad. The parktopographywillfeaturethreerollinghillswithbreathtaking360-degree
viewsofDublin, PleasantonandLivermorefromthetopofthehills. Thereisnoconceptualplan
fortheparkyet; however, theParksandRecreation MasterPlanidentifiedtheparkwillneedto
generallyincludethefollowingamenities; twobaseball/softballdiamonds; twosoccerfields; six
tenniscourts; playgroundandgrouppicnicfacilities; and, naturalareasandtrails. Althoughthe
parkis18-acres, whichis4.0-acressmallerthantheDublinSportsGrounds, itisnotalevelsite
andtherefore willbe challengingtofittheamenitiesenvisionedaswellasadogpark.
Therefore, ifadogparkwasincludedintheJordanRanchCommunity ParkConceptualPlan, it
islikelythatoneormoreofthesportsfieldswouldnotbeincluded, andbelocatedineastern
Dublinneighborhood parksinstead.
Althoughnotanentitledproject, thereisa conceptualplanforalargecommunityparkinthe
proposedDublinCrossingprojectatCampParks. Howevertheparkwouldeventuallybecome
thehomeofa50,000squarefootChildren’sMuseum, whichwillbearegionaldrawand
increasetheintensityofthepark.
Recommended Site
Usingtheselectioncriteriatoevaluatepotentialsitesforafuturedogpark, Staffrecommends
selectingJordanRanchCommunityParkasthepreferredpotentialdogparkdevelopmentsite.
Itisanaccessible siteoffofCentralParkwaywhichisamajorarterialroad. Itissurroundedby
openspaceonwestandsouthsides, withhousingdirectlyadjacenttotheeast, andacross
CentralParkway to thenorth. Thereforethedogparkcouldbelocatedawayfromresidential
properties, whilestillbeingcloseenoughtoaresidentialareathatdogownerscantaketheir
Page5of6
dogstotheparkandnotallowthemoff-leashelsewhere. Thehillsonthesitewillcreate a
uniqueopportunity toblendthedogparkwiththeopenspaceareasandkeepitawayfromother
parkusesandchildren’splayareas. Thepark willbelargeenoughtoaccommodate atleasta
2.0-acresitefortwodogrunsandthenecessary amenitiesandparking.
Ifthissitewasselectedthedogparkwouldbeonparklandthatwillbededicated bythe
developerandincludedinthePublicFacilitiesFeeprogram, sotheCitywouldnotneed to
expendfundstoacquireadditional parklandforthedogpark. Theestimatedthecosttodevelop
a2.0-acredogparkwithin thecommunityparkis $1.1million, andthecostofthose
improvements wouldbefundedusingPublicFacilitiesFees, nottheGeneralFund. Additionally
allnecessary utilityconnectionsand metersforthedogparkwouldbeincludedinthe
development oftheoverallpark.
Thetimingofthefirstphaseoftheparkisunknown atthistime. Gradingoftheparksiteand
surroundingresidentialareasinJordanRanchbeganthisspring, andinfrastructure willbe
constructedoverthenextyearwithresidentialdevelopmentfollowingsoonafter. Thetimingof
developmentofthefirstphaseoftheparkiscurrentlyoutsideofthefive-yearCIPandwillbe
dependent onthepaceofgrowthineasternDublinandsubsequentcollectionofimpactfees.
Recommendation fromParksandCommunityServicesCommission
TheParksandCommunityServices CommissionconsideredtheStaffreport and
recommendation attheMay20, 2013meeting. TheCommission byavoteof4-0-0withtwo
Commissioners absent, theCommissionvotedtorecommendtoCityCounciltoconstruct
anotherdogparkandrecommendJordanRanchCommunityParkasthepreferredpotential
development siteforafuturedogpark.
