Item 5.1 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL posted 10/16/14ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
From: Kim Conant [mailto:kim(aconant.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:37 PM
To: Steve Vaus; DAve Grosch; Don Higginson; Dan Singer
Subject: Off -Leash Hours at Silverset Park
To: Jim Cunningham, John Mullin, Steve Vaus, Dave Grosch, Don Higginson, Dan Singer
Gentlemen: As a long -time resident of Poway, I would like to speak to the idea of off -leash hours at
Silverset Park. I strongly support a trial period for us to legally allow our dogs to play off leash.
For a number of years we had been doing that informally and found that we came to know our
neighbors all the while enjoying the safety and convenience of the park within a few blocks of our
homes. Not only did we get to know one another, but we found ways to be of support and help in ways
that only neighbors can be.
In reading the staff report, I was surprised to find only two recommendations and perplexed that dog
urine was a problem to softball players but not an issue to soccer players. I do hope that you all will
consider the proposal of using the ball field for limited hours on a trial basis.
It seems to me that sharing the ball field would be by far the better solution. It would be relatively
simple and inexpensive to enclose the area. It would provide a buffer for the residents who object to
off -leash dogs. It could be scheduled at a time and season that would not interfere with softball. It
would allow a true sharing of the park and would not present a problem to people walking on the track
with off -leash dogs adjacent.
Please give us a chance to give our proposal a try. If it does not work out after a few - months trial
period, it will be obvious to all concerned.
Regards,
Kim Conant
14735 Poway Mesa Dr.
Poway, CA 92064
1 of 1 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
October 11, 2014
CITY CLERK, CITY OF POWAY
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Received
City Clerk's Office
OCT 15 2014
CITY OF POWAY
REF: Off -Leash Dog Access in Silverset Park /Oct. 21, 2014 meeting
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As we are unable to attend the above mentioned meeting, we would like to voice
our opinion on the above topic. We are the owners of 13165 Triumph Dr. and are
opposed to allowing off -leash dog access in Silverset Park. There are several
reasons for our opposition:
1. Possible dog bites /injuries to people and dogs (would City of Poway be
partially liable for anyone who gets injured by a loose dog)?
2. Possible decline in property values in our neighborhood.
3. Potential for more mess if owners do not clean up after their dogs.
4. There are already numerous dog parks in the area where owners can take their
dogs to run loose.
5. The park was designed to be for children and adults in the area to use, not for
dogs to run loose.
We appreciate your consideration of our views on the important topic. If you
have any questions, please contact us at curt_egan @yahoo.com or 858 - 842 -4950.
Thank you.
Best regale!
f
Curtis C. Egan and Kathleen A. Egan
1 of 1 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
From: Sue Busch [mailto:sbuscV(C cox.netI
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Don Higginson
Subject: OLA Silverset Park.Support
Dear Councilmembers,
Our group has asked to use a limited space and time to recreate with our dogs off leash in Silverset
Park. We ask this with good intentions and with our offer of support to help make it happen. We have
proposed that we are willing to be the connection with the city and to help with costs for gates and
signs for the OLA. We will be willing to monitor the area daily and give guidance to those who visit with
their dogs.
Your support will allow the following to occur for the community:
§Neighbors are socializing, building a sense of community
§ Neighbors with limited mobility due to medical or age reasons were able to still give their
dogs some exercise as they didn't have to walk a great distance
§ Neighbors could bring their whole family to recreate, thus sharing a special time together.
§ Neighbors do not need to travel in their cars to access some off leash time with their dogs.
§ Neighbors have given their dogs the needed exercise and socialization that dogs require
so that they can be better neighbors.
We did recreate off leash in the ball field for many years on an unofficial basis and found all
of the above statements to be true, so these are not imagined or engineered to make
our petition look good. We know the value of this first hand and would like to re -build
that sense of friendliness again.
The attached docs are my previous statements made at the last two meetings and a photo
sheet of our park versus Orpheus Park in Encinitas.
Please,consider the chance for us to have a trial time period to see if this is possible and if
there are any real issues with this request. We ask for your support.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Busch
"Be a rainbow in someone's cloud"
— Maya Angelou
1 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Silverset Park - Poway, California Morning and afternoon shots of
ball field and open field.
Orpheus Park and Viewpoint Parks - Encinitas, California Shots from the afternoon groups.
2of7
O : « 2014 Item # 5.1
Outline of comments for 9/4 meeting:
Ask for those in support to stand.
1. We have presented ourselves to City Council and City Staff members in other
settings but we wish to outline what the facts are about our request and share
some of our knowledge about off leash areas.
2.. We are asking for limited time and space in our neighborhood park for off
leash play with our dogs.
3. We are offering our services to help maintain the area and to educate visitors
of the need to be good stewards.
4. We offered to help with the costs to install new gates and signs for the area of
dog play.
5. We are asking for an area to recreate with our dogs. We are asking to use the
ball field as it is used so little at this time and it feels like a waste of our tax money
to maintain a field to just view and walk around it.
6. We have seen the good results of this type of recreation in our neighboring city
of Encinitas; it does create a friendly neighborhood.
7. We have many cities to follow and guide us in the implementation of an off
leash area. I have studied the report done for Portland, Oregon on their off leash
program that they have enjoyed for the last 18 years. They have made the effort
to make it work in their park system on a very high level, even with conflict and
detractors. Here is some history:
May 1995 - Adopted a policy that includes education, enforcement and creation
of citizens task force to find sites for off leash recreation.
