The URL can be used to link to this page

20120403 Late Correspondencesnit. 0271 Vr4nt RECEIVED FROM INVIAP.11, bQV k - AND MADE A PART OF *1�1,1,CORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OFOFFICE OF THCLERK VKant Soft l 226 ,4 t \ yw+ w Office Saandi• Soden S -t* r X7 - - - flil�ill► .. From- David Gakenheimer <dgakenheimer@gmail.com> Subject: Another Letter to City on Dog Beach Date- April 1, 2012 1:24:56 PM PDT To: Lynn Doran <lynnsky 9 earthlink. net> 1 Attachment, 497 KB Lynn, Attached is a letter the Board is submitting to the City Council for the meeting next Tuesday night. We propose some changes, but still support allowing dogs on the beach. hope you go to the meeting. Please take copies of the Board's letter with you and give it to the Council if you speak. That way we make sure they see it. Unfortunately I can not go. Thanks David Dr. David C. Gakenheimer dgakenheimerftmail.com 310-913-3703 1. Limit the number of cars that can park on the Trump property to those specific parking lots designated for public parking (one by the Club House and one on the eastern edge of the golf course). Recently cars have COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR TRACT 16540 Portuguese Bend Club East p z m 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South z m Rancho Palos Verdes, Califomia 90275 n 0 > < mmv n m n W Mayor and City Council April 1, 2012. m .mi a O Om City of Rancho Palos Verdes � 3og4o Hawthorne Blvd. M O Rancho Palos Verdes, CA go27 m T" n M Re: Off --Leash Dog Use at RPV Beach below Trump Golf Course -.,m Dear Mayor and City Council: m(T1x Based on feedback from various members of the community, the Board of Directors of the Community Association m a for Tract 1654o recommends changes in the arrangements for allowing dogs off -leash on the beach below the 4 Trump National Golf Course. In particular we recommend the following: 1. Limit the number of cars that can park on the Trump property to those specific parking lots designated for public parking (one by the Club House and one on the eastern edge of the golf course). Recently cars have parked along the roads entering the Trump Golf Course (Ocean Trails Drive and La Rotonda Drive). This enables many more people to access the beach. We recommend the roads have no parking signs posted (or parking by permit only, with the permits issued by the Trump Organization for special events). When the parking lots fill, visitors will have to leave. This will help limit the number of people (and dogs) on the beach at any one time. 2. Investigate the impact of an increase in the number of dogs on the marine life in the tide pools. The tide pools are an "RPV treasure and should be fully protected. Only a marine biologist is qualified to evaluate the long term risk to the tide pools associated with allowing more dogs on the beach. Heretofore, this has not been a problem or issue, but the number of dogs may make a difference, Also, signs should be posted at the trail heads that the tide pools are environmentally sensitive and protected, and visitors should not enter them, nor allow their dogs to enter them, nor remove or handle any of the marine life in them and are subject to fines if they do so. 3. If needed to protect the tide pools and for the protection of people from dog attacks, require all dogs to be on a leash even on the beach. That should not be a major loss for the dog owners who are otherwise accustom to having their dogs on a leash in public almost everywhere. 4. To further prevent the beach from being overrun with dogs, the City could consider requiring dog owners to get a license from the City for walking their dog on the beach. The City could control the number of licenses being issued and could re -issue them annually to allow different people a chance to get a license. There could be a charge for the license giving the City a revenue source for managing the beach. This would tend to favor local residents who should have priority over use of the beach. 5. Designate the beach as a "wilderness beach" in all postings about it with the idea that people should be notified that it has a difficult access, limited facilities {i.e., no bathrooms on the beach), and limited access by emergency responders, like life guards, police, paramedics and firemen). The Tract i654o Board still believes the presence of dogs and dog owners on the beach increases security for our homes. This beach has been used for many years by dog owners without any adverse problems. We have not heard any complaints until recently when the City took over ownership of the beach and opened up the discussion as to whether un --leashed dogs should be allowed on the beach. We strongly believe it is best to leave well enough alone, BUT there needs to be a well thought out plan with limitations and proper warning signs. Thus, the undersigned recommend further in Ligation and planning for continuing to allow dogs on this new city beach. Robert Voll, President -Stephen Stevorart, Vice President David Gakenheinier, CFO LI MRL RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 3, 2012 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached -are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Late Correspondence from the January 24, 2012 and February 14, 2012 Planning Commission Meetings; Emails from Lynn Swank; Eva Cicoria 3 Email from Douglas Stern 3 FOR Letter from Janos and Julia Bakos; Emails from: Katayoun Shariatnejad; Greg Ewanizky; Hale Family; Kristine Castro Twomey; Lily Wahl; Kim Family; Larry Wahl; Donna Baranowski; Melissa Griswold; Georja Umano 3 AGAINST Email exchange between Susan Addleman and Maureen Megowan; Emails from: Bob and Donna Lauck; Helen Chen; Bill and Marty Foster; Carol Perestam; Donald Bell; Ann Strauch; Anne Hazard; Bryce Lowe -White; Susanne Johnson; Valerie Blitz and Murray Blitz 4 Emails from: Ray Van Dinther; Barbara Hartl; Ralph Ortolano Jr. Respectfully submitted, &,� mah-, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted through Monday, April 2, 2012**. MAGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendas120120403 additions revisions to agenda.doc LATE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE JANUARY 24, 2012 AND FEBRUARY 14, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS 0 a Page 1 of I Leza Mikhail From: L. Bilski [ldb910@!ntergate.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:55 PM To: pc@rpv.com Cc: lezam@rpv.com; carlam@rpv.com Subject: P.C. 1/24 Ancillary Residential Zone Text Amendment Importance: High Jan. 23, 2012 To RPV Planning Commission Chair Tomblin and all Commission members: Please deny this item. If the city officials want such a sweeping change to the city's zoning for all commercial areas, then legal notice should have been sent to ALL residents, not just a few. This is not the proper procedure for the proposal. The Finding cannot be made that this would comply with the General Plan. It would change the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Map and text.. Amending the G.P. requires a special procedure and should not be attempted with a code amendment and then a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the Development Code is to implement the RPV General Plan and Zoning, not vice versa. The General Plan should not be changed to implement the city's Development Code! Although mixed-use zoning may be good in some cities, it would not be good for RPV in my opinion. The city is not obliged to remedy what may be a developer's mistake or the effects of the current economy. Please vote No and direct staff to draft a recommendation to deny this amendment. Thank you for all you do for RPV. Lenee .Bilski This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 4/3/2012 Page 1 of 2 L.eza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Ooelr@rpv.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: 'Leza Mikhail' Subject: FW: Ancillary Residential Code Amendment Item #1 From: Lynn Swank [mailto: lynn,swank@cox, net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2.012 12:16 PM To: pc@rpv,com Cc: Nicole Jules; TSC Subject: Ancillary Residential Code Amendment Item #1 Planning Commissioners: I looked at this agenda item and realize the word "transparency" so often bandied about by staff and elected officials does not apply to this agenda item. Transparency means that all residents should be notified of an agenda item that impacts the entire city. I realize that I was not given a personal notice of this change because I do not live within 500' of Golden Cove. And i did not receive the Peninsula News earlier this month with the public notice. Now the city proposes to implement a code amendment which will by applied city-wide and will affect all residents, even those who do not live within 500' of a commercial district. l use this shopping area almost daily. The city, for some reason, doesn't think all the residents need to know of a code amendment affecting them. This is wrong. Individual notice should have been given to all RPV residents when it affects their use of an establishment, even if they don't live within 500'. There is also something wrong when a commercial developer designs, builds, or remodels his property and then finds it contains "unusable" commercial space. He asks the city to remedy his mistake by imposing changes on all commercial districts in our city. He is asking me, a resident, to pay to "fix his mistake" by diverting staff time, City council time, and resident time to prepare his case for this change. I had always thought that a business owner took risks to make a profit and did everything he could to enhance his business, such as lowering fees for less desirable space, employing a marketing campaign, etc., in order to enhance his investment. If he can't lease the space then I believe that is his problem as a business owner. Instead, he is asking the city government and RPV residents to do his job for him. A mixed use (residential/commercial) was never planned for Golden Cove and I believe mistakenly changed for this one owner. Traffic and parking at the Golden Cove Center is the 800 Ib. gorilla that has not been addressed. Parking is still a horrendous problem at Golden Cove even with the departure of the animal hospital. At certain times during the day I cannot find a traffic place and have been forced to take my business elsewhere. As a former member of the Traffic and Safety Commission, many residents lodged complaints about the parking situation which the Commission could not address because Golden Cove is private property. Re -striping the lot did not correct the problem, and unfortunately the Planning Department has approved changes at Golden Cove recently and in the past without adequately addressing the issues posed by more vehicles. Access to Golden Cove from both PV Dr. West and Hawthorne Blvd, is a problem that was and is under review by the Traffic and Safety Commission (TSC). Have they been asked about the proposal to add residential units to Golden Cove and the subsequent need for more parking and access for Golden Cove residents? I could not find their comments in the material provided in the staff report. I feel strongly that the TSC should be consulted because the addition of an unknown number of residents and their guests creates other elements that should be considered by TSC difficulties at and surrounding Golden Cove. 4f3/2012 C� Page 2 of 2 Recommendation; Provide feedback to the City Council addressing these concerns and determine if this Zone Amendment is really needed. Are they trying to solve one business owner's problem by imposing a city-wide amendment for all commercial districts? Lynn Swank RPVResident 4/3/2U12 40 Leza Mikhail From/ Joel Rojas Doa|r@rpv.cnm] Sent Tuesday, January 24.2U121:25PK8 To: 'Leza Mikhail' Subject, FW: Ancillary Residentia|Zonelext/mendnent-PublicHearinQonJanuary 24, 2012 From: B]Gleghorn@ooLcom [maAto:BJGleohprn@ao.com] Sent: Tuesday, January Z4,2O121U:19AM Tm,pc@mv.mm Subject: Ancillary Residential Zone Text Amendment - Public Hearing on January 24, 2012 To: Chairman David Tomblin and all Members ofthe Planning Commission and cc: Joel Rojas and Lezo[NikhaU Re: Agenda Item 1:Ancillary Residential Zone Text Amendment — Public Hearing onJanuary 24.2O12 We would like to join Dena Friedson, Eva Cicmia and others who have written you regarding the subject Development Code amendment. VVebelieve such anamendment hainconsistent with the 1A75 General Plan and therefore with the requirements cf California Sate law, The amendment should, therefore, not beapproved. Barbara and George Gleghorn 28850 Crestridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes 310-377-2168 4/3/2012 Page 1 of I Leza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:15 AM To: 'Leza Mikhail' Subject: FW: Ancillary residential units on commercially zoned properties From: sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:46 PM To: pc@rpv.com Subject: Ancillary residential units on commercially zoned properties Gentlemen: While I am on the fence about the merits of the proposed changes to the zoning to allow ancillary residential units on commercially zoned property, I am opposed to the manner in which this proposed zoning change is being handled by staff. First. Council did not direct staff to initiate a Code Amendment. Council asked staff to get some information together, with no anticipated result one way or the other. The staff report suggests thtlt CounCil \i`anted a Code Amendment. It did not. Go back and watch the video of the meeting. I \vas there. Second, changes to the General flan need to be accomplished by giving all residents of the City notice and an opportunity to be heard. Only providing notice to owners of like zoned properties, and those lying within 500 feet of any potentially affected property, is how you handle a zoning change when the change is nevertheless in compliance with the general plan. The proposed changes are not in compliance with the general plan,and require a general plan amendment, not just a zoning change. Therefore, procedurally staff has failed to handle this matter according to law. and the recommendations of staff should be summarily dismissed. Third. 1 continue to be amazed at how our staff repeatedly fails to understand the concept which is codified in the CA statutes that zoning must be consistent with the general plan, not vice versa. The general plan does not need to be consistent with the zoning. When, pray tell, will they get it right? You do not change the zoning and then amend the general plan to make it fit. You also do not circumvent amending the general pian by simply amending the zoning. Since what is being proposed is only supported by one landowner in RPV, and this action could have multitudinous reverberations and many unintended consequences, to move forward without giving adequate notice to ALL residents of the City is simply unacceptable and a recipe for disaster. Please simply receive and file the report. You might also ask staff to actually do some research to address the concerns raised by all of the people who have raised issues and concerns, and see if staff actually comes up with sound justification for changing our general plan to accommodate one property owner. Perhaps staff should poll the tenants in Golden Cove to see how many of them support this request. I do not see any support within the broader community for this proposal. Very truly yours, Sharon Yarber 4i;i2012 0 Leza Mikhail From: dena friedson [dlfriedson@gmail.comj Sent; Monday, January 23, 2012 3:42 PM To: pc@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com; lezam@rpv.com; dlfriedson@gmail.com Subject: Ancillary Residential Zone Text Amendment -- Public Hearing on January 24, 2012 To: Chairman David Tomblin and all Members of the Planning Commission and fry: Joel Rojas and Leza Mikhail Froin: Dena. Priedson -- (dlfriedson@gmttil.com) Re: Ancillary Residential Zone Text .Amendment -- Public Hearing on January 24, 2012 The staffs recorrrmendation for Item 1 on the Agenda is to amend the Development Code to allow ancillary residential uses in certain commercial zones (Commercial Limited. Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Professional, and Commercial General) with only a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning col-firnission ., Ancillary housing in commercial areas is inconsistent with the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map and the 1975 General flan 'Text. Ancillary housing also can not meet the six necessary findings, all of which are required for a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the staff's recommendation ignores State law, which requires zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. Paoe-� 79 through 85 of the General Plan Text deal with commercial activities. They make no mention of residential use of any type. They only describe acceptable kinds of existing and future businesses and possible fixture sites, if needed. Page 85 lists policies to be followed. Municipal Code 17.60.050 lists the six findings that all must be met for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Development Codes are the tools that implement the General Plan and Zoning. They must not be amended without following the proper procedures. If City officials want to amend a specific part of the General Plan, adequate legal notices should be given to all residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and not only to those within 500 feet. Many people do not subscribe to the "Palos Verdes Peninsula News" or to the City's List Server and are unaware of this proposal. It is important for them to be able to express their opinions before a decision is reached. Perhaps a City News [.etter should be sent to all addresses. Hearings on the General Plan should be held before any more action is taken on this code issue. Allowing living quarters in commercial areas would cause drastic changes to the character of Rancho Palos Verdes. A letter from an attorney representing a commercial enterprise owner is attached to the staff report. It describes many negative impacts that could occur from this ancillary housing proposal. Also attached to the staff report is a blanked -out petition that is signed by 49 residents opposed to this proposed use in their vicinity. With regard to the on�uoinl; work on General Plan Amendments, the public was told that only minor adjustments were being made. Unfortunately. this interpretation is currently considered inaccurate by many people. No\� this staff' recommendation is ignoring the City's General Plan, the necessary findings for a Conditional (Jse Permit, and the State requirement that zoning must conform with the General Plan. 70 I personally think that ancillary housing in commercial areas on the Peninsula is a bad idea. Please choose the suggested Alternative Number 2. Please direct staff to draft a resolution recommending denial of the proposed code amendment in all commercially zoned districts, or simply deny it yourselves. Thank you. Leza Mikhail From: dena friedson (dlfriedson@gmail, com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:27 PM To: pc@rpv.com; Joel Rojas; lezam@rpv.com; dena friedson Subject: Ancillary Residential Units and Multi -Use Resolution To: Chairman David "Tomblin and all Members of the Planning Commission and To: Joel Rajas and Leza Mikhail From: Dena friedson -- (dlfriedson@gmail.corn) Re: Ancillary Residential Units and Multi -Use Resolution -- Planning Commission Meeting on February 14, 2012 Thank you 1'or recommending denial of ancillary residential units at Golden Cove and other commercial areas. Such a use would be inconsistent with the City's 1975 General Plan Land Use Map and the 1975 General Plan Text (which have served Rancho Palos Verdes very well). "Therefore, ancillary housing can not meet the six necessary findings of Municipal Code 17.60.050 that are all required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A principal reason for writing this letter is to question the staffs interpretation of Development Codes 17.14 through 17.20. Correct understanding is important for future reference. Staff has suggested that if a use is not specifically prohibited by the Development Code, it may be perxnitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Uses that aro permitted with a Conditional Use Permit are listed under each commercial category. A final notation in each categ;ory allows "such uses as the director deems to be similar and no more intensive" than those listed. The particular uses that are named are all commercial types. Ancillary residential units are not commercial and are not similar. 'Tire staff report contains reasons why ancillary uses in commercial districts "pose a number of concerns." A letter dated January 16, 2012, from an attorney representing a commercial business owner opposed to ancillary residential units, offers many more negative reasons. The letter is attached to the staff report of your January 34 ni edng . The 1975 General Plan Lane{ Use Map and the 1975 General Plan Text and the zoning map do not show residential units of any kind in commercial zones. Your recommendation and the proposed Resolution request the City Council to advise staff members if they should conduct research to "potentially change the underlying zoning of certain commercial properties to allow 'mixed use' development. Staff has acknowledged that such changes would require a General Plan Amendment. The reasons mentioned above for not amending the Development Codes with respect to ancillary residential units are very good reasons for not amending; the 1975 General Plun Land Use Map and the 1975 General Plan 'Text and the zoning map for multi -use. PleasQ withdraw the parts of the recommendation and the parts of the Resolution regarding multi -use. Please protect the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map and the 1975 General Plan Text, which have preserved the fine character of Rancho Palos Verdes. 'Thank you for all your work and attention to details. Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.comj Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:37 PM 7o: 'Leza Mikhail' Subject: FW: Item #1 From: Ann Shaw [mailto;anndshaw@gmail.com] Sent; Monday, January 23, 2012 11:39 AM 7o: pc@rpv.com Subject: Item #1 If you wish to amend the Development Code in regard to residential use in a commercial zone then you need to amend the General Plan first. It is important that our City staff and our governing bodies follow the rules, which are there for a reason. Please don't talc shortcuts. Sincerely, Ann Shaw X1/3/2012 / O Page I of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:30 AM To: Teza Mikhail' Subject: FW: Item 1: Residential zoning in the commercial zone From: cicoriae@aol.com [ma iIto: cicoriae@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:25 AM To: pc@rpv.com Subject: item 1: Residential zoning in the commercial zone Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: It seems to me that the Gallen Cove landlord should never have been invited to apply for a zoning code amendment. His request is inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan makes no mention of permitting residential use in a commercial zone. What's next ... 10%? Or perhaps some percentage of institutional use of our open space parkland? This kind of back door entry to amending our General Plan should not be tolerated. it's a slippery slope which we've seen lead to disastrous consequences. We have an enviable General Plan. Let's follow it. The Golden Cove landlord should be encouraged to build out his space in a manner that makes it attractive to commercial tenants --or lower his rent for those spaces that offer less than desirable storefront. Eva Cicoria 4/3/2012 0/1 Page 1 of 1 Leza Mikhail From: Terry Bowen [tbowen28936@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:52 PM To: lezam@rpv.com Cc: Nina Yoshida Subject: case #ZON2011-00089 Gentlemen: I am writing you on behalf of myself and my neighbors who are very concerned with the fragmented proposal that you are considering. Please give this deep thought before you act in favor of it. Respectfully,, Terry Bowen 28936 Gunter Road, Rancho Palos Verdes 4/3/2Ul 2 Obal 1/212012 Dear Commissioners, Re: CASE NO. ZON2011-00089 While I do not have any strong opinion one way or the other at this time, I do have a lot of questions about the implementation of such an ordinance. For my own property, I would assume it would only apply if I were to remodel the interior to accommodate a smaJl apartment in order to house one very small employee. While I have no intention of doing this in my lifetime, I need to keep myself informed about this change because future owners of my property may be interested. I only offer my thoughts and observations with respect to your going forward with such a change for other properties. First, having read some of the comments offered earlier by others, I have to agree that citing a reduction in traffic as a reason for doing this is far-fetched. When my business was located in the Golden Cove Center, I had about 15 frill and part time employees. I expect there were at least 100, or more (probably many more) employees of the various businesses located in the Center. Providing housing for two of them would hardly make a dent in the traffic and, as you know, guaranteeing them a parking space of their own cit all times while accommodating commercial traffic could at times be next to impossible. Also, another comment previously received noted the location of rental units should not pose harm to the tenants, such as above a dry cleaner or restaurant-, which is precisely where the residential space in the Golden Cove Center is proposed. Second, the issue of cost-effectiveness is probably of no concern to your planning process, and I have no idea how the rent will be charged, but I do think if the rent is low enough to be affordable for housing, it would be low enough to attract a commercial tenant who does not need street frontage. The amount of rent charged for the space in the Golden Cove Center would have been more than I would pay for an apartment for an employee even off-site in San Pedro. It would not be cost-effective for me as an employer to consider such a deal, even if the rent for the space were half of the commercial rate. I know this because I thought of doing it! It would have been an interesting idea for me to rent a space for a night attendant, but when I ran the numbers, it didn't work out for me (every one was better off with my an employee a raise, rather than providing housing), which is not to say it wouldn't work for someone else. My biggest concern however (and source of most questions), is as an employer considering such a venture; how I would prove to you that the tenant is ancillary to my business (my clients are, most certainly!) and how to prove that they are employed by zne. Specifically, would my employee's tax forms be required (I must declare to them as income any rents I substitute in lieu of pay) or would they have to provide their paycheck /3 stubs to the City to verify employment- and if so, how frequently? Would they have to be a full-time employee and if so, by my definition or yours? The draft of the ordinance states that the tenant must vacate when the lease is up if they are no longer employed. Would there be a limit on the terms of a residential lease? Commercial leases can be for multiple years and an employee may or may not be there that long. Would there then be inspection of all commercial properties periodically to determine if there is only permitted residential activity in place? The apartments in the Golden Cove Center may have been there a while but I do not know if they have ever been occupied. There is nothing wrong in this, but it calls in to question the amount of involvement or policing the City has or wants to have in its commercial districts. Would you leave it to the commercial property owner's discretion as to whether they allowed pets and children in these spaces? I assume the City would inspect the property to ascertain that the maximum square footage of rental property has not been breached. How often would this be done? Would a new CUP be required for each new tenant lease? Thank you for your attention with respect to this interesting idea. Cassie Jones Point Vicente Animal Hospital 31270 Palos Verdes Drive West Gjq From: Lynn Swank [lynn.swank@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:38 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Carolyn Lehr Subject: Ancilliary Uses/Commercial Property Mayor and City Council Members, As I reviewed the agenda packet for this evening's city council meeting, I was surprised and dumbfounded to read the staff report for this item. I thought that the issue of residential housing in commercial zones was thoughtfully addressed by the Planning Commission at their January meeting. I also assumed that all corresponding letters, etc, from this meeting, including mine, would be forwarded to the city council with the recommendation that this issue not be pursued at this time. I was mistakL-n. Briefly, these are my concerns: 1. The staff report is incomplete and does not include all correspondence that was sent to the Planning Commission. Instead staff apparently handpicked letters to include in the city council package. Can you make a decision without all of the facts? 2. The applicant for the item before you is the city staff, not the person who originally requested the change. Why? I found no compelling reason from staff to deviate from the Planning Commission decision. I don't think staff made their case for this ordinance change. The additional "public input" staff solicited was from business owners in our city. In fact they received a special survey. 3. Staff has interpreted new survey facts to justify implementing this ordinance. Why? 4. This ordinance change impacts both business owners and RPV residents. I never received a survey from staff and as a resident I will be impacted by this ordinance. Does that mean my opinion is less important, especially since my original letter opposing the ordinance was not included in your packet? 5. The owner of the Golden Cove business development requested this ordinance change to benefit himself. When he expanded Golden Cove he had an opportunity to address occupancy issues through his very own design. He made a business decision to design the space as he did. He made a mistake and asked our city to help him correct his mistake. He wants to free himself of his responsibility and have the entire city, businesses and residents alike, to correct his mistake for him. He owns the property, he controls space usage and rent and the problem is his alone. I want to make very clear that I strongly support business development in RPV and we should work with businesses to achieve their goals consistent with the desires of RPV residents and the General Plan. Mixed use development does work in many cities where planning for it has taken place prior to the implementation. In the situation before you, the cart seems to be pulling the horse. I request that you do not approve this proposed ordinance, or send a survey to all residents, or wait until the overall city needs survey has taken place. Lynn Swank RPV Resident 4/3/2012 From: cicoriae@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:00 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Incomplete Packet re Ancillary Residential Zoning in the Commercial Zone Mayor Misetich and Members of City Council, The materials you received in the Staff Report for tonight's meeting are incomplete. Leza Mikhail acknowledged to me today that late correspondence for the January Planning Commission item regarding ancillary residential zoning in the commercial zone was inadvertently left out of your packet for tonight's meeting. She offered that she will provide it to you tonight. I believe that correspondence was generally, if not entirely, opposed to the zoning change. It's a bit troubling that the correspondence is missing, particularly when it seems to be Staff that is pushing forward this agenda item (unless there is something the public doesn't know about, which I hope is fleshed out at tonight's meeting). In any case, I oppose Staffs recommendation and I have copied and pasted my January letter to the Planning Commission, below. Eva Cicoria From: cicoriae <cicoriae@aol.com> To: pc <pc@rpv.com> Subject: Item 1: Residential zoning in the commercial zone Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2012 9:25 am Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: It seems to me that the Golden Cove landlord should never have been invited to apply for a zoning code amendment. His request is inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan makes no mention of permitting residential use in a commercial zone. What's next ... 10%? Or perhaps some percentage of institutional use of our open space parkland? This kind of back door entry to amending our General Plan should not be tolerated. It's a slippery slope which we've seen lead to disastrous consequences. We have an enviable General Plan. Let's follow it. The Golden Cove landlord should be encouraged to build out his space in a manner that makes it attractive to commercial tenants --or lower his rent for those spaces that offer less than desirable storefront. Eva Cicoria 4/3/2012 d Page 1 of 1 From: Douglas Stern [douglas.stern@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:34 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: This is a sign on the beach at Corona del Mar (City of Newport Beach). City Council Members, Below is a picture from the beach at Corona del Mar. Good luck with this issue tonight. (No Douglas Stern 4/3/2012 0. March 26, 2012 Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mayor and City Council: We are writing in favor of keeping the Rancho Palos Verdes beach open to dogs. Currently, we don't have a dog in our family but we love dogs, our kids love dogs, and we all enjoy going to the beach and seeing the dogs happily laying in the sun, walking, and playing at beach. At some point, we will get another dog and will want to take our dog with us to RPV Beach. We have friends with dogs and know that they enjoy and value the opportunity to simply go to the beach with their dogs, and occasionally let them walk off leash. None of us have ever had a bad experience there with too many dogs or aggressive dogs — it has always been peaceful. We agree there should be more trash cans in the area so it is easier for everyone to clean up after themselves — people with and without dogs. It would also be good to have signs reminding everyone to conduct themselves responsibly and with consideration for others and the environment, as we've seen at other beaches and trails. We support full access for dogs, no time restrictions or fences. We think dog access should remain free This is the only beach in the area where dogs have been allowed and we want that to continue. People who don't like dogs can choose to go to several other beaches in the area where they will not encounter any dogs. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, anos and Julia Bakos Rancho Palos Verdes 3 Tracy Bonano From: katayoun shariatnejad David633@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:02 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: please dont close the park To whom it may concern please don't close the dog park this is the only place my dog can run around. kathy thank you 4/2/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:47 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Please keep the dog park open 4/3/2012 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:52 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Please keep the dog beach open We all love it so much. You can swim or surf there' anyway. Greg Hawthorne ca 3 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 10:55 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Please keep the dog beach open 4/3/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:11 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Dog beach I am here at the beach at 11 am tuesday morning. There are half a dozen people. Please keep it open. Greg hawthorne 4/3/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: hollyc [saltwaterrocks@aol.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:47 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: rancho palos verdes's beautiful doggie beach! April 2, 2012 Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council, My family and I have been residents of RPV for over 12 years and were residents of Palos Verdes, Malaga Cove for 13 years prior to that. Our children went thru the PV school system, one graduated from UCLA with honors a year ago, the other from UCSB with honors and then on to Master Degree from.UVA. They are both back home in RPV, which they are very happy about. The reason I am telling you all this is because as you know the Peninsula is known for it's great schools. We should also be known for our wonderful beaches for families and their dogs, (whom are family members.) We lost our two golden retrievers to cancer a few years ago. They grew up here and helped us raise our children. They attented lots of soccer games and even went to Rats beach sometimes. :) We have a new family member now. A small dog. She loves water and likes the beach very much. Please, our family is asking you to not close the doggie beach. We would be willing to even pay to take her to the beach. Our community is a beautiful, fun, loving one. Why take away something that will only make our community a better place to live. Even if you had it open only one day a week, that would be better than not at all. Last time my husband and I took our dog to the beach, we sat outside at the tables at Trump and had a grilled hamburger and soft drink. I think the cost was $40.00. So, I woud think the Trump Golf Co. would benefit from this, as there were other people with their dogs eating outside at Trump patio that day also. If you needed to make the Rancho Palos Verdes Doggie Beach a on leash beach that would be better than none too. Please don't close this beach to doggies and their families. Think this through a little more. Get more feed back. You know there are many good families who love their dogs as much as their children. Do this for us ... please. Thanking you in advance for all you do for our city., in doggie love, the Hale Family 6356 Chartres Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Cl) p.s we went there today with our dog and it was fantastic... lots of dogs there, everyone was HAPPY! :) 20 Tracy Bonano From: Kristine Castro Twomey [kris2mey@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:03 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Fw: Dog Beach ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kristine Castro Twomey <kris2mey@yahoo.com> To: "cc@rpv.com" <cc@rpv.com> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 8:02 PM Subject: Dog Beach Dear City Council After learning from a neighbor about the dog beach, we were so excited to take our 7 year old daughter and 2 terriers to the area. It was fantastic! Both our daughter and our dogs had the best time! It was so lovely to see our 10 year old Jack Russel frolic on the beach with our 2 year old terrier mix. It brought new years to his life and you could almost see him "smiling". Our daughter loved chasing her dogs in the waves and throwing the ball for them. It was clean and the other dog owners were courteous and cooperative. Having grown up in Long Beach, I was so thrilled to hear they had designated this beach "dog friendly" on the hill. To hear the council is considering terminating the program is egregious. I think at minimum the 12 month plan should be continued before it is even brought up for consideration. Please continue the pilot program for 12 months as planned and then reconsider???? thank you, Kristine Castro Twomey Rolling Hills Estates 4/3/2012 1-3 Tracy Bonano From: Lily Wahl [lily_munster01 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:10 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Trump Dog Beach - please do not recind program! To Whom it May Concern, My family and I are very disheartened to hear that the pilot program for the dog beach may be recinded. I am a responsible part of the community and one of my only joys is bringing my dog to the beach. I work full time and volunteer many hours at the LAAS Animal Shelter on Gaffey. I also make it a point of ALWAYS picking up other people's trash and dog waste when I am at the Trump dog beach. I cannot tell you how many bags of plastic waste I pick up from visitors who litter our beaches. I will no longer visit the beach if this program is recinded. Please do not end the pilot program as it is one the only places my dog can run and swim freeley. I am a responsible citizen who keeps our beaches clean. Thank you, Lily Wahl Harbor Shelter Volunteer www.laanimalservices.com/ Harbor Care & Control 957 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 4/3/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Barb [sailboatgal1@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:42 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Dog Beach We are local residents of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and my family and I have had the good fortune of being able to enjoy a wonderful recreational opportunity with our dog. Our dog is a water lover and enjoys chasing the ball and swimming. We've been taking our dog to the Trump dog beach for several years. Never once did we encounter any problems. This was before all of the news paper articles, publicity and public hearings. The unofficial dog beach which people took advantage of when Trump controlled the access was a wonderful example of how a dog beach might be run. Parking was never a problem, dogs were generally well behaved and (to the best of our knowledge), dogs were kept on a leash in the parking area and on the trails, dog owners picked up after their animals, people controlled their animals, and I don't ever recall seeing any dogs fighting. People were respectful and there were not too many dogs and very few problems. I don't ever recall seeing dogs running onto the golf course. Once the existence of the dog beach became general public knowledge, use went from a small number of residents to a much larger group of people from a widespread area. The number of people and dogs visiting the beach following the start of the pilot program shows that there is a large pent up demand for a dog beach in the area. Any area that becomes popular needs oversight once a large number of people become aware of the existence of a recreational area. Firstly, dogs should be kept to the east end of the beach below the "Trump" access trails. The west end of the beach toward the Portuguese Bend Club has always been for swimmers. The east end which is is generally rocky and rougher is frequently too dangerous for people to enter the water. Hence separation of the two populations could easily be accomplished by signage. There is really very little reason for swimmers to enter the water at the foot of the bluff at the east end. Violation of the designated use areas could be dealt with by the lifeguard at one end of the beach or rangers patrolling the bluff. It would seem very fair to charge an annual use permit fee and require reservations for daily access (limited number) to utilize the dog beach. Permit funds could be used to police the location with fines administered to those not in compliance or not being responsible pet owners. Frequency of usage could be controlled by permit number to enforce rotation of access to prevent users from tying up several weekend opportunities in succession. Permits could then be administered as a control mechanism to deny serial offenders access for a year or more. An alternative would be to sell daily use permits (on line) . Once again, at certain times of the year, a system could be developed to deny sequential use by the same person(s), thereby spreading the opportunity to access the dog beach across a large user base. 0 3 In both cases, frequent spot checks by rangers at the trail head could be employed to enforce either reservation system. Fines should be administered to make entry into the area without the requisite permit / reservation sufficiently severe that people will generally be deterred from trying to enter the area without the necessary reservations/ use permits. Sand Dune Park in Manhattan Beach suffered from the same type of popularity. My understanding is that the reservation system works in that location and allows users from a widespread area access to the park. My family would hate to see the end of the dog beach but understand that there need to be rules and guidelines for usage. Respectfully, The Kim family 0 Tracy Bonano From: Lex Wahl [lex_wahl@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:05 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Please consider keeping the dog beach Dear honorable sir/madame, I want to write you to show my support for keeping the dog beach below Trump golf course. We are all very appreciative that you made the decision to have this leash free beach for dogs, as there are so few places people can exercise their dogs. It's a wonderful thing to have a place people can go share special time with their pups legally. Dogs love to run and be social, so leash walks aren't always enough for most dogs. Please consider keeping the beach open for our dogs. Right now it's popular because it was all over the news, with time the visits will probably wane. It's quite a trek going down and up that steep hill, and many of the first timers probably won't come back. Best regards, Larry Wahl 4/3/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Donna Baranowski [donnabarano@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 7:47 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Idea for both sides of dog beach concern Dear RPV Staff Members, City Council and Honorable Mayor, I had written before but came up with an idea today I wanted to add: Since there is such concern about the summer being packed with dog lovers .... why not split the year.... fall and winter for dog lovers and ban them from the spring and summer for those that prefer no dogs. I personally am a dog lover but I'm there to exercise my dog and look for sea glass .... not to lay out or swim, etc .... so I would not mind going during the colder months. I can tell you from experience that during those months, sometimes I was the only person on the beach with my dog (which made me feel safe), even on the weekends when it is stormy. Most people won't frequent the beach then, so I feel it would be a win win situation. Thank you for your consideration. Donna Baranowski Torrance, CA From: Melissa Griswold (work) [melissa@griswoldinsurance.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:36 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Issue Dear Mayor Misetich and the Council Members of RPV: I am writing in response to the issue of closing the dog beach below Trump. As a business owner in the PV area, we could not be more excited to hear that traffic to RPV has increased because of this beach - it has been hard enough to get non -hill patrons to the area. And, as a mother of 3 fur kids, who lives in the area, RPV's dog beach is MUCH more convenient than our other possibilities. I wholeheartedly enjoy supporting my local community. I understand Trump's concerns and hope that we can come to a mutually beneficial agreement. I sincerely thank you all for your time on this matter. -Melissa Griswold .......... ...... ._......._ __ ... Melissa Griswold, Business Develoment T. (310)377-7172 1 F. (310)377-316? E. mehssa riswoldinsurance.com t5 is}qR... 4/3/2012 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: UnleashTheBeach [georja@unleashthebeach.org] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:03 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Please give the pilot dog beach a chance Attachments: CA Research Bureau on dog beaches.pdf; ATT00105.htm Dear Mayor Misetich and City Council members of Rancho Palos Verdes, I have read about your plans to re -visit the pilot dog beach plan you recently put in place. http://Iosangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/31/pet-owners-howling-about-talks-to-end-do -bg each- program-in-rancho-Palos-verdes/ Please allow the pilot program a chance to work. If there are problems, please help the thousands of ponstituents who passionately want this beach and are helping to take care of it to improve it. We are an advocacy group for a dog beach in Santa Monica. Santa Monica City Council has voted overwhelmingly for a pilot dog beach in our town, and currently we are attempting to work something out with the State Parks. We have done much research of the more than 60 dog beaches that are successful in the state and would like to share with you a state issued Legislative Research Bureau report, commissioned by Senator Ted Lieu in 2006. It clearly shows that none of the existing dog beaches is polluting or causes major problems of any kind. People who use the beach become its stewards. I am attaching a copy of the report. It also describes how to set up an ideal dog beach. I and my colleagues hope this is helpful and if you need any more information, please contact me. We are working closely with our City officials to achieve our goal of a pilot dog beach here. It is not fair that there are a full 75 miles without a place to bring our dogs. Small groups of people play sports and other activities on the beach. It may be a small inconvenience at times but there is plenty of space for everyone. Animals are part of our lives and our laws need to acknowledge this. Thank you for being a leader in this most noble cause. Best regards, Georja Umano Founder, Unleash the Beach hftp://www.unleashthebeach.org 310 581 0888 office 4/3/2012 CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY I California Researdi Bureau 900 N Street, Suite. 300 RO, Box 942837 Sacnajnento, CA 94237-000 1 (916) 653 7843 phone. (1)16, 6 -.*) 4 - -.) 8 -) 9 fr N. A Dogs on the Beach: A Review of Regulations and Issues Affecting Dog Beaches in California By Lisa K. Foster ISBN 1-58703-212-0 Revised Edition Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................1 DOGSON THE BEACH................................................................................................. 3 ANOVERVIEW................................................................................................................. 3 STATEBEACHES............................................................................................................. 3 FEDERALBEACHES.......................................................................................................... 5 CITY AND COUNTY BEACHES........................................................................................... 6 SHAREDMANAGEMENT................................................................................................... 