Conclusion
The2013CommunityParksSurveywas asuccessfultoolinobtaining asolidnumberof
residentswhoresponded tothequestions. Respondents weregenerallyverysatisfiedwiththe
existingparksandamenities, andprovidedalargebasisoffeedback fordeveloping future parks
andamenities. Thereweremanycomments providedtohelpStaffimproveconditionsof
existingparks (e.g. specificrestroomissues, geeseatthesportspark). Theconceptofanew
dogparkisonethatwillneedfurtherdiscussionbytheCommission andCityCouncil. The
trendsshowedinterestindevelopingonenearopenspace andintheeasternDublinarea.
However, equally vocalwerethoserespondentswhosaidthattheywerenotinsupport ofmore
dogparksinthecommunity, andconcerns withlocatingthemwithinactiveparks.
Basedonthe inputreceived, theParksandRecreation MasterPlan, andbestpractices
identified inothercommunities, andtherecommendationofCommission, Staffrecommends
identifyingJordanRanch CommunityParkasapreferredpotentialdevelopment siteforafuture
dogpark.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLICOUTREACH:
Ameetingnoticewassenttoresidentswho spokeatprior publicmeetingsonthematter.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. MapshowinglocationofproposedfutureDogPark
2. 2013CommunityParksSurveySummary
Page6of6
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 'pP11AlamoCreekParkCampParka) braDublinSpornGroundsa
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,
lti
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
nP25WareParkl
l .
ace
I_ ,'! t!I
as Liiy Q L nr mru 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
2013CommunityParksSurvey
1. Please rateeach ofthe followingaspects of Dublin's parks.
Don'tRatingExcellentGoodFairPoorKnowCount
OverallqualityofparksinDublin39.9% (246)6.0% (37)0.2% (1)0.5% (3)61753.5% (330)
QualityofCityofDublinsports 28.2% (173)7.8% (48)0.7% (4)20.2% (124)61443.2% (265) fields
Maintenanceandcleanlinessofthe 38.8% (238)7.3% (45)0.8% (5)0.7% (4)61352.4% (321) parklandscapeareas
Cleanlinessoftherestrooms15.2% (93)20.2% (124)3.3% (20)18.6% (114)61342.7% (262)
SafetyinCityofDublinparks31.0% (190)8.8% (54)1.0% (6)5.5% (34)61353.7% (329)
Safetyontrailsandinopenspace 23.5% (141)10.3% (62)0.8% (5)15.5% (93)60149.9% (300) areas
Additionalcomment, ifneeded 109
answeredquestion618
skippedquestion7
park ? (select
one)
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
1 to4times9.4%58
5to12times22.2%137
13to20times14.4%89
Over20times53.9%332
answeredquestion616
skippedquestion9
1of 13
3. Ifyounever visiteda park, which ofthe followingdescribes
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Toobusyornotenoughtimeto 48.6%18useanyparksinDublin
Inevervisitanyparks, even 2.7%1outsideofDublin
parksdonothavefeaturesor 40.5%15amenitiesthatappealtome
Locationsoftheparksare 27.0%10inconvenient
IrecentlymovedtoDublin8.1%3
Lackoftransportationtogettothe 2.7%1parks
Physicallyunabletousethepark 0.0%0areas
Other (pleasespecify) 8
answeredquestion37
skippedquestion588
2of 13
4. Pleaseratehowimportant youthink itis fortheCityofDub
types of parks or parkamenities listed below.