June 1995 - Set up 3 sites.
Jan. 1999 - Recommend more fenced sites.
Mid 2000 - Add 2 sites.
3 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
2001- 4 citizen coalitions went to work to find more sites
June 2003 - Presented to City Council their enforcement policy and the
recommended sites. CC stated to have sites opened by September.
August 2003 - opened 7 fenced all hours, 27 unfenced limited hours
11 years since they have over 30 sites and continue to look to add more
Begs the question- Why did they actively pursue this systemic change to their
park system?
Also, it begs the question from a citizens point of view why are we not looking
into our parks to see what we need to change?
8.This proposal allows another form of recreation for the park that is highly
desired by a large group of people. With proper implementation there would not
be any negatives on other visitors or other forms of recreation in the park. It
might enhance their activities as there would be less dogs on the track at the time
of off leash hours, creating less traffic.
9. We proposed to institute hours in morning from 6:00 to 9:00 am as a way to
conduct a test. At our meeting with the City Manager and Staff, he asked the
question why we were restricting our hours. The City Manager's concern was for
those folks that would want to come in the evening after work. And if we look at
other cities with their implementation process they always started. with two
different times - morning hours and evening hours.
Read: Portland's Goals and Assumptions
We wish for this request to move forward in a positive light and with a positive
spirit so as to give us a trial period to find out if it could work for our city as it has
so well in other cities.
Susan Busch
4 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Off Leash Dog and People Zone Request to City Council - July 15th
Good Evening Mayor Higginson, Council members and staff!
I am so happy to speak to you this evening in regards to our request for an off leash
zone for dogs at Silverset Park. I have been a resident of Poway since 1977, a recent
Poway Unified retired teacher, a dog owner and a neighbor of Silverset Park.
I am speaking to you on behalf of a large group of people who have been working on
this request for the past 2 years. We are a committed responsible group of people
that have met numerous times and done much research with our park neighbors
and visitors, as well we have investigated other cities that have implemented these
off leash zones in their parks. I would like to recognize the people that have been
involved in this request. Could you please stand if you have been on the committee
over the past 2 years working towards this night? Also, we have other guests here to
support our request, could you please raise your hand if you have come to support
our off leash dog and people zone at Silverset Park?
Dogs have taken on a big role in our society from being our pets and family
members to being greatly needed service dogs. Dogs are taken to work, to
Starbucks, to the beach, on the family vacation. Many people are choosing to
recreate with their dogs, many are craving the ability to find a place where they can
do this safely and legally off leash.
Our parks are a wonderful asset to our city, I can remember when we didn't have all
the parks we do today. There was a lot of open space and thus giving your dog some
exercise off leash was not hard to do. It truly was the city in the countrX. Parks are
more to a community than just a beautiful place in your neighborhood. Parks are the
glue that holds a city together. People come to the park to recreate, relax, celebrate
and re- energize their lives; it a common area where you can connect to your
neighbors and learn from and about them. Thus building a true community of
citizens.
Over the years a group of dog owners began to use the outfield of the existing
softball field as to contain the dogs and give the other visitors that may be dog
intolerant a chance to continue their recreation in the park without concern. We had
a morning group and afternoon /evening group. This was a popular event for dog
owners as it became more than a chance to let our dogs play together, but a time for
us to meet our neighbors and share stories and to get to know our city.
5 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We have discovered that there are many positives for having a neighborhood park
with an off leash zone.
■ Neighbors are socializing, building a sense of community
■ Neighbors with limited mobility due to medical or age reasons were able to
still give their dogs some exercise as they didn't have to walk a great distance
■ Neighbors could bring their whole family to recreate, thus sharing a special
time together.
■ Neighbors do not need to travel in their cars to access some off leash time
with their dogs. Young teens that want to share the responsibility of taking
care of the family dog and play with them off leash can not drive themselves
to the present dog park.
■ Neighbors have given their dogs the needed exercise and socialization that
dogs require so that they can be better neighbors.
We were always respectful that it was a ball field and would not compete with park
visitors using the ball field. We always cleaned up after our dogs and would alert
dog owners of their dog's deposits. We asked the Park Director to research if there
had been any incidents in the park for 2012 and 2013 and found no incident reports.
As a daily park visitor I have noticed a change in how our Silverset park is being
used. 10 years or more ago the park was widely used for soccer practices in August
and September and in the spring the softball teams would come to the ball field to
practice regularly, with a game or two played. As our city has aged the park has less
and less youngsters visiting the park and more adults out for their exercise. The ball
field is rarely being used, and if it is being used it is the infield only. This is a huge
piece of property being maintained for only a few to use it.
Parks should meet the needs of its citizens, especially those that live near it and use
it daily. Silverset Park does a good job of meeting the needs of the toddlers and
young parents with the awesome tot lot, the awesome exercise path meets the
needs of many citizens that come to get their exercise, the large open field allows for
many to recreate in many different ways, the basketball court meets the needs of
those that love to play basketball or shoot a few hoops. As we visit our park and talk
to the visitors we have found that there is a large group of people that would love to
be able to recreate in an off leash zone with their dog. As a group of neighbors we
would like to share the park with the other groups that have had their needs met
and be able to find a reasonable solution to meeting the needs of the responsible dog
owner that wishes to recreate with their well behaved dog off leash.