7 CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS ...................................................... 8 RUNNING OFF -LEASH AT ON -LEASH BEACHES............................................................. 25 OFF -LEASH BEACHES: THE ISSUES..................................................................... 27 BENEFITS....................................................................................................................... 27 CONCERNS..................................................................................................................... 27 CALIFORNIA'S OFF -LEASH BEACHES................................................................. 35 A MODEL OFF -LEASH DOG BEACH...................................................................... 45 APPENDIX A - CALIFORNIA CODES..................................................................... 49 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE............................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX B - FEDERAL CODES............................................................................ 51 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS................................................................................. 51 APPENDIX C - EXCERPTS FROM HEAL THE BAY / 15TH ANNUAL BEACH REPORT CARD, MAY 25, 2005 (ANNOTATED)...................................................... 53 SOURCES........................................................................................................................ 57 ENDNOTES..................................................................................................................... 61 California Research Bureau, California State Library i Acknowledgements Diana Kenlow, Masters of Social Work Intern with the California Research Bureau, provided extensive assistance with the dog beach survey. Internet Access This report is also available through the Internet at the California State Library's home page (www.librar y.ca. ov_) under California Research Bureau Reports. The report is formatted for printing pages on both sides (back to back) so some pages are intentionally left blank. Revised Edition This report was updated in June 2006. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Millions of residents and tourists use California's public beaches each year to play in the sand and surf. Dog advocacy groups and dog owners are increasingly lobbying for a share of the beach to enjoy the same activities with their canine companions. However, whether dogs should be allowed on beaches is an issue that engenders strong feelings. Broadly defined, a "dog beach" may, refer to any beach that permits individuals to bring their dogs, either on a leash or off -leash. Dogs on leashes are permitted on several California beaches. Some cities and counties have also established specific areas on their beaches where dogs can play off -leash. Off -leash dogs are allowed on some beaches managed by the federal government. They are also permitted on two state beaches that are managed by local governmental entities. The late Assemblymember Mike Gordon introduced Assembly Bill 359 in 2005. This bill would authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Coastal Commission, and other interested parties to develop an agreement to establish and evaluate a one-year, off -leash dog beach pilot program at a state beach. Mr. Gordon's successor, Assemblymember Ted Lieu, requested that the California Research Bureau (CRB) conduct a study of dog beaches in the state. This report identifies beaches along the California coast that allow dogs both on and off - leash! It also identifies relevant state statutes and regulations pertaining to dogs on beaches. A narrower definition of a "dog beach" is the sand and surf equivalent of a dog park — an area set aside for dogs to exercise and play off -leash in a controlled environment. For purposes of this report, the term "dog beach" means an off -leash dog beach. In addition, although they share some characteristics with on -leash dog beaches, off -leash dog beaches are the primary focus of this report. Off -leash dog beaches provide benefits and pose concerns. Besides promoting exercise for dogs and their owners, advocates point out that communities benefit from well - socialized and exercised dogs that are likely to be less aggressive and create a public nuisance. An off -leash area provides a public space and opportunity for dog owners to meet, share information, and form community bonds; it promotes responsible dog * Assembly Bill 359 (Gordon) is currently in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. It would establish an off -leash dog beach pilot program at Dockweiler State Beach in Los Angeles County. ** CRB identified dog beaches in California through several sources: federal, state, and local parks and recreation websites, dog friendly travel books, and dog advocacy organizations. We confirmed the current status of each beach (access to dogs—leashed or un -leashed), and obtained information from beach contacts, through a telephone survey. It is important to note that beach rules may change over time so this information is a "point in time" snapshot. In addition, we may have inadvertently overlooked a beach on which dogs are permitted, especially a community beach that does not publicize its existence beyond its local population. California Research Bureau, California State Library ownership through social peer pressure; and it makes it less likely that dogs will be let loose in other areas. This report also discusses the major concerns associated with dog beaches — habitat, health, safety, liability, and cost. (The organization Ca1DOG succinctly labels the common concerns: poop, bites, liability, noise, and wildlife.) • Off -leash dogs are not permitted on several beaches in order to protect plant and animal habitat (for example, theVestern Snowy Plover, a shore bird listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act). • The presence of dogs may lead to health concerns about beach and water quality, although the effect of dog waste is difficult to determine in comparison with other sources of pollution. • Concerns are often raised about potential safety and liability issues that may result when several dogs and persons are sharing the same area. While dog bites do occur, they are not common and no lawsuits have been reported. Several local governments, after studying and addressing these issues, have established off -leash dog areas. California State Parks, however, views off -leash dog areas as a local recreation need that is appropriately addressed at a municipal- or county -owned beach. As a result, the first and primary state policy issue in relation to establishing an off -leash dog area on a state beach is determining whether this use is a state -level recreation need. This report describes a number of off -leash dog beaches, ranging from city -maintained Carmel Beach (where dogs are allowed 24 -hours a day) to the Huntington Dog Beach that limits dogs to the wet sand and water and is maintained by non -city staff and volunteers. The report also identifies common elements and unique characteristics, and discusses how to structure a model off -leash dog beach, including roles, responsibilities and evaluation criteria. California Research Bureau, California State Library DOGS ON THE BEACH AN OVERVIEW Beaches in California are owned by the public and managed by public entities. Most of the 1,100 miles of beaches along the California coast are officially closed to dogs. However, beach -goers can legally bring their dogs to over 60 beaches up and down California's coastline. These beaches span nine counties and are located within the boundaries of state, county, and city parks. Some of these beaches are also located on federal land administered by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The rules and regulations pertaining to dogs are determined by the local, state, or federal entity that has jurisdiction over each beach. In some cases, beaches are governed by two or more governmental entities that share jurisdiction. Dogs must be leashed on most beaches. However, dogs can run leash -free on at least seventeen beaches in the state if they are under their owners' voice control. Some of this leash -free beach time is limited to specific areas of the beach, specific times of the day, or specific times of the year. The table that begins on page 8 lists the beaches that allow dogs. STATE BEACHES The California Department of Parks and Recreation (also called California State Parks) is responsible for managing the beaches on almost one-third of the state's coastline. The department's mission is "to provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by preserving the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation."z California State Parks, on its website, acknowledges the benefits of visiting a state park with one's dog — exercise for body and spirit. However, these benefits may conflict with State Parks' mission to California Research Bureau, California State Library CA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 3. CHAPTER 1. 4312. Control of Animals. (a) No person shall permit a dog to run loose, or turn loose any animal in any portion of a unit, except upon written authorization by the District Superintendent. (b) No person shall keep an animal in any unit except under his/her immediate control. (c) No person shall keep a noisy, vicious, or dangerous dog or animal or one which is disturbing to other persons, in any unit and remain therein after he/she has been asked by a peace officer to leave. (d) No person shall permit a dog or a cat to remain outside a tent, camper, or enclosed vehicle during the night. (e) No person shall bring a dog into, permit a dog to enter or remain, or possess a dog in units under control of Department of Parks and Recreation unless the dog is on leash of no more than six feet in length and under the immediate control of a person or confined in a vehicle. (f) No person shall bring a dog into, permit a dog to enter or remain, or possess a dog: 1) beyond the limits of campgrounds, picnic areas, parking areas, roads, structures or in posted portions of units except as provided elsewhere in this section. 2) on any beach adjacent to any body of water in any unit except in portions of units designated for dogs... CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS: YOUR DOG IN THE PARK Your dog must be kept on a leash at all times while in this park. Leashed dogs are allowed in campgrounds, picnic areas, parking lots, and other specifically designated areas — provided you control and clean up after your pet. Dogs are prohibited from most trails, beaches and developed areas for the following reasons: ❑ To protect park resources — Dogs are predators by nature, and their presence or lingering scent will disturb and frighten wildlife nearby. Dogs can transmit diseases and parasites to native animals, including foxes, coyotes, and deer. Dogs that run loose or become lost often harass or kill park wildlife. ❑ For the safety and enjoyment of other visitors — Some people are intimidated by dogs, even by friendly ones. Dogs reduce the amount of wildlife that hikers are likely to see. Also, dog waste along trails is a nuisance to encounter and may contaminate the local water supply. ❑ To prevent problems for you and your dog — Dogs in wild areas can be bitten by snakes, raccoons, or other wildlife they happen to startle. Dogs frequently pick up ticks and are sometimes injured by toxic or thorny plants. If your dog comes in contact with poison oak, it can easily transfer the irritating oil to your skin. An unleashed dog can suffer painful or sometimes fatal falls. Occasionally a dog is a victim to some larger predator, such as a mountain lion or a bear. Park regulations, common courtesy, and good judgment all require that you take special care when bringing your pet to this natural area. Thank you for your cooperation! protect resources and provide a quality recreational experience for all visitors at state beaches. Public Resources Code Section 5008.1 provides that park visitors may bring dogs (and other pets) into state parks if it is in the public interest; however, animals must be under the direct control of the visitor and are not permitted to pose a threat to the public welfare or natural or cultural resources, or to create a public nuisance. (See Appendix A.) It is California State Parks' position that "direct control" requires that dogs be leashed.3 California State Parks' Operations Manual states that: "Unleashed, stray or feral dogs can harass and kill wildlife and can intimidate and injure visitors. Dogs look like a predator to most wild animals. Because of this, even the presence of a dog at a distance, whether on or off a leash, often disturbs wildlife. Dog feces may transmit diseases to native wildlife and increase park maintenance work.... is a misdemeanor offense for a person to have an off -leash dog in a state park. 0 Park rules relating to dogs are intended to ensure the health and safety of all park visitors. (See box at left.) State Parks' regulations (see box on preceding page) require that a dog leash must be no more than six feet long, and that a dog's owner must not leave the dog unattended. A rabies certificate or dog license may be required. Dog owners are also advised that they are financially responsible for any injuries or damage caused by their dogs and that rule violations may result in citations. For example, it is a misdemeanor offense for a person to have an off -leash dog in a state park. Dogs are allowed on leashes at 23 state beaches. One beach — Lighthouse Field State Beach — permits dogs off leash. This beach is managed by a local entity, not State Parks. California Research Bureau, California State Library FEDERAL BEACHES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE The U.S. Department of the Interior oversees the National Park Service — which includes National Parks, National Recreation Areas, and National Seashores — and the Bureau of Land Management. All of these federal entities manage California beaches. Point Reyes National Seashore, north of San Francisco, encompasses 70,000 acres of coastal beaches and headlands, estuaries, and uplands that include both wilderness and historic sites. It is a sanctuary for a myriad of plant and animal species. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) spans 76,500 acres of land and water in northern California. It starts at the coastline south of San Francisco, moves into San Francisco and then north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The GGNRA encompasses several beaches in both Marin and San Francisco counties where dog owners may bring their pets: Rodeo, Baker, Fort Funston, and Ocean. Dogs are also permitted in specific areas of Limantour and Kehoe beaches at Point Reyes, The National Park Service pet regulation requires that dogs be restricted by cage or leash. Where dogs are permitted in National Parks and Recreation Areas, federal regulations require that they be on a leash no longer than six feet.5 Dog owners may be cited or fined for violations of leash, wildlife, or litter laws. However, as noted in the box at right, the leash laws are currently not being enforced in the GGNRA.