SomewhatNotatall RatingEssentialVeryImportantImportantImportantCount
Multiple-usetrails (biking, hiking, 35.2% (216)7.5% (46)0.2% (1)61457.2% (351) walking, running)
Passiveareas/lakes/openspace 33.7% (203)22.1% (133)4.8% (29)60339.5% (238) meadows
Interpretivepanelsregarding the 11.4% (68)22.8% (136)16.8% (100)59649.0% (292) naturalenvironment
Lightedsportsfieldsandcourts36.7% (224)16.6% (101)3.1% (19)61043.6% (266)
Shadestructures35.9% (218)13.8% (84)1.8% (11)60848.5% (295)
Dedicatedareasfordogstorun 25.2% (153)30.0% (182)14.5% (88)60730.3% (184) andplay
Grouppicnicareas32.0% (193)20.4% (123)0.8% (5)60446.9% (283)
Baseballfields26.1% (157)31.8% (191)6.8% (41)60135.3% (212)
Soccerfields32.1% (193)27.1% (163)4.2% (25)60136.6% (220)
Tenniscourts25.7% (155)32.7% (197)4.8% (29)60236.7% (221)
Waterplayfeatures30.7% (186)23.9% (145)6.4% (39)60638.9% (236)
Softballfields20.3% (121)34.5% (205)8.6% (51)59536.6% (218)
Battingcages10.6% (62)27.2% (159)17.9% (105)58544.3% (259)
Communitygardens24.0% (144)29.6% (178)9.2% (55)60137.3% (224)
Communityorchards16.8% (100)28.6% (170)16.3% (97)59538.3% (228)
Allweather/synthetic turffields21.3% (127)23.8% (142)19.1% (114)59735.8% (214)
Basketballcourts25.5% (151)29.3% (174)6.2% (37)59339.0% (231)
Formalgardens10.1% (60)24.8% (147)20.9% (124)59344.2% (262)
Amphitheaters12.8% (76)27.5% (163)17.4% (103)59342.3% (251)
PublicArt12.7% (76)26.2% (157)20.0% (120)59941.1% (246)
3of 13
Bocceballcourts11.2% (66)26.6% (157)22.0% (130)59140.3% (238)
Volleyballcourts11.9% (71)31.9% (190)13.4% (80)59542.7% (254)
Cricketfields7.3% (43)14.2% (84)35.1% (208)59343.5% (258)
Lacrossefields7.0% (41)17.0% (99)32.9% (192)58343.1% (251)
Outdoorexerciseequipment/Par 16.3% (98)34.3% (206)14.3% (86)60135.1% (211) Course
Footballfields11.5% (68)28.5% (169)20.8% (123)59239.2% (232)
Foodandbeverageconcession 12.9% (77)26.1% (156)23.2% (139)59837.8% (226) stands
answeredquestion619
skippedquestion6
4of 13
5. Nowplease rankyourtop THREE (3) parkamenitites thatyou tr
12345678910
Multiple-usetrails (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)
Passiveareas/lakes/openspace 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)
Interpretivepanelsregardingnatural 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% Lightedsportsfieldsandcourts 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% Shadestructures 64)(59)(64)(33)(60)(111)(35)(11)(9) 139)
Dedicatedareasfordogsto10.0%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% Grouppicnicareas 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% Baseballfields 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% Soccerfields 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% Tenniscourts 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% Waterplayfeatures 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% Battingcages 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% Communityorchards 0)(2)(6)(2)(10)(4)(4)(3)(5)(7)
5of 13
2.8%2.3%1.6%1.3%0.5%0.7%0.3%0.7%0.8%0.7% Allweather/syntheticturffields 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% Basketballcourts 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% Formalgardens 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% PublicArt 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% Bocceballcourts 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% Volleyballcourts 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% Cricketfields 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% Lacrossefields 2)(0)(0)(1)(0)(2)(1)(0)(0)(0)
Outdoorexerciseequipment/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% Footballfields 1)(1)(1)(2)(1)(0)(2)(2)(4)(2)
Foodandbeverageconcession 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)
6of 13
6. If youanswered "other" inthelastranking question, what parkamenitydo youfeelisa
priority andwasnotlisted?