Portland, Oregon, Santee and Encinitas are 3 cities that have off leash areas in their
parks. They have many years experience in conducting and managing these zones
in their parks. Portland has over 30 parks and Santee and Encinitas have 3 parks
and a trail in Encinitas. Their off leash areas are models that we could explore.
6 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
The committee for this request has been working very hard to talk to people. We
started by gathering surveys from visitors to give us info on their feelings about an
off leash zone in our park. Then we went to every home surrounding the park within
a 500 foot zone to get signatures stating that they would be okay with an off leash
time and area in the park. We visited 56 homes, 3 homes were not in support, 5 did
not respond and 47 homes were in support. We have continued gathering petitions
from neighbors and have over 150 recent petitions signed. I would like to submit
these forms at this time.
In conclusion, we are here tonight to ask that you consider our request for an off
leash dog and people zone at Silverset park. We are willing to help with research,
funding, education, and management of the area. We sincerely hope that you
consider any alternative that will meet the needs of what is a growing group of
people that would like to use their park daily and some times twice daily to recreate
with their dogs off leash. You have a very willing group of responsible citizens to
give it a test in our city.
Thank you for giving us your time to listen to our request. Thank you Councilman
Grosch for putting the memo on the Poway City Council docket requesting study of
an off leash recreation zone for dogs at Silverset park.
7 of 7 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
12773 Treeridge Terrace
Poway CA 92064
October 14, 2014
Poway City Council
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway CA 92064
Re: Silverset Park, item 5.1
October 21, 2014 Council meeting
Honorable Mayor and Council,
I submit this letter to register my opposition to the staff recommendation to allow off -leash dogs at
Silverset Park. My specific objections are:
1. Allowing off -leash dogs at Silverset Park will generate additional park users, many more than the
current use.
2. Allowing off -leash dogs at Silverset Park will generate additional vehicular traffic, as more park users
will come from outside of the current Rancho Arbolitos neighborhood.
3. Allowing more dogs would equate to a fundamental change in use from a neighborhood type park, to
a community park.
4. We already have a community park in Poway with adequate space for off -leash dogs, located two
miles from Silverset Park.
S. Silverset Park should not be burdened with this off -leash designation, when there are many other
parks within the community to provide a more equitable distribution of off -leash uses.
6. The City Council should not ignore the findings (twice) of their own appointed Parks and Recreation
Committee to reject a proposed off4eash use at Silverset Park.
7. The City Council would be rewarding those who have openly violated the clearly posted no off -ieash
pet signs and the city municipal ordinance prohibiting off leash dogs.
8. Off -leash users will bring their dogs off -leash from outside the park into the designated areas. This is
unenforceable and will create a series of potentially dangerous conditions.
9. The City of Poway does not clean up park dog waste, and neither do many of the pet owners who
currently use the park.
10. The proposal will lead to potential injury from off -leash dogs attacking other dogs and humans
11. The City will be named in lawsuits involving off -leash dogs. While the City may not have liability,
there is a cost of defense. Has this cost been factored in to the cost of this proposal?
1 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
12. Residents will arm themselves with pepper spray to defend against aggressive off -leash dogs. This
will end badly from someone.
13. Environmental issues
a) Allowing dogs off -leash will generate additional dog waste, both liquid and solid. Both liquid and solid
dog waste are considered source points for environmental contamination.
b) On September 12, 1990, the City Council adopted Negative Declaration 90 -15 (environmental review)
for Silverset Park when the park was under consideration for development. The Negative Declaration
addressed environmental considerations based on the proposed use of the Park. The Negative
Declaration did not address the potential level of traffic and /or dog waste that would be the result of
having an off -leash dog park open to the public compared to a neighborhood park precluding off -leash
uses. Should the Council approve the off -leash proposal, what level of additional environmental review
will be required?
c) I requested that the city provide an estimate of the cost of preparing the environmental review
should the Council approve this action. No response to my question has been included in the staff
report.
d) The cost of defending a CECIA challenge will be significant Can the city provide an estimate of that
cost?
e) A temporary change in use is still a change in use. Environmental review is still required. A change in
the municipal ordinance is still required.
f) Attached please find an example of the environmental review process used by the City of Santa
Barbara when consideringthe environmental impacts associated with an off -leash dog park. It is not a
simple nor inexpensive process to undertake.
g) On July 15, 2014,1 brought to the Council and again reference the case of Lighthouse Field Beach
Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz et al. which requires environmental review for the change of use to an off-
leash dog park.
in summary, I urge the City to take no further action on a proposed off -leash dog park at Silverset Park.
Respectfully submitted,
David Narevsky
cc: Attachment
2 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item #_5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Off- -Leash Dog Park Locations Saidy DEIR
Section 1.0 LNTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential environmental effects
associated with: (1) implementation of the Douglas Family Preserve Management Plan
( DFPMP or Plan), and (2) the designation of up to three locations around the City for off -
leash dog use: Douglas Family Preserve (DFP), Hale Park, and Shoreline Beach Area
(Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study). These two components constitute the project to
be analyzed in this EIR. This section: (a) describes the purpose of and legal authority for
preparing the EIR; (b) provides a brief history of the project; (c) describes the general
scope and content of the EIR; (d) lists EIR lead, responsible and trustee agencies; and (e)
provides an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
environmental review process. The DFPMP and the Off -Leash Dog Park Locations are
described in Section 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
1.1 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
The proposed project requires discretionary approvals from the City of Santa Barbara.
Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121
of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational
document that:
..,will inform public agency decision- makers and the pudic generally of the
significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize
the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project...
This report is to serve as an information document for the public and City of Santa
Barbara decision - makers. The environmental review process will culminate with
Planning Commission. and City Council hearings, respectively, to consider certification of
a Final EIR, and to consider whether to approve the DFPMP and approve the DFP, Hale
Park and/or Shoreline Beach Area sites for oft -leash dog use.
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
On August 24, 1999, the City Council declared the Draft Douglas Family Preserve
Management Plan and the Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study as projects for
environmental review. Crawford Multari Clark & Mohr (CMCM) was hired by the City
to assist the Douglas Family Preserve Advisory Committee in the development of the
DFPMP for the City Parks and Recreation Department. The Advisory Committee met for
over two years (July 1997 to November 1999) to develop the DFPMP, which was
completed in November 1999. A number of public meetings were held in 1999,
culminating in recommended changes to the Plan by the Advisory Committee, the Park
and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The
Page 1 -1
3 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Oil Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
primary focus of the Plan is to maintain the natural qualities of the site and to continue
and enhance public access to the site.
In 1997, a joint City /County Dog Committee, composed of City and County Park &
Recreation Commission members, dog interest groups and animal control groups, and
City and County staff, recommended Hale Park and an area of Shoreline Beach as
potential dog off -leash park sites, as well as the Douglas Family Preserve. Hale Park was
selected, as it is currently used for dog recreation, and since the DFP is located near the
western edge of the City limits, designation of Hale Park would provide an additional
facility on the east side of the City. The Eucalyptus Hill Homeowners' Association
indicated that it would be amenable to the off -leash dog use at Hale Park providing that
its members would be kept informed of the City-approved dog use regulations. The City
Council recommended that one beach location be studied. Since the beach area from the
Shoreline Park stairs to the western City boundary is currently used for dog recreation, it
was determined that this location should be evaluated for off -leash dog use.
1.3 EIR SCOPE ANID CONTENT
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Barbara prepared an
Initial Study for the Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study on October 15, 2000, and an
Initial Study for the DFPMP on November 17, 2000. Notices of Preparation (NOP) for
the DFPMP Draft EIR and the Off -Leash Dog Park Locations EIR were released on
December 1, 2000. The Initial Studies and NOPs were distributed for review by affected
agencies and the public on December 4, 2000. The DFPMP Initial Study concluded that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and further study in an EIR
was required for issues related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources,
geophysical resources, and water environment. The Initial Study for the Off -Leash Dog
Park Locations Study determined that significant impacts could occur in the following
environmental issue areas for which further analysis in an EIR would be required:
aesthetics, biological resources, traffic and parking, and water.
Public Scoping Hearings for preparation of both EIRs were held on December 14, 2001.
At that time, additional concerns were raised about the project, needing to be analyzed in
the EIR. These included: (1) safety concerns related to dog use of the sites; (2) impacts
of dog feces left at the sites, affecting primarily air and water quality; and (3) traffic and
parking.
Early in 2002, pursuant to CEQA (Section 15063(c)), the City considered how the
projects could be modified, so that adverse impacts would be mitigated before an EIR is
prepared. This would enable the projects to qualify for Negative Declarations. On July
17, 2001, the City Council approved a series of project description changes, including
eliminating certain project components and adding policies to the DFPMP (refer to
Section 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT), as well as revising the list of project alternatives to
be considered, moving forward with a series of technical studies to determine potential
impacts and mitigation measures for the DFPMP and the other off-leash dog park
locations sites, and extending the boundaries of the beach site.
Page 1 -2
4 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Off-Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section 1.0 MTRODUCTION
The technical studies prepared were either related to the environmental issue areas that
the Initial Studies had indicated may have potentially significant effects, or to issues
identified during the public review of the Initial Studies or during the scoping hearing for
the EIRs that are not addressed in the Initial Studies. The technical studies addressed
water quality, air quality, biology, traffic and parking, and safety, all related to dog use
for each of the three sites: DFP, Hale Park and the Shoreline Beach Area. Additionally, a
geotechnical study was conducted for the DFP site. The beach area, which originally
encompassed the area between Arroyo Burro Creek and the Shoreline Park stairs, was
extended to an approximately 3 -mile stretch total from the westernmost Shoreline Park
staircase to the western City limits.
Two revised Initial Studies were prepared on September 24 and 25, 2002. The Initial
Studies incorporate much of the content, including impact analysis and mitigation
measures, of the earlier Initial Studies. However, they also include new information
based on the City Council approved (July 17, 2000) changes to the project and the most
recent set of dog use alternatives (refer to Section 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT).
Comments from the EIR scoping hearings and public review of the original Initial
Studies were not incorporated into the revised Initial Studies, but are addressed in this
EIR.
The revised DFPMP Initial Study (IS) determined that significant impacts could occur in
six environmental issue areas: (1) air quality; (2) biological resources; (3) geophysical;
(4) safety; (5) transportation/ circulation; and (6) water environment, and states that an
EIR shall be prepared. The revised Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Initial Study states
that an EIR should be prepared, based on the significant impacts that could occur in the
following issue areas: (1) air quality, (2) biological resources, (3) safety, (4)
transportation/circulation, and (5) water environment. Therefore, the EIR discusses only
those issues listed above, which were found to have potentially significant impacts. The
NOPs and revised Initial Studies and distribution list are contained in Appendix A and
Appendix B (included in this document).