* According to the Point Reyes National DOGS IN THE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA The Leash Law Lawsuit In Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), dogs had been allowed on leashes — and off leashes under voice control — since 1979 under a pet policy created by a Citizen's Advisory Commission following public hearings. When in 2002 the National Park Service started enforcing the Park Service leash laws and issuing citations, dog -owners sued. In 2005, the U.S. District Court dismissed the tickets, ruling that the Park's 20 - year failure to enforce National Park leash laws created a de facto policy in some parts of GGNRA that could not be changed without public input. As a result, the GGNRA is pioneering a "negotiated rulemaking" effort that is being used for only the third time by the Park Service. Instead of the federal agency making policy, this process consists of those who are interested or most affected setting policy by consensus. A neutral mediator recommended a list of members for the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for Dog Management that will be negotiating a new regulation. The first meeting — open to the public — was held March 2006. Concurrent with the Negotiated Rulemaking process, a dog management plan and Environmental Impact Statement will be completed through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Both processes include public input. Until a new regulation is in place, the 1979 policy that allows dogs to be managed by either leash or under voice control remains in effect. National Park Service Negotiated Rulemaking Information Line (415)561-4728 Information on GGRNA dog walking regulations is available at www.np§,,g g!2&f s/. California Research Bureau, California State Library Seashore official website: "Dogs are wonderful animals that give comfort and companionship. However, a national park is not the best place for them. Dogs chase, scare and can transmit diseases to wild animals such as nesting birds or marine mammals. Dogs leave behind a `predator' scent typical of all wild canines like wolves and coyotes. This scent can linger in the area for long periods of time and can disrupt or alter the behavior of the native animals this park has been set aside to protect." BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT The Samoa Dunes Recreation Area, located on Humboldt Bay, is a 300 -acre park managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is a multiple -use recreation site with activities ranging from Off -Highway Vehicle riding and other recreational activities to scientific study of rare plants. The BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau does not have an official policy regarding dogs on BLM land. For consistency, it enforces the policy of the county (Humboldt) in which the land is located .7 This policy allows dogs on -leash or off -leash under voice control. U.S. FOREST SERVICE Pfeiffer Beach is located in the Los Padres National Forest, which stretches over 200 miles from the Carmel Valley to the western edge of Los Angeles County. It encompasses nearly two million acres in the coastal mountains of central California. The U.S. Forest Service manages this land and focuses on protecting and enhancing watersheds, providing recreation and wilderness opportunities, and promoting use of the forest as a "living laboratory" for ecological diversity and scientific research. The Forest Service does not have an official policy regarding dogs. Like the BLM, it enforces the policy of the county (Monterey) in which the land is located.8 This policy requires that dogs must be on a tended leash that is no more than six feet in length. CITY AND COUNTY BEACHES Most city and county park departments that allow dogs on public lands require that dogs be leashed, and all require that owners clean up after their dogs. Additional regulations that apply to dogs on the beach vary among local jurisdictions. The city of Avila Parks Department, for example, allows owners to bring their leashed dogs to the beach before 10 a.m. and after 5 p.m. Sonoma County Regional Parks Department allows dogs on beaches during regular beach hours if they are on leashes no more than six feet long and have rabies certification. At least ten city and county jurisdictions permit dogs to play on their beaches off -leash (Contra Costa, Humboldt, Orange, and San Diego counties; and the cities of Carmel, Coronado, Del Mar, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Santa Cruz, and San Diego). In Del Mar, dogs are permitted off -leash From September 15 to June 15; they must be on -leash the rest of the year. In contrast, the city of Carmel allows dogs to play on its beach off - leash 24 hours a day as long as they are under their owner's control. (See the table beginning on page 8 for more detail.) California Research Bureau, California State Library SHARED MANAGEMENT Different levels of government share the management of some beaches. For example, the National Park Service and California State Parks jointly manage Redwood National and State Parks. Across from the federal Samoa Dunes Recreation Area, the South Spit is state-owned and managed in partnership by the Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish and Game, and Humboldt County. California Research Bureau, California State Library 7 00 CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] COUNTY BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE DESCRIl'TION RULES/REGULATIONS STRUCTURE Contra Costa Point Isabel East Bay Regional Park Approximately 21 acres of mixed- Dogs must be under voice Regional Shoreline District (EBRPD) use open space on south side of control and within sight of canal. Facilities include owner. No more than three dogs Area south of canal telephone, restrooms, drinking per person without permit. fountain, parking lot, dog wash, Owners must carry leash, clean Point Isabel Dog and cafe. up feces, stop dog from digging, Owners and Friends Hours: 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. fill in holes, and prevent dog (Volunteer org.) from going into marsh and Fees: None disturbing feeding birds. Del Norte Beachfront Park Crescent City Undeveloped beach across from Dogs must be on a leash no more park. Facilities include trash cans than six feet long; owners must and dog bags. pick up after their dogs. No specified hours or fees. Del Norte Crescent Beach Crescent City Undeveloped beach south of Dogs must be on a leash no more Crescent City. than six feet long; owners must No specified hours or fees. pick up after their dogs. Del Norte Gold Bluff's Beach Redwood National and Facilities include running water, Dogs must be on tended leash no State Parks restrooms, and campsites. more than six feet long; owners Jointly managed by Hours: Sunrise to sunset must pick up after their dogs. California State Parks and Fees: $6/day use the National Park Service CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTY BEACH STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION RULES/REGULATIONS Humboldt Clam Beach County Humboldt County Undeveloped beach. Facilities Dogs must be on leash. Park include pit toilets. No specified hours or fees. Humboldt Mad River Beach Humboldt County Facilities include toilets, water Dogs must be on leash. County Park fountain, and campgrounds. No specified hours or fees. Humboldt Samoa Dunes Bureau of Land 300 -acre sand dune park. Dogs may be on leash or off - Recreation Area Management Hours: One hour before sunrise leash under voice control. to one hour after sunset Owners must have leash. Fees: None Humboldt South Spit Cooperative No running water, chemical Dogs may be off -leash under Management Area toilets. voice control from September 15 State of California Hours: One hour before sunrise to February 28. Must be on - (Dept. of Fish and to one hour after sunset leash during snowy plover Game)/Humboldt nesting season March 1 to County/Bureau of Land Fees: None September 15. Management �i COUNTY Los Angeles Los Angeles Marin Marin BEACH Dog Zone, Long Beach Leo Carillo State Beach Agate Beach Kehoe Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] _ ADiVIMSTRATIVE STRUCTURE City of Long Beach Parks, Recreation & Marine Department Recreation Dog Park Association and Haute Dogs (Volunteer organizations) California State Parks Beach located within Duxbury Reef State Marine Sanctuary Managed by Marin County Point Reyes National Seashore DESCRIPTION A 2.9 acres, unfenced, section of waterfront beach Hours: 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily; same as normal beach hours Fees: None One and one/half miles of beach with running water, picnic tables. Hours: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Fees: None Two miles of shoreline during low tide. Facilities include portable toilets. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Facilities include chemical toilets Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS One dog per person. Dogs must wear collar/tags, have current vaccinations, be more than four months old, and respond to voice commands. Aggressive dogs and female dogs in heat are not permitted. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on a leash no longer than six feet. Dogs are allowed north of trail but must be on leash no longer than six feet; leaving pets unattended and tied to tree or object is prohibited. Dogs not permitted south of trailhead (protected habitat for the snowy plover). CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] COUNTYI BEACH I ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Marin Limantour Beach' Point Reyes National Seashore Marin Marin Marin DESCRIPTION Facilities include chemical toilets Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Muir Beach Golden Gate National Facilities include chemical toilets. Recreation Area Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Point Reyes/Great Point Reyes National Facilities include chemical toilets Beach Seashore Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs are allowed south of trail but must be on leash no longer than six feet; leaving pets unattended and tied to tree or object is prohibited. Dogs not permitted north of trailhead (protected habitat for the snowy plover, harbor seals). Dogs are permitted under voice control. Dogs must be on leash no longer than six feet; and leaving pets unattended and tied to tree or object is prohibited. Dogs are not allowed from the North Beach parking lot to the south, as this area is protected habitat for the snowy plover. Rodeo Beach Golden Gate National Facilities include running water, Dogs are permitted off leash Recreation Area restrooms and drinking fountain. under voice control from the Hours: Sunrise to sunset shoreline to the crest of the dunes. Fees: None CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] COUNTY BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE DESCRIPTION RULES/REGULATIONS STRUCTURE Marin Upton Beach Marin County Facilities include trash cans. Dogs must be on leash no longer Hours: Sunrise to sunset than six feet. Fees: None Mendocino Mendocino California State Parks Facilities include chemical toilets. Dogs must be leashed. Headlands State Beach Hours: Sunrise to sunset (Big River Beach) Fees: None Mendocino MacKerricher State California State Parks Campsites, tables, restrooms. Dogs must be on tended leash no Park Hours: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and Fees: None must clean up after them. Mendocino Van Damme State California State Parks Facilities include running water, Dogs must be on tended leash no Beach restrooms. longer than six feet. Owners Hours: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Fees: None Mendocino Westport -Union California State Parks Two miles of beach with tables and Dogs must be on tended leash no Landing State Beach restrooms. longer than six feet. Owners Hours: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Fees: None 6M, COUNTY Monterey Monterey Monterey Monterey W CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] BEACH( ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Asilomar State Beach I California State Parks Carmel City Beach Carmel River State Beach Garrapata State Beach City of Carmel Carmel Residents Association (Volunteer org.) California State Parks California State Parks DESCRIPTION Facilities including running water and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: None One mile of beach. Hours: Open 24 hours Fees: None Approximately one mile of beach with running water and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: None Two miles of beachfront with running water and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs must be on tended leash no more than six feet long and have current license and rabies shots; owners must pick up after their dogs. Dogs may be off -leash, under voice control, on south portion of beach, past stream. Dogs are allowed off -leash under voice control. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet and have current license and rabies shots. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet and have current license and rabies shots. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. V COUNTY Monterey Monterey Orange Orange him BEACH Monterey State Beach Pfeiffer Beach Huntington Dog Beach Laguna Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] _ ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE California State Parks Los Padres National Forest City of Huntington Beach Preservation Society of Huntington Dog Beach (Non-profit org.) City of Laguna DESCRIPTION One-half mile of sandy beach with chemical toilets. Hours: 6 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: None Located in Big Sur; facilities include restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. -sunset Fees: $5/car One -mile of fenced beach. Hours: 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily (parking lot closes at 8 p.m.) Fees: None Facilities include running water, restrooms, and showers. Hours: 24 hours Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs allowed on beach in designated area only; must be on tended leash no more than six feet long; owners must pick up after their dogs. Dogs must be on tended leash no more than six feet long; must have current license and rabies shots; owners must pick up after their dogs. Dogs must be on tended leash no more than six feet long (except on wet sand and water —see p. 40). Owners must pick up after their dogs. Dogs are permitted on -leash before 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. from June l to Sept. 16, and anytime during the rest of the year. 1011061Y�M_I San Diego San Diego San Diego BEACH Coronado Beach Del Mar Dog Beach (also known as North Beach) Dog Beach on Ocean Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE City of Coronado James Scripp Bluffs Reserve City of San Diego City of San Diego DESCRIPTION Facilities include running water for dogs. Hours: Daylight Fees: None North of the San Dieguito River mouth. Facilities include chemical toilets, restrooms, showers, and water. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Dog Beach is on the west end of the San Diego River Floodway. Hours: Open 24 hours Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs permitted off -leash on the two -block area at the north end of the beach. From Sept. 15 to June 15, dogs are permitted off -leash under voice command from Via de la Valle south to 27th Street. From June 15 to Sept. 15, dogs must be on a leash S feet or less in length. Dogs are permitted off -leash. Owners are asked to pick up after their dogs. Also, puppies are not allowed until they have had all of their required vaccinations; dogs must have up to date vaccinations and current license. rn COUNTY San Diego San Francisco BEACH Fiesta Island Baker Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off --leash are indicated in bold] _ ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE City of San Diego Golden Gate National Recreation Area DESCRIPTION Located in Mission Bay; park has a 5.2 mile asphalt path around the island and chemical toilets. Hours: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Fees: None South of the Golden Gate Bridge. Facilities include restrooms and running water. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None San Francisco Chrissy Field Beach Golden Gate National On San Francisco Bay. Recreation Area Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None San Francisco Fort Golden Gate National Beach and park with water Funston/Burton Recreation Area faucet/trough. Beach Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs are allowed off -leash except for the fenced areas. Owners must pick up after their dogs. Puppies are not allowed until they have had all required vaccinations; dogs must have current vaccinations and license. Dogs are permitted under voice control on Baker Beach north of Lobos Creek. Dogs are permitted under voice control. Dogs are permitted under voice control at Fort Funston and Phillip Burton Beach. Dogs must be on -leash in the Bank Swallow habitat area. CK01Al `I11'1 San Francisco San Luis Obispo BEACH Ocean Beach Avila Beach and Old Port Beach San Luis Obispo I Cayucos State Beach San Luis Obispo' Morro Strand State Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Golden Gate National Recreation Area City of Avila Beach California State Parks California State Parks DESCRIPTION Four miles of beach with chemical toilets. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Developed and undeveloped beaches. Facilities include restrooms, showers, and water No specified hours or fees. Picnic tables, restrooms, outdoor shower, drinking fountain. Hours: 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Fees: None Facilities include picnic area, no running water Hours: Sunrise to 10 p.m. Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs are allowed on Ocean Beach under voice control from Stairwell 1 to Stairwell 21. Dogs must be on leash south of Stairwell 21 to Sloat Boulevard to protect the snowy plover. Dogs are not allowed between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and must be leashed. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no more than six feet long; owners must pick up after their dogs. CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] COUNTY ( BEACH I ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE San Luis Obispo Oceano Dunes State California State Parks Vehicular Recreation Area San Luis Obispo Pismo State Beach California State Parks San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Elm San Simeon State Beach Douglas Family Preserve California State Parks City of Santa Barbara DESCRIPTION I RULES/REGULATIONS 3,600 acre off-road area with Dogs must be on tended leash no 5 1/2 miles beach. Facilities include longer than six feet. Owners running water, restrooms, and cannot leave pets unattended and showers. must clean up after them. Hours: 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Fees: $5/day use (drive in), free walk in Facilities include no running water, chemical toilets. Hours: 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Fees: $5/day use Facilities include no running water, chemical toilets. Hours: 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Fees: None A 70 -acre open space area with wide undeveloped beach below mesa. Hours: 24 hours Fees: None Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Owners must clean up after their dogs and keep dog leashed on non -City access trails and beaches. E: C77 CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] ADAUNISTRATIVE COUNTY BEACH STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION RULES/REGULATIONS Santa Barbara Goleta Beach County Santa Barbara County Beach and park about one-half mile Dogs must be leashed. Park long. Facilities include bathrooms, water, and food. Hours: 8 a.m. to sunset Fees: None Santa Barbara Rincon Park and Santa Barbara County One-half mile long; facilities Dogs must be leashed. Beach include picnic tables and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to sunset Fees: None Santa Cruz Davenport Landing Santa Cruz County Facilities include running water. Dogs must be leashed. Beach No specified hours or fees. Santa Cruz Lighthouse Field Owned by California Facilities include restrooms, Dogs can be unleashed from State Beach State Parks lifeguards. sunrise to 10 a.m. and from & Managed by City of Hours: Sunrise to sunset 4 p.m. to sunset. Dogs are not Santa Cruz allowed from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Its Beach Fees: None Friends of Lighthouse Field (Volunteer org) NI O CKI -My 11'1 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 65 CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] _ BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Mitchell's Cove City of Santa Cruz Beach Manresa State Beach 1 California State Parks Natural Bridges State California State Parks Park DESCRIPTION This is a "summer beach;" it mostly disappears in the winter. Facilities include restrooms, lifeguards. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: None Hwy. l; South of Aptos. Facilities include running water and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: $6/parking Facilities include running water, restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: $6/parking RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs can be unleashed from sunrise to 10 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to sunset. Dogs are not allowed from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. COUNTY Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz BEACH New Brighton State Beach Palm State Beach Rio Del Mar State Beach Seabright State Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE California State Parks California State Parks California State Parks California State Parks DESCRIPTION 93 acres in Capitola; facilities include running water and restrooms Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: $6/parking Hwy. 1 in Watsonville; facilities include picnic tables, showers, restrooms, and BBQ. Hours: 8 a.m. to half-hour after sunset Fees: $6/parking Facilities include running water and restrooms. Hours: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. summer/to sunset in winter Fees: $6/parking Facilities include running water, restrooms, and fire rings. Hours: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Fees: $6/parking RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. N N COUNTY Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Sonoma Sonoma h CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] BEACH( ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Seacliff State Beach I California State Parks Twin Lakes State Beach Doran Regional Park Campgrounds Gualala Point Regional Park Beach California State Parks Sonoma County Sonoma County DESCRIPTION Picnic area, running water, restrooms, and showers. Hours: 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. summer/to sunset in winter Fees: $6/parking One -mile beach has outdoor showers, restrooms. Hours: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Fees: $6/parking Two-mile beach with campsites, tables, restrooms. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: $5/day use 195 -acre park with beaches, trails, campsites, tables, and restrooms. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: $4/day use RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on tended leash no longer than six feet. Owners cannot leave pets unattended and must clean up after them. Dogs must be on leash no more than six feet long and must have rabies certification. Owners must clean up after their dogs. Dogs must be on leash no more than six feet long and must have rabies certification. Owners must clean up after their dogs. COUNTY Sonoma Sonoma Sonoma Ventura N w BEACH Sea Ranch Coastal Access Trails Sonoma Coast State Beach Stillwater Cove Regional Park Hollywood Beach CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold) ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Sonoma County California State Parks Sonoma County Ventura County DESCRIPTION Six trail access points to beaches. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: $4/day use Three long sandy beaches separated by rocky bluffs and headlands; running water and restrooms. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: $6/parking Small beach in park with campground, tables, restrooms. Hours: Sunrise to sunset Fees: $4/day use One mile -stretch with restrooms and running water. Hours: 24 hours Fees: None RULES/REGULATIONS Dogs must be on leash no more than six feet long and must have rabies certification. Owners must clean up after their dogs. Leashed dogs are allowed at Shell Beach, Portuguese Beach and Schoolhouse Beach. Owners must pick up after their dogs. Dogs must be on leash no more than six feet long and must have rabies certification. Owners must clean up after their dogs. Dogs are allowed on beach before 9 a.m. and after 5 p.m. on -leash only; owners must clean up after their dog. CALIFORNIA BEACHES THAT ALLOW DOGS [Beaches that permit dogs off -leash are indicated in bold] COUNTY BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE DESCRIPTION RULES/REGULATIONS STRUCTURE Ventura Oxnard Shores Beach City of Oxnard Developed beach with restrooms, Dogs must be on -leash; owners water. must clean up after their dog. Hours: 7 a.m. to dusk Fees: None Ventura Silver Strand Beach Ventura County One -mile stretch with restrooms Dogs are allowed on beach before and running water. 9 a.m.-and after 5 p.m. on -leash Hours: 24 hours only; Owners must clean up after their dogs. Fees: None RUNNING OFF -LEASH AT ON -LEASH BEACHES As the preceding table shows, most California beaches that permit dogs require that they be on -leash. Beach managers and others responding to the CRB survey observed that, in addition to receiving some complaints about dogs off -leash, they regularly see dogs running off -leash in areas where leashes are required. In some cases dog owners may not know the rules, but in many cases they know and disregard the leash laws. Dog -owners can be cited and fined for having their dogs off -leash. In many locations, however, enforcement is sporadic or minimal. This is generally attributed to enforcement agencies responding to higher priority calls with their limited staffing resources. At some beaches, off -leash use has evolved over the years into a common practice and dog owners routinely let their pets loose in spite of leash requirements. For example, on beaches like Upton and Cayucos State Beach there is a history of informally allowing dogs off -leash. Leash laws are typically not enforced at some beaches located in small communities and their off -leash use is not publicized outside of the community. "...In search of dog friendly beaches, we recently called and researched ocean beaches throughout the United States and Canada. While we did find hundreds of beaches that allow dogs, the majority of beaches throughout the U.S. and Canada do not allow pets. Rased on an unscientific poll by DogFriendly.com, the top reason for banning dogs from beaches is the disregard for leash laws. Violation of the leash law is a hot topic and park officials can be very sensitive about this issue. Many popular beaches have banned dogs because there were incidents with a person or even a dog being bothered by someone else's dog, or park officials were concerned about such conflicts arising. Even beaches that have recently allowed leashed dogs are now banning dogs completely because too many people are choosing to ignore the leash law.... " Tara Kain Dog Etiquette for a Dog -Friendly Beach April 26, 2003 California Research Bureau, California State Library 25 26 California Research Bureau, California State Library OFF -LEASH BEACHES: THE ISSUES "It is a tricky balance. I used to work for the GGNRA here and have seen first-hand the damage that a dog of careless owners can do to the resources [and themselves — I have a friend whose dog chased a ball over the cliffs edge and broke the upper left quadrant of his jaw/gums. Poor of hound dog!] I also know that dogs must have off -leash play time to stay sane. And I also know that everyone who pays their taxes has a right to utilize those same resources ... with their children safely in tow. "9 BENEFITS According to the Director of the Behavior Clinic at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organizations and dog trainers, off -leash play is essential to the well-being of dogs — they do not get sufficient exercise without it. Regular off -leash play makes for healthy, well -adjusted dogs. It burns off pent-up energy, builds confidence, improves a dog's social skills and helps prevent aggression. 10 Advocates and others who have studied this area point out that off -leash recreation benefits communities in addition to dog owners and their dogs. 11 These benefits include: • Well -socialized and exercised dogs are less aggressive and less likely to create a public nuisance. • Designating off -leash space for dogs reduces the likelihood that dogs will be let loose in other areas where they could bother or infringe on the rights of other park users. • Off -leash areas promote exercise for dog owners. • Dogs often help "break the ice" and bring people together. An off -leash area often functions as a social center — it provides a public space and opportunity for dog owners to meet, share information, and form community bonds. • Off -leash areas promote responsible dog ownership. Social peer pressure from regular area users tends to enforce the basic rules such as cleaning up after one's dog and controlling behavior. CONCERNS Several issues are consistently raised during discussions and debates about creating areas for dog owners to share the beach and water with their unleashed dogs. These include concerns about adverse impacts to wildlife and plant habitat, and about impaired quality of both the beach and water. Other concerns center on the safety of the people and dogs that share the same space, and the potential for increased liability due to these health and safety risks. California Research Bureau, California State Library 27 WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER The Western Snowy Plover is a sparrow - sized, light-colored shorebird with dark patches on either side of the neck, behind the eye, and on the forehead. Snowy plovers have lived on California beaches for thousands of years, but today human use of their remaining beach habitat seriously threatens their survival. Once numbering in the thousands, less than 1500 breeding plovers remain. Prior to 1970 they nested at 53 locations; today they nest in only half as many sites. California State Park beaches provide much of the suitable habitat remaining for this small shorebird. HABITAT Dogs are not permitted on some beaches in order to protect specific habitat. While the potential adverse impact of dogs on a variety of animal and plant life is of concern, the Western Snowy Plover — a small shorebird — is the primary "lighting rod" issue on the beach. SNOWYPLOVER PROTECTION 2 The Pacific coast population of the Western Snowy Plover is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. In addition to protection on federal land, California State Parks has a legal obligation to protect snowy plovers on State beaches. (See box at left for a description of this bird.) The State Parks system is concerned about the impact of both humans and domestic animals on this shore bird. Because the birds blend in with their surroundings and are hard to see, park visitors may inadvertently disturb them or their nests. Unleashed dogs may chase or catch birds and destroy nests. State Parks literature points out that even leashed dogs that are nearby may frighten plovers off their nests. A frightened plover may abandon its nest or chicks, or may crush its own eggs while running off a nest, or may use up its small reserves of energy fleeing instead of gathering food — which can be enough to kill the bird. The provisions of the Endangered Species Act apply to all beachgoers.T This means that killing, harming, or damaging the snowy plover's habitat is prohibited. It also means that if an individual brings a dog onto a beach and the dog disrupts the feeding of a bird, leading to the bird's injury, it is a violation of the law. California State Parks reports taking several measures to help the Western Snowy Plover recover and to protect the beach ecosystem. These include fencing off nesting sites 4 The federal Endangered Species Act makes it a crime "to harass, harm, pursue" a threatened species without special exemption. "Harm" is defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. "Harassment" is defined as an intentional or neglectful action that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 28 California Research Bureau, California State Library (using highly visible orange plastic fencing, for example), posting warning signs, and educating beach goers. In addition, some recreational activities (like kite flying) are restricted and some portions of the beaches are closed to dogs to protect nesting areas. Federal and local beaches with snowy plovers or other endangered or threatened species take similar actions. For example, when migratory shore birds, including snowy plovers, turned up unexpectedly at Ocean Beach Dog Beach in 2004, wildlife officials erected protective fencing around the birds' nests in the sand dunes until the end of nesting season to accommodate them. 13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 14 There are over 150 million visits to California beaches each year. Over the past few years, beachgoers have become increasingly concerned about water quality. Waters that are polluted may contain several different disease -causing organisms, commonly called pathogens. This is especially true in Southern California, one of most densely populated coastal regions in the country! Bacterial pollution comes from numerous sources including sewer line breaks, sewage spills and overflows, waste from pets and other domestic animals, waste from marine mammals and birds, poorly maintained septic tanks, and oil spills. Polluted water makes its way into the bays and ocean through storm drains and storm water runoff. This storm and urban runoff is the leading cause of pollution along the state's coastline. (State and local health officials recommend that beachgoers never swim within 100 yards of any storm drain.) Exposure to contaminated water has been linked to increased risk for a broad range of adverse health effects including fever, nausea, and gastroenteritis, SNOWY PLOVERS & THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the coastal population of the Western Snowy Plover as a threatened population. In 1999, the USFWS designated critical habitat; it re- issued critical habitat in 2004 following a lawsuit over failure to analyze the economic impacts of the designation. The USFWS developed a recovery plan in 2001 that remains in draft form. Some dog advocacy and other organizations challenge the legitimacy of the federal process used to designate the snowy plover as "threatened," and subsequent protections. The USFWS is continuing to review petitions received in 2002 and 2003 to de -list the Western Snowy Plover based on a challenge to the genetic distinctiveness of the plover population. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION The California Coastal Commission, in partnership with cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water along the coast. The Commission has jurisdiction over activities that change the intensity of use or public access to land, and construction on beaches. A major concern is potential restrictions to beach access (for example, a fence across the beach). Some dog beach -related actions may require a permit from the Coastal Commission. The Commission, however, does not have a specific policy related to dogs or dog beaches. The population growth in Southern California results in open land converted into hard surfaces. This increases the rate of urban runoff and can impact water quality through adding sediment, toxic chemicals, microbial pathogens, and nutrients to the ocean. California Research Bureau, California State Library 29 as well as cold and flu-like symptoms such as nasal congestion, sore throat, fever and/or cough. Children, the elderly, and persons with impaired immune systems, are at the greatest risk. 15 California statutes require that state and local agencies monitor water quality by analyzing water samples for specific bacteria that indicate the presence of pathogens. The bacteria counted are total coliform, a rough indicator of decay, and fecal coliform and enterococci, which are associated with human sewage and the excrement of warm- blooded animals. Water quality is generally analyzed during three time periods — summer dry weather, year-round dry weather, and wet weather conditions — because different conditions affect pollution levels. For example, after a rain, bacteria counts usually far exceed state health criteria for recreational water use. (State and local health officials recommend that beachgoers never swim in any coastal water during a rainstorm, and for at least three days after a storm has ended.) When water monitoring reveals unhealthy levels of bacteria, or rainfall runoff threatens the coastal water quality, lifeguards or other beach officials post advisories to warn the public. They generally close beaches that are contaminated by sewage spills or other serious health hazards. Heal the Bay, an environmental organization, produces The Beach Report Card, an annual consumer -friendly summary of the state's beach water quality monitoring programs. 16 Endorsed by the State Water Resources Control Board, this summary assigns a grade to approximately 350 beaches where the water quality is monitored year- round (and additional beaches where water is monitored during specific times of the year). The Beach Report Card 2004-2005, with dog beaches annotated, is included as Appendix C. With a few exceptions, beaches that allow dogs received excellent to very good grades (A or B) for dry weather during the past two grading cycles. (Over 75 percent of all beaches received an F for their wet weather grade.) Goleta Beach in Santa Barbara, an off -leash beach, received a C grade. Ocean Beach Dog Beach, which has ongoing water quality problems, improved from a D in 2003 to a C on the latest report card. According to city staff, the poor water quality is primarily attributed to the beach's location at the mouth of the San Diego floodway, an urban runoff site (see page 46 for a description of Dog Beach clean-up efforts). 17 There are limitations associated with the current water quality testing processes: water testing analyses do not indicate the source of contamination: the water is not tested often enough, or at the right times, to accurately determine if there is harmful bacteria contamination: and the time lag between collecting the data, disseminating the results, California Health and Safety Code Sections 115875-115915 specify requirements related to water quality testing and notifying the public of health hazards through posting advisories and closing the beach. 30 California Research Bureau, California State Library and posting warnings about water quality may lead to outdated information. 18 In addition, a recent epidemiological study found that the types of bacteria that health officials test for do not relate to the illnesses that beachgoers contract. As a result, the traditional testing methods may not be a reliable indicator of whether water is safe for recreation. 19 Viruses are believed to be a major cause of water- borne illnesses. 20 There is also what has been referred to as a "toxic cocktail" of pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals and other pollutants in the water. 21 Water quality processes do not routinely include tests for any of these. State regulations prohibit dogs on public swimming beaches that have a lifeguard (see box at right). Environmental groups and others have raised health concerns about the effect of dogs and dog waste (feces and urine) on the beaches and water. The primary concern is that people are more likely to become ill after swimming at beaches that allow dogs in the surf zone due to small amounts of fecal matter that remain on the sand and contaminate the water. (And, in spite of efforts by dog -owners to scoop their dogs' poop, there will always be some dog waste left behind .)22 Dog waste is clearly a part of the pollution mix. However, given current testing practices and limitations, it is difficult to measure and quantify the amount of contamination that dog waste contributes to the beaches and water. The interrelationship among pollutants and the beach environment is complex. The characteristics of the beach (such as open beaches versus beaches adjacent to a natural or concrete storm drain) and the range of contamination sources impact the water quality. At some beaches, dog waste may be a major offender, at others a different source, like droppings from sea birds, may turn out to be a primary polluter.23 SAFETY Dogs and people will inevitably interact on a dog beach. In addition, it is likely that dogs will come in CA REGULATION PERTAINING TO DOGS AND BEACHES 7985.1 Animals. No person shall bring onto or allow any animal, except guide dogs used by the blind, to remain on any beach which has been designated a public swimming beach by the state, or any city, county, or city and county and where life guards are provided, except that horses may, be ridden on designated equestrian trails and areas. This regulation is not intended to prohibit or supersede any local ordinance now in effect or which may be enacted. California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Group 10. 1, Article 2 HEAL THE BAY'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON DOG BEACHES 1. The dog park must be located above the highest high tide line. [Heal the Bay does not support dog beaches that allow dogs in the water or on any part of the beach that is subject to the tide.] 2. The dog park should be fully enclosed by fencing or other means to ensure dogs stay within the designated area. 3. The area should be clearly marked as a dog park so that tourists and other visitors will understand the area is a dog park. 4. Rules requiring the immediate clean- up of dog feces should be strictly enforced. 5. A routine maintenance program should be implemented to keep the designated area clean of dog feces and trash. California Research Bureau, California State Library 31 contact with people who are on sunning, swimming, jogging, or biking on adjacent portions of the beach. When a large group of people and a large group of dogs are placed together, this situation can lead to a confrontation between a dog and an adult, child, or another dog. California State Parks does not permit off -leash dogs on state beaches. In a letter to the City of Santa Monica, the Deputy Director of Parks Operations observes that dogs may be a potential threat to visitors, park staff, and other dogs, when not under the physical restraint of a leash. In addition, "dogs can impact aesthetics and the `sense of place' sought by many visitors to state parks. While many people enjoy the companionship of their dogs, many other park visitors complain that their experience is negatively impacted by dogs." Further, some people are afraid of dogs. And even friendly dogs that enthusiastically jump on people can be an unpleasant, frightening, or dangerous experience, especially for children and the elderly. 24 The California Surf Lifesaving Association does not have an official position on dog beaches. However, at the February 28, 2006 Santa Monica City Council meeting, Los Angeles County lifeguards — charged with the primary enforcement rules at the beach — expressed concern that the need to "police" dogs on the beach would distract them from protecting swimmers, their primary mission. Conflicts between dogs and people (including confrontations between dog owners that result from encounters between their dogs) occur at dog beaches. Long Beach lifeguards have complained that in warm weather there can be up to 50 dogs on the beach and that disputes arise among swimmers, windsurfers, and dog owners.25 Some dog beaches attempt to eliminate or minimize potentially hazardous situations by addressing them through rules. For example, Long Beach Dog Zone rules state that children must be accompanied by an adult and "must not run, shout, scream, wave their arms, or otherwise excite or antagonize dogs." The Dog Zone also limits the number of dogs to one per adult to ensure that each dog can be adequately supervised at all times. According to Steve Hammack, Superintendent of Parks, during the past three years there have been four persons known to have been bitten by dogs (including a Park Ranger and a toddler) at Santa Cruz's Lighthouse Field State Beach. 6 Dog bites and other injuries have also reportedly occurred at some beaches in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In their August 2005 Emergency Petition submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior that requests the leash law be enforced pending completion of the federal negotiated rulemaking process, several organizations that oppose off -leash dogs at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) state that, since September 2000, off -leash dogs have harmed dozens of visitors, including thirteen serious physical injuries (see box on page 5). However, in its response to this petition, a dog owners group asserts that these incidents are not authenticated and that many of them involve unleashed dogs in areas that require them to be on -leash. 32 California Research Bureau, California State Library Managers at other dog beaches report that they are not aware of bites or other injuries caused by unleashed dogs. In addition, the literature and a recent study of 17 California dog parks conducted by the University of California (UC), Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine conclude that injuries to people from dog bites in off -leash areas are rare. 27 Anecdotally, however, there are dog bites to humans that go unreported, for example, if the person does not want to jeopardize the dog beach.28 "A dog park is like a cocktail party, where you don't know anyone and everyone is drunk. You could have fun, but it could be a disaster. "* Dog beaches, like dog parks, may be dangerous to dogs. When dogs play — and are running and jumping in groups — there is -always the potential for the activity to get out of hand and fighting may occur. Different play styles among dogs may cause misunderstandings or fights, or dogs from the same family may gang up on another dog. In some cases, a small dog may be treated as prey by a larger dog. (It is not uncommon for dog parks to have separate large and small dog areas to prevent this situation) .29 Dog beach managers report that confrontations among dogs are not uncommon. However, no injuries or formal reports were reported. The UC Davis dog park study also found a low risk of dog bites to dogs.30 According to DogPAC Santa Barbara, a dog -advocacy group, "There are no perfect solutions to prevent accidents for adult recreational users or dogs, though dog safety should be a consideration when choosing appropriate parks. But dog safety is ultimately the dog owner's responsibility." A related concern is the spillover effect of a dog beach on adjacent areas. For example according to Huntington State Beach staff, many dog owners park outside the off -leash area on State Park property and unleash their dogs before they arrive at the city owned dog beach. These dogs often disturb wildlife, sun bathers and other beach users while enroute to the off -leash area.31 LIABILITY Various dog beaches in California have been in operation from three to over 25 years. Our survey of beach managers found no examples of lawsuits at any of these areas. Public entities carry general liability coverage. Several cities and counties have addressed the potential liability involved in owning or managing a dog beach by posting signs in conspicuous locations, such as the entrance. The signs advise visitors that 1) the park is an off -leash area and that they use the area at their own risk, and 2) they are assuming all risk and that the city is "held harmless" for any injury or damage caused by their off -leash dog. (See the box at right for an example.) Trish King, CPDT, Director of Behavior and Training, Marin Humane Society. California Research Bureau, California State Library 33 LIABILITY LANGUAGE "Use of the dog exercise area by the dog shall constitute implied consent of the dog's owner to all regulation and shall constitute a waiver of liability to the City of Long Beach and an agreement to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Long Beach, its officials and employees for any injury or damage caused by a dog when the dog is not on a leash." City of Long Beach 6.16.3 10 Dog Beach Zone ORDINANCE No. C-7859 S. COSTS However, this type of language has not been tested in court to determine whether it provides the desired immunity. In addition, there are some caveats to consider. The court may not consider the language and signage to be adequate relative to the city or county permitting a hazard to exist. The term "dog - owner" may not adequately cover all persons in the dog area. In addition, regardless of the validity of the lawsuit, public entities may be sued due to the public's perception of "deep pockets." sa Other cities do not address liability specific to an off - leash dog beach (or in addition to the city's general liability coverage). Managers of these beaches report that liability has been neither a concern nor an issue to date. We did not find comprehensive information about the start-up costs that are required to establish the dog beach. However, they are generally reported as minimal and typically consist of purchasing additional trash cans, dog waste bags, bag dispensers, and signage. A 2002 news item about Ocean Beach Dog Beach in San Diego states that the city spent $10,000 on mutt mitts (dog bags), trash cans, and signs to improve and, in effect, re -start the dog beach.33 Some cities and counties provide the total amount of funding and all of the maintenance services for the dog beach. In these cases, city or county crews generally perform regular beach maintenance with funds budgeted for all of the beaches (the dog beach is not broken out as a separate item). The city or county also provides dog waste bags and trash cans, while individual dog owners are expected to remove their dog's waste. A common approach, especially for newer dog beaches, is shared maintenance. In these cases, city or county crews provide regular beach maintenance with funds budgeted for all of the beaches (the dog beach is not broken out as a separate item). In addition, a community group partners with the city to maintain the dog beach. Specifically, the partners take on the responsibility and cost of cleaning up the dog waste and undertake other duties, such as providing dog waste bags and educating beachgoers about the rules. The participation of volunteers — through donations and services — often offset city and county costs. Two of the dog beaches generate revenue. Huntington Dog Beach generates income indirectly through parking fees, and Point Isabel receives income through on-site concessions. A beach manager pointed out that the primary negative cost impact of a dog beach is that it attracts more visitors to the beach, which results in the need for increased maintenance and enforcement. There are, however, some economic benefits to local government and/or nearby merchants created by increased visitors. 