Response
Count
79
answeredquestion79
skippedquestion546
7. Would you supportfuturedevelopment ofanother dogparkin D
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
55.5%334
No44.5%268
answeredquestion602
skippedquestion23
8. Are youadogowner?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes44.5%271
No55.5%338
answeredquestion609
skippedquestion16
7of 13
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes26.6%162
No73.4%446
answeredquestion608
skippedquestion17
10. Howoftendoyouvisitdogparksin theTri-Valley area?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
1ormoretimes/week14.5%87
1time/month7.3%44
4times/year5.2%31
2times/year4.8%29
1time/year6.0%36
Never62.2%374
answeredquestion601
skippedquestion24
8of 13
11. Ifanewdog parkwere tobebuilt inDublin, wouldyoupref
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Residential area25.0%127
Parkoropenspace75.0%381
Other (pleasespecify) 61
answeredquestion508
skippedquestion117
12. Doyouwalk ordrivetothedogparksthat youfrequent?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Walk37.2%97
Drive62.8%164
Other (pleasespecify) 74
answeredquestion261
skippedquestion364
9of 13
13. Isparking a factorwhen youvisita dogpark?
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Yes46.8%156
No53.2%177
Additionalcomment (pleasespecify) 54
answeredquestion333
skippedquestion292
14. What physicalfeatures doyou thinkare importantatornear
Please rank thefollowing byimportancewith "1" beingmost important, and soon.
RatingRating12345AverageCount
31.8%19.1%13.6% 32.3% Water3.2% (14)2.24434138)(83)(59) 140)
20.0%25.1%15.2% 31.3% Shade8.3% (36)3.1943487)(109)(66) 136)
Separationbysize (large/small 15.2%21.2%22.6%17.3% 23.7% 2.94434dogs)(66)(92)(98)(75) 103)
21.9%18.2%15.4%15.4% 29.0% Gates2.9843495)(79)(67)(67) 126)
14.3%14.3%12.9% 48.7% Wastebags9.7% (42)3.6443362)(62)(56) 211)
answeredquestion434
skippedquestion191
10 of13
15. Whatfeatures doyouthink areimportantatornearadog park forOWNERS? Please
rankin orderofimportance, with "1" beingmostimportant, and
RatingRating123456AverageCount
19.6%15.1%20.3%13.6%6.4% 25.0% Water3.0340479)(61)(82)(55)(26) 101)
21.8%24.3%15.9%7.9%5.2% 24.8% Shade2.7940388)(98)(64)(32)(21) 100)
14.1%22.8%22.0%10.1%3.2% 27.7% Benches3.0140457)(92)(89)(41)(13) 112)
16.8%10.6%12.6%24.5%9.7% 25.7% Parking3.6140468)(43)(51)(99)(39) 104)
20.3%11.1%10.1%9.2%16.8% 32.4% Bagsandreceptacles3.7340482)(45)(41)(37)(68) 131)
7.4%6.2%9.7%8.2%10.1% 58.4% Restroomaccess4.8340430)(25)(39)(33)(41) 236)
answeredquestion404
skippedquestion221
16. Arethereanyother featuresthatyouthinkareimportant fo
dogpark, thatwerenotmentioned intheprevious questions?
Response
Count
115
answeredquestion115
skippedquestion510
11 of13
17. Whatdogpark useissues shouldbeconsidered or addressed (
restrictions, dogsize, behavior, safety, hours of operation, im
other)?
Response
Count
200
answeredquestion200
skippedquestion425
18. What isyourzipcode?
Response
Count
535
answeredquestion535
skippedquestion90
19. Ingeneral, isthereanythingelseyouwouldlike totell us
for ourparks, facilities, eventsorclasses providedbythe Cit
Community ServicesDepartment?
Response
Count
248
answeredquestion248
skippedquestion377
12 of13
20. Overall, how satisfiedareyouwithwithyour experience vis
ResponseResponse
PercentCount
Extremelysatisfied47.5%291
Moderatelysatisfied44.0%269
Slightlysatisfied4.7%29
Neithersatisfiednordissatisfied2.1%13
Slightlydissatisfied0.8%5
Moderatelydissatisfied0.7%4
Extremely dissatisfied0.2%1
answeredquestion612
skippedquestion13
13 of13