For the most part, mitigation measures for issues discussed in the Initial Studies would be
incorporated into the project as policy changes, along with the mitigation measures
identified in this EIR. However, where further analysis in the EIR indicates that another
measure is more appropriate than that listed in the Initial Study, the Initial Study measure
is superceded. The relevant mitigation measures in the Initial Studies and those
mitigation measures contained in this EIR, including those required and recommended,
are listed in Section 9.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(MMRP). A summary of the issues brought forward from the Initial Studies and to be
studied in this El are listed below in Table 1.3 -1. Some of the issues of concern were
brought up at the EIR scoping hearing or during the public comment period on the
NOP/Initial Studies, and are listed as such in the table.
Page 1 -3
5 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
x
0
d
U
X
ap
M
0 �
0
o
.-q
C
a�
A
6 of 11
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
y
� 2
H C3
w
G
�dr
4
y
W
r
_
.fin Oy
E
%•
�y
:
�
C
x
GCo�
f
a)
Cd
H
y O
O >�
Cd
vi
•p
O
U��
O y
i
aki �U]
VJ
O yp
v�
h
CQ .�
>
-r
H
'C
O C
o
V�
ACC
CA
° °°�y'
'
y
W
o !
y Gn
«+ E
vi an .
ao
A
3 o a
W
y
N h y
is t O
p O
y
G � .r• 61
C C �'
�
N
O
O
y .A
N
•.U-i y
y
N
U
U
N
r U a.•
zA
°s.'.c °v
w'3 =vbzw
z
d
L
d
CJ
�
E
_
N
�
U
C
O
O
�Q¢
Utz
2a°,ax
i
October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
a
,V-
N
�
§
/
�
ZE
\�
k
\z
\\
7 �
o�
�
■
-
§
a
ƒ
k
2
2
k
®
e G
2-E
E f �
E
=
M
§
t
kk
M
k
k •� k
$
> § @
c k
§
§
)
-
�
v
rA
2
k
§
k
�
2
2
k
.
�
k
§
�
�
7 of 11
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
October 21, 2014 Item # 51
%
£
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 5, 2002, City Council approved moving forward with the environmental
analysis of both projects in an EIR. Because many of the issues in the DFPMP and the
Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study are the same and involve the same sites, City staff
determined that a single EIR would be most efficient.
As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR focuses on potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the Initial Studies and the scoping process. In
addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, where
possible, that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects.
In preparing the EIR, pertinent City policies and guidelines, existing EIRs and other
planning reports and studies prepared by the City and consultants were utilized. A full
reference list is contained in Section 8.0 REFERENCES, PERSONS CONTACTED,
AND REPORT PREPARERS.
Section 7.0 ALTERNATIVES of this EIR was prepared in accordance with the State
CEQA Guidelines, and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing
significant adverse effects associated with the project, while feasibly attaining most of the
basic objectives of the project. In addition, the EIR discusses and selects the
"environmentally superior" alternative from the alternatives assessed.
The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of
CEQA and applicable court decisions. The State CEQA Guidelines provide the standard
of adequacy on which this document is based. Specifically, the Guidelines state:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the
sufficiency of an EIR is to he reviewed In light of what is reasonably feasible.
Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR
should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts
have looked not for perfection, but far adequacy, completeness, and a good faith
effort at f ell disclosure. (Section 15151).
1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The State CEQA Guidelines require identification of "lead," "responsible" and "trustee"
agencies for the project. The City of Santa Barbara is the lead agency for the project
because it has principal responsibility for approving the project.
A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has
discretionary approval over the proposed project. Responsible agencies that may need to
approve or issue permits for the various individual projects called for in the DFPMP
include: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the
Page 1 -b
8 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section lA INTRODUCTION
California Department of Fish and Game; the California Coastal Commission; and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The State Lands Commission is also a
responsible agency. Because the California Coastal Conservancy funded preparation of
the Plan, it must approve the DFPMP, and so is considered a responsible agency. There
are no responsible agencies for the off -leash dog use component of the project.
A trustee agency is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources
affected by a project. The trustee agencies for the proposed project are the Air Resources
Board, the Air Pollution Control District, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the California Coastal Commission.
In addition, the County of Santa Barbara is an agency that may have an interest in the
project. A portion of the Arroyo Burro County Beach Park is within the boundaries of the
Shoreline Beach Area. The project may include changing the Santa Barbara Municipal
Code (SBMC) to make it possible for unleashed dogs to use the County land, since it is
within City limits. County approval of off -leash dog use on County property is not
necessary for the project as a whole to be approved. However, the County has ultimate
discretion regarding whether to allow off-leash dogs on the Arroyo Burro Beach County
Park portion of the Shoreline Beach Area.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The major steps in the environmental review process, as required under CEQA, are
summarized below. The steps are presented in sequential order.
Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency
files an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope from the State Clearinghouse (i.e., State
agencies), other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing.
The NOP is posted in the County Clerk's office for 30 days. The NOP is typically
accompanied by an Initial Study; the Initial Study identifies the issue areas for which the
proposed project could potentially create significant environmental impacts. A scoping
meeting to solicit public input on the issues to be addressed in the EIR is required by the
City of Santa Barbara. The NOPs for both projects were released on December 4, 2000,
and a scoping hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 14, 2001.