34 California Research Bureau, California State Library CALIFORNIA'S OFF -LEASH BEACHES Several cities, and some other entities, have established off -leash dog areas in response to dog owners' requests for access to the beach and water to exercise and play with their dogs. This decision generally entailed a public process that addressed the impact that off - leash dogs would have on habitat, health, safety, liability, and costs. Beaches in northern California that do not require dogs to be leashed include the Samoa Dunes Recreation Area, South Spit, `Upton Beach, some beaches in the Golden Gate Recreation Area (Rodeo, Baker, Fort FunstonBurton, and Ocean Beaches), Carmel City Beach, Lighthouse Field State Park and Mitchell's Cove. Southern California beaches allowing unleashed dogs include the beach at the Douglas Family Preserve, Point Isabel, Long Beach Dog Zone, Huntington Dog Beach, Ocean Beach Dog Beach, Del Mar Dog Beach, Coronado Dog Beach, and Fiesta Island. Several are described below (from north to south) to identify common characteristics and characteristics that are unique to specific beaches. CARMEL CITY BEACH 34 "For dogs lucky enough to live in Carmel -by -the -Sea, life just doesn't get any better. The upscale tourist town of art galleries and beautiful coastal vistas has a soft spot for its four -legged residents. Carmel now has a special place for dogs to quench their thirsts as well. Carmel has dedicated the "Fountain of Woof, " a dogs -only drinking fountain at Carmel Plaza... Other amenities for pooches in Carmel include the right to run free on the city's white -sand beach. "s5 Carmel does not have a specific "dog zone" at its beach. Dogs have had the full off -leash run of the beach for over 25 years. Signs posted along the pedestrian walkway parallel to the beach advise visitors to clean up after their dogs. The city provides dog bags for this purpose and the Police Department is responsible for enforcement. City employees also maintain the beach, although the Carmel Residents Association assists with monthly beach clean- ups. Beach maintenance costs are included in the city budget. CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOG ORDINANCES The city of Carmel ordinance states that "Itis unlawful for the owner or person having charge of any dog to permit the dog to run at large on any City -owned beachlands or on any City -owned park lands unless the owner or person having charge is also present and in control of the dog at such time as it is running loose." Other dog ordinances make it unlawful for female dogs in heat and vicious dogs to be off -leash. The dog owner, having knowledge that the dog has menaced, attacked or bitten any person or animal, cannot permit the dog to run leash - free unless the dog is wearing a muzzle. Further, such dogs cannot be tethered on any sidewalk or public property unless muzzled. According to Mike Branson, head of the City Forest, Parks & Beach Department, the consensus among Carmel residents is to allow dogs on the beach. However, conflicts flare up at times in spite of this longstanding tradition. One problem is related to an increase in beach usage — as the numbers of dogs increase, so does the potential number California Research Bureau, California State Library 35 LIGHTHOUSE FIELD STATE BEACH (LFSB) LAWSUIT In 2001, the city of Santa Cruz began a process to update the 1984 General Plan for LFSB. While the 1984 Plan stated that dogs should not be off -leash, in 1993 the City Council instead allowed dogs off -leash. The 2001 Plan update proposed to change the off -leash policy to conform with the 1993 decision. The public hearings for this process generated controversy, with complaints about "sensitive habitat degradation" and uncontrolled dog behavior (pooping,'barking, chasing, and snarling). A lawsuit was filed against the city claiming that the Initial Study for the Plan did not adequately address a change in policy and requesting that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the impact of dogs on the beach. The court denied the lawsuit in 2004, and the ruling was appealed. In August 2005, the Court of Appeal ruled that an EIR was not required, but found that the Initial Study should be amended to discuss potential increases in dog usage over the years. In response to the court decision in October 2005, the California Department of Parks and Recreation informed the city of Santa Cruz that it would have to comply with its 1984 General Plan and that members of the public would be prohibited from using LFSB for off -leash dogs by November 15, 2007. This date was established to allow the City a grace period to consider alternative off -leash locations at city -owned facilities. The City Council is debating their response to State Parks. Council members are hearing from residents who have had negative experiences with dogs and feel that they don't belong in a state park, and from a large number of dog advocates — many displaying the slogan "I Like Dogs and I Vote." of conflicts among dogs, and by extension, their owners. Nearby state beaches require that dogs be leashed or banned altogether. As a result, more dogs and their owners come to Carmel to play off -leash. Another issue is an increase in the number of dog owners who do not pick up after their pets. The city and the Residents Association are reviewing options to combat this problem. Carmel does not address liability in relation to dogs on its beach in the municipal ordinances. This issue has not been a city concern to date and no lawsuits have been filed. LIGHTHOUSE FIELB STATE BEACH36 Forming the northern boundary of Monterey Bay, this area is one of the last open headlands in any California urban area. Surfers, tourists, birds — and dogs — use this area. In the mornings and late afternoons, dogs can run leash -free in the field on the cliff and on the beach below. The State owns Lighthouse Field State Beach (LFSB). Under a 1977 agreement that expires in 2007, the city of Santa Cruz has the authority and responsibility for developing, operating, and maintaining the area. The state and county retained approval over any changes in policy and operations. Rules about dogs on the beach have changed over time in Santa Cruz. In 1964, dogs had to be leashed; by 1976 dogs were banned from all beaches. In 1993, the City Council changed the city leash law to allow off -leash areas. With the consent of the state and county, the City Parks and Recreation Superintendent designated Santa Cruz's three beaches — Lighthouse Field, Its, and Mitchell's Cove — as off -leash areas during morning and late afternoon (from sunrise to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to sunset). However, many violate the off -leash hours. The Superintendent of Parks reports that, during the past four years, Lighthouse Field State 36 California Research Bureau, California State Library Beach park rangers have issued around 900 citations, primarily to individuals with unleashed dogs during on -leash hours. Friends of Lighthouse Field (FOLF) was formed in 2002 during the midst of the LFSB lawsuit (described in the box). Its members "support the preservation of the beauty and recreation opportunities for people and dogs off -leash at Lighthouse Field and Its Beach." FOLF sponsors periodic volunteer clean-up days, provides clean-up bags, and educates the public on park rules and responsibilities. 37 DOUGLAS FAMILY PRESERVE OFF -LEASH BEACH 38 The Douglas Family Preserve is a 70 -acre grassy mesa with a wide area of undeveloped ocean frontage. Dog owners walked their dogs both on- and off -leash before the land was,gifted to the city of Santa Barbara several years ago to be used as an open space park. During the eight years it took the city to approve the Douglas Family Preserve Master Plan, no changes were made in the off -leash practices. The most contentious issue raised during the plan approval process was the off -leash provision. The approved plan for the Preserve provides that dogs can be off -leash on the mesa and on the beach, though they must be on -leash when walking through adjacent county property to access the beach. (Dog owners reportedly often violate the county leash requirement and let their dogs off - leash before reaching the Preserve.) City employees maintain the beach. Dog waste bags (Mutt Mitts) and trash cans are located on the way in, before visitors reach the Off -Leash Beach, so dog owners need to remember to pick up empty bags and deposit full ones on their way out. Maintenance costs for this beach are included in the city's general maintenance budget. The city posts signs identifying the area as a dog beach. Ordinances and signs state that the dog owner, and not the city, is responsible for any actions by their dog. POINT ISABEL39 Since 1987, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has maintained Point Isabel Regional Shoreline as a mixed-use, open space area where dog owners can bring their canine companions to run off -leash. Point Isabel consists of approximately 21 acres on the south side of the canal. The surroundings attract various species of birds at different times of the year. The area across the bridge from Point Isabel — known as North Point Isabel — is owned by the State of California and is part of the East Shore State Park. The area south of the canal is owned and managed by EBRPD; dogs are permitted to run off leash in that area. The park includes a dog -wash facility (Mudpuppy's Tub and Scrub) and a cafd (The Sit and Stay Cafd); both are EBRPD concessions. In addition to providing revenue for the park, these facilities function as an "information center" for Park District staff and visitors. California Research Bureau, California State Library 37 POINT ISABEL PARK RULES 1. Dog owners must always carry a leash. Maximum length is six feet. Dogs should be on leash in parking areas. 2. Dogs must be under voice control and within sight of their owners. 3. Owners must clean up feces deposited by their dogs. Bags are provided in boxes located throughout the park. 4. Dogs showing aggressiveness toward people or other dogs must be leashed immediately and muzzled if necessary. 5. Owners must stop dogs from digging and must fill in any holes created by their dogs. 6. Owners must prevent their dogs from going into the marsh at the east end of the park and disturbing the feeding birds at low tide. 7. No more than three dogs per person are permitted without a permit from EBPRD. Park staff is responsible for the maintenance work (pick up litter, empty garbage, and cut grass), but does not collect dog waste. Maintenance costs are covered in the Park's budget. Point Isabel Dog Owners and Friends (PIDO), a volunteer organization founded in 1981, works with the park district to maintain the area. Members sponsor monthly clean-up days. PIDO members also inform visitors of their responsibilities to obey the park rules. PIDO contributes its membership fees and donations to the EBRPD Foundation to support and enhance Point Isabel, publishes a brochure, and conducts educational tours, including about the need to protect the birds that nest and feed in the park. There have been no complaints reported about off - leash dogs. In contrast, the Park Superintendent reports that a few complaints have come from dog owners about other people using the park (fishermen, bikers, etc.) In addition, liability has not been a concern at this park — there have been no lawsuits. 40 According to Park Superintendent Kevin Takei, well over one million dogs and people visit Point Isabel in a year. This park is very popular and is often crowded. LONG BEACH DOG ZONE 41 The Long Beach Dog Zone is a 2.9 -acre stretch of unfenced beach along the water's edge. The zone's borders are marked by stenciled trash cans placed at the perimeters with rows of orange highway cones. Open daily from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.; the Dog Zone serves 35 to 100 dogs and their owners each day. The Dog Zone originated from a series of monthly off -leash dog events — known as Haute Dogs on the Beach days — organized by a local community activist. In response to the hundreds of dog owners advocating for permanent beach access, in 2003 the Long Beach City Council piloted the Dog Zone. The one-year test was an opportunity to study whether a dog beach would interfere with other beach recreation, and to determine what effects dogs might have on water quality and the beach. The pilot started with limited hours and expanded to all -day use during the summer. It included water quality tests, sand sampling, observations from lifeguards and incident reports. In addition, it was made clear at the outset that the city could not actively supervise or maintain the Dog Zone, nor would it be responsible for any injuries. In short, dog -owners had to take care of the Dog Zone themselves or they would lose it. 38 California Research Bureau, California State Library The Dog Zone pilot evaluation included a public health risk assessment performed by an environmental consultant. The report concluded that there were no discernable effects on the water quality or sand. There were also no reported dog bite incidents to humans. During the year pilot period, approximately a dozen incident reports were filed. These involved people not having control over their dogs, dogs outside of the Dog Zone, and more dogs per adult than allowed. (The evaluation points out that it is reasonable to assume that some people were unaware of the rules or boundaries as the program was not formally enforced during the pilot.) In September 2004, the City Council permanently established the Long Beach Dog Zone. The City entered into an agreement with the Recreation Dog Park Association, a non-profit organization, to implement the dog beach ordinance and assist in developing the Dog Zone. The Dog Park Association's role is to educate visitors about the rules and their purpose and to participate in beach clean-ups. City maintenance staff monitor the beach and provide dog waste bags. The beach maintenance costs. are included in the city budget. The rules are posted on a sign at the entrance to the Dog Zone. Animal control officers, lifeguards, and police officers can enforce the rules and cite violators. To address liability, the city enacted "hold harmless" language for injuries or damage caused by dogs (see box on page 34). However, in spite of the fact that Long Beach does not accept responsibility for the actions of dogs or people, both emergency and non- emergency incident reporting procedures are in place. LONG BEACH DOG ZONE CITY ORDINANCE RULES Dogs must stay on -leash until they enter, and once they exit, the Dog Zone (between the two yellow flags at the parking lot). They are only allowed to cross the bike path. Dogs are not permitted on the beach at any time other than the scheduled hours, or at any place other than the Dog Zone. Only one dog per adult is permitted and must be under visual and voice control at all times. Dogs must not be left unattended. The dog owner must use a suitable container or instrument to remove dog waste and dispose of it in waste containers provided for that purpose. The dog owner must also provide drinking water for their dog. No food is allowed. Dogs that do not respond to voice command and aggressive dogs are not permitted. Dogs younger than four months old and female dogs in heat are not permitted. Dog owners are entirely responsible for their dogs' actions, and accept the risk of allowing their dog to interact with people, other dogs, existing beach conditions, and City vehicles. Dog owners are legally responsible for any injury caused by dogs. All dogs must wear a collar with current tag s, have current vaccinations, and be licensed. Spiked collars on dogs are not permitted. Professional dog trainers may not use the area to conduct classes or individual instruction. Children must be accompanied by an adult and must not run, shout, scream, wave their arms, or otherwise excite or antagonize dogs. Bicycles, roller blades, roller skates, skateboards, strollers, and the like are not permitted; wheelchairs and other aids for the disabled are allowed. Team sports, such as football, soccer, baseball, and volleyball are not permitted. The use of a Frisbee or small ball is allowed. Dog Beach Zone, 6.1.6.310 ORDINANCE. NO. C-7859 California Research Bureau, California State Library 39 CREATIVE PLANNING TO MEET A NEED ... The California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) presented the Long Beach Dog Zone with a 2005 "Park Planning Achievement Award" for excellence in the design of a recreation area that "promotes participation in recreational experiences, strengthens community image, protects environmental resources, and facilitates community problem solving." ... CPRS recognized the extensive process involved in creating the Dog Zone including location selection, analysis of impact on other beach users, establishing maintenance and water testing practices to ensure beach and water quality standards, and adopting operating rules and regulations.... CPRS also acknowledged the [Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department's] efforts to outreach to citizens during the proposal phase including ... conduct public forums to present the project and hear issues from residents. To date continued weekly water testing at the Dog Zone has recorded no change in water quality. In addition, no dog bites to humans have been reported. Geoffrey Hall, Special Projects Officer with the Parks, Recreation & Marine Department, reports that on the whole the Dog Zone has been pretty quiet in the last year. There were some dog confrontations that became verbal conflicts between dog owners, but that is not uncommon in dog park environments. One part of the Dog Zone plan that has not been very successful, even during the pilot, has been the volunteer "Ambassador" program. Although there is a small contingent of very dedicated volunteers who perform both scheduled and impromptu clean-ups, no one is providing "user education," that is, informing