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Prepared. The DEIR contains: (1) table of
contents or index; (2) summary; (3) project description; (4) environmental setting; (5)
discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth - inducing and
unavoidable impacts); (b) a discussion of alternatives; (7) mitigation measures; and (8)
discussion of irreversible changes.
Notice of Completion/Public Review. A lead agency files a Notice of Completion with
the State Clearinghouse when it completes a DEIR. The lead agency also places a Notice
of Availability in the County Clerk's office for 30-45 days and sends a copy of the Notice
to anyone who has requested receipt of the Notice in writing. Additionally, public notice
of the DEIR availability is given through the following procedures: (a) publication in a
Page 1 -7
9 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPMP and Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
newspaper of general circulation; and (b) direct mailing to owners and occupants of
surrounding properties. The lead agency solicits public comment and responds in writing
to all written comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253).
The minimum public review period for a DEIR is 30 days. When a DEIR is sent to the
State Clearinghouse for review, as in this case, the public review period must be 45 days
unless the Clearinghouse approves a shorter period. Because this project is in the Coastal
Zone, the EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review.
Final EIR (FEIR). A FEIR includes: (1) the DEIR; (2) copies of comments received
during the public review; (3) list of persons and entities commenting; and (4) responses to
all written comments on the DEIR.
Certification of FEIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency
must certify that: (1) the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) the
FEIR was presented to the decision - making body of the lead agency; and the decision -
making body reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR prior to approving a
project; and (3) the FEIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: (1) disapprove a project because of
its significant environmental effects; (2) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid
significant environmental effects; or (3) approve a project despite its significant effects, if
the proper findings and, if necessary, a statement of overriding considerations, are
adopted.
FindingslStatement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the
project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on
substantial evidence, that either: (1) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially
reduce the magnitude of the impact; (2) changes to the project are within another
agency's jurisdiction and such changes have been or should be adopted; or (3) specific
economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project
alternatives infeasible. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant
environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations
that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's
decision. There are some mitigation measures called for in this EIR that may be
infeasible for various reasons, such as available staffing levels or difficulty in enforcing
regulations. The Parks & Recreation Department, along with the City Council, would
need to determine the feasibility of the measures. If necessary, the City Council may
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on
significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program
for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to
mitigate significant effects.
Notice of Determination. An agency files a Notice of Determination after deciding to
approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15094).
Page 1 -8
10 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
DFPfv P and Off -Leash Dog Park Locations Study DEIR
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
A local agency files the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice is posted for 30 days
and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30 -day
statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges.
Page 1 -9
11 of 11 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Honorable Mayor and Council,
I would like to share some observations with you on the issue of allowing off -leash dogs at Silverset
Park. The proponents of this plan claim that it promotes community and neighborliness. Yet since I
have become one of "the opposition" and have been circulating a petition, I have had rude comments
directed at me, been given the cold shoulder by others who used to exchange pleasantries as we passed
each other at the park, and those who talk to me who appear to be signing my petition have been
harassed. So much for promoting neighborliness!
There were also various claims made about the amount of dog waste at Silverset Park. So I took it upon
myself to keep a journal of what I saw as I was walking on the track every day. Of the 67 days that I
walked, I saw dog waste either on the. path itself or on the grass by the path on 52 of those days. This is
78% of the days, which is a number that even surprised me. That means that 3 out of every 4 days there
was dog waste visible from the path. And this is when dogs are on -leash and right next to their owners.
I can only imagine what will happen when dogs can be off - leash.
Please consider these points and do not allow Silverset Park to become an off -leash dog park.
Thank you.
Gail Narevsky
Attachments: Petition, Journal
1 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
4
Print yo u r Name C .
� C, L
Signature 4
L
Address, city >
Date
Print your Name C t." v
Signature
1
Address, city _1 ``� f "' %'> �e r l "1 ,
Date 7 /72,
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city__..z
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Date
.t`11:'
r, r 1-'Li ((.>
C
e kT v
2 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
0=
Date
Ae ' r- /1'40'm / -,-!, "
Print your Name - J�IIVL-- f1loCHLENF14 fl
C.q=.
Address, city 1-36'5-7 7-�Ittt"qpa L k. f-6 t-c"k Y Cf
Date 0 � / -2- � / -2-0 (
Print your Name C" C
Address, city,
Print your Name
Signatures.
Address, city LL", i I � _f t-i ai , J /1 0/-
Date
( ' :6 1/
3 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your
Signature
Address,, citv.,l
D ate 'rl /'
Print your Name L')L
Signature
Address, city
Date
C--1
PrintyourName-
Signature J-0
----
Address, city_( 3 c)�-s i n L)
Date �
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Date
v,
4 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
ME
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city %//°
Date --7/ / )- s- / //,-I
Print your Name
Signature
1110iIIII
Address, city V\ DIV-
Print your Name
J
Signature
Address, city- /3 /,,j- 7-t- / '-, -)1 09 A A
Date a Ll 9 /'
5 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your Name -! )C,>.-4
Signature
Address, city
Date 7
.L
Print your Name - �-f
-tic��-
Signature
Address, city 3 e4 (—"/j �T)
Date
Print your
Signature
Address,
Name rS
city C"
Date "/- -3 /- / c/
Print your Name-r-
Signature
Address, city
Date
6 of 17
October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your Name MuA 0C
Address, city Ot--' � - V
6'Vk 1 "4 A'l 4
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address, c i t y 1 I q A, 2 C-6
Date
Print your
Signature
Address, c
Date "'i� — ( — ( 4-�
Print your Name
Signature
Address, c
7-
11 j
Date
7 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations,of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your
Signature
Date
Print your Name -[W ii
Signature
Address, city
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Am
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Date
W7,
8 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
C/
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Date —
A "
Print your Name C Uv
Signature
2
Address, cltyL -' -' , , �,�V 67
Date
7,rint your Name
Signature
Address, city,
9 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, and on-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your
Signature
Address, c
Date
I
Print your Name <- CkQ ...Kcc vr-
Al-
Signature k )L
Address, city
0 C r
Date ILI
Print your Name r
Signature
Address, city t2.C7Li\
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city L)
Date
10 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
I
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We,, the undersigned, support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Sliverset Park. In this way, adults, children, andon-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your Name
Signature k
Address, city
Date
Print your Name
Signature 4 ------ 1-1,1,11, k
Address, city',
Date
Print your Name. C;
Signature
Address, city i
Date h
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city
Date I
11 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city— ?
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address,. city
Date
Print your Name
Signature :1
Address, city,
12 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
We, the undersigned., support the existing posted rules and
regulations of Silverset Park. In this way, adults, children, ancton-
leash dogs can all share in the enjoyment of the Park. We further
support enforcement of the existing posted rules.
Print your J V 'C I
Name
– _-X"�
Signature
Address, city,
mw�
Date 10L � ILLDI-::�
Print your Names _g v I
Signature
Address, city—
Date
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city_, L,796,1
Date / 6!11 �-// L/
Print your Name
Signature
Address, city,
Date
II
f2 e
a
13 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Journal by Gail Narevsky - SlIverset Park
This is a journal I started keeping when the issue of allowing lowing off-leash dogs at Silverset
Park first came up. Both sides made different claims as to the amount of dog waste and
off-leash dogs at the park. Obviously, these are my observations and are only what I
saw on the various dates.
I collected data on 67 different days. I only walked on the path and recorded those
piles that could clearly be seen while on the path. Of those 67 days, dog waste was on
the path or could be seen from the path on 52 days, which is 78% of the days. You
should also notice that the string of no dog waste days is clustered around the
September 4th neighborhood meeting to discuss the issue of allowing off-leash dogs at
the park. And this substantial amount of dog waste is what is happening with dogs
having to be on leashes and owners in control of their pets.
There were not as many sightings of off-leash dogs as I usually walked in the morning,
and this is a problem later in the day. During this time, I walked 13 evenings, and saw
off-leash dogs on 5 of those evenings, which is 38% of the time. And all of these walks
and sightings were in July and August.
Journal Entries
KEY: Red is for poop, blUe i,, for off-le-,',ish dogs, purple is for ball field or
open field use.
Wed., July 16: 7:15arn: 15 people, 5 dogs on,., dewdk by So% rsf.,t entrance 8:05 pm: 11
people, 2 dogs,
Thurs., July 17: 7:15arn: 4 people, 2 dogs. S','Ttne poop by e.mrancc'! -- --6cxed off sidewalk.
Fri., July 18: 7:05arn: 5 people, 1 dog. Sar-,,p poop by enlra.nre, poolp by hottorn of s*,.'eps just off pith.
7:25pm: 33 people, 4 dogs.
Sat., July 19: 6:45am: 9 people, 3 dogs. Szi—ne 2 ipoi,-, ),11
Mon., July 21: 7:12arn: 15 people, 4 dogs. Sarno 2 8:20pm: 10 people, ,�� do-; off ie.-,ash tcowrflr
2 d ac h. nian wit r, -'- o? inxi 0Cr')(')V' I beet wklO S" 'P' :H11r.
Tues., July 22: 7:05arn: 4 people, 2 dogs. Sa=ie 3
Wed., July 23: 7:30arn: 10 people, 2 dogs. All ¢�Nclop sic- 3,ned up bull, 7:20prn 28
people, including 10 playing ball on ball field; 2 dogs.
Thurs., July 24: 6:58arn: 10 people, 6 dogs, Sarnoe poop by enirance.
Fri., July 25: 7:00arn: 10 people, 3 dogs. Sarr--O no(:)p by emt�wce. 7:35pm: 30 people, 2 ck-)r
Sat., July 26: 6:55arn: 6 people, 3 dogs. PCICIP Uy entfanc�:'
14 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Sun., July 27: 7:10pm: 11 people, i (,, f
Mon., July 28: 6:50am: 5 people, 2 dogs ': >FMDC 7:45pm: 24 people, 3 dogs on-
leash,
Tues., July 29: 6:50am: 3 people, 1 dog 7:45pm: 10 people, 2dogs on-
leash,
Wed., July 30: 6:55am., 9 people, 4 dogs,
Thurs., July 31: 7:20am: 10 people, 4 dogs poo-' f ; '�th bv c0c by Si1v-'-TrSf"1
trs =W 7:40pm: 45+ people, ldog. 28 people on the ball heid,
Fri., Aug. 1: 7:00am: 11 people, 3 dogs. f)C
7:45pm: 45+ people, 2 dogs,
12 peop!e oklymg volleyl-all or open
Sat., Aug. 2: 6:55am: 10 people, 4 dogs
Mon., Aug. 4: 6:55am: 8 people, 3 dogs.
Tues., Aug. 5: 6:55am: 4 people, 2 dogs. S,� ,,z 7:40pm: 25 people, 2 dogs.
Wed., Aug. 6: 6:55am: 6 people, 1 dog, saUle
Thurs., Aug, 7: 6:40am: 5 people, 1 dog.
7zj, C""
Fri., Aug. 8: 6:35am: 5 people, 1 dog. 'A)up rv,. tl c' i r k d
Mon,, Aug. 11: 6 people, 2 dogs, 8:10pm: 15 people, 5 dogs.
Tues., Aug. 12: 6:40am: 4 people, 1 dog, pOCP
Wed., Aug 13: 7:10am: 10 people, 3 dogs.
Thurs,, Aug. 14: 7:00am: 5 people, ldog. "rz, zh rcl t_-,
'D
Fri,, Aug. 15: 6:25am: 6 people, 1 dog.
ert',. 8:00pm: 11 people, 1 dog.
Sat., Aug. 16: 7:20am: 9 people, 3 dogs, Scirnwl 2'� tj'�=�j
Sun,, Aug. 17: 7:30 am: 7 people, 1 dog. 'Same Pc)c;', i r d r,
Mon., Aug, 18: 6:55am: 14 people, 3 dogs, by
Tues., Aug. 19: 6:35am: 8 people, 1 dog. 7:35pm: 12 people,
'a
U
15 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
ADQITIONAL MATERIAL
Wed., Aug. 20: 7:00arn: 7 people, 1 dog. 0g ante
Thurs., Aug, 21: 6:40arn; 3 people, 1 dog. NO POOP.
Fri., Aug. 22: 7:15arn: 8 people, 3 dogs, "cjrp pzi�h
Sat., Aug. 23: 6:50am: 7 people, 3 dogs. NO POOP.
Sun., Aug. 24: 7:00arn: 5 people — including 2 sleeping on the ball field, no dogs. NO POOP,
Mon., Aug. 25: 7:20arn: 18 people, 5 dogs. NO POOP.
Tues., Aug, 26: 7:00am: 10 people, 3 dogs, NO POOP.
Wed., Aug, 27: 7:05arn: IS people, 2 dogs. NO POOP.
Tues., Aug. 28: 6:40arn: 8 people, no dogs. NO POOP.
Fri., Aug, 29: 6:30arn: 5 people, 2 dogs. NO POOP.
Wed., Sept. 3: 6:25arn: 5 people, I dog. Poop (
Thum, Sept. 4: 6:25arn: 3 people, 1 dog. NO POOP,
Fri., Sept, 5: 7.05arn: 15 people, 4 dogs. NO POOP.
Sun., Sept. 7: 7:45arn: 6 people, 1 dog. - , :' " " " "I �jj
"'j 1 � U "I ,
Mon., Sept, 8: 6:50arn: 9 people, 3 dogs. NO POOP.
Tues,, Sept. 9: 7:10arn: 6 people, 3 dogs. NO POOP,
Thurs., Sept. 11: 6:55arn: 5 people, no dogs. NO POOP,
Fri,, Sept. 12: 6:40arn: 6 people, 2 dogs. NO POOP.
Sat., Sept. 11 6:45arn: 6 people, 1 dog. P x,p,*�
Sun., Sept. 14: 7:25arn: 9 people, no dogs. Poop by
Mon., Sept. 15: 7:10arn: 10 people, 3 dogs.
Tues., Sept. 16: 6:45arn: 10 people, 4 dogs. fr-n�
Wed., Sept. 17: 6:55arn: 8 people, 3 dogs. hN 'J b
P
Thurs., Sept 18: 6:30arn: 5 people, 3 dogs. Poop
Fri., Sept. 19: 6:45arn: 7 people, 3 dogs, Pooplb,, n'-'!� 01: ' S , OOP on
Sat., Sept. 20: 6:45arn: 8 people, no dogs.
b first baisf,',
hy
Sun., Sept, 21: 7:35arn: 9 people, I dog. "'h s'j 'j"
Mon,, Sept, 22: 6:45arn: 4 people, 1 dog.
b�
16 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1
U0109101,41"TA Wir—AVII[C"TA
Tues., Sept. 23: 6:50arn: 4 people, 2 dogs.
hv
DOC"O
Wed., Sept. 24: 6:50arn: 4 people, 1 dog.
Thurs., Sept. 25: 6:45arn: 10 people, 4 dogs. i,'oor,
Tues,, Sept. 30: 7,25am: 8 people, 2 dogs. MO POOP.
Thurs. Oct. 2: 7:15arn: 10 people, 5 dogs. , �: � �'
11 —w -CQ
Fri., Oct. 3: 7:05am: 13 people, 3 dogs. wst t,,:�ff
Sat., Oct. 4: 6:40arn: 6 people, 2 dogs, P2--,'-,,,,��. 01 p8�rs sl, 'N"WOOW v,'
Mon., Oct, 6: 6:45arn: 4 people, I dog, ' -'C"P iL", by o-,v vak,
Tues., Oct. 7: 8:00arn: 5 people, 2 dogs.
f
Wed., Oct. 8: 7:00arn: 7 people, no dogs. Sarfir, 0y ba 5 k e
Cow'!
Thurs., Oct. 9: 6:45arn: 4 people, 1 dog.
Fri., Oct, 10: 7:45arn: 11 people, 1 dog.
OV
17 of 17 October 21, 2014 Item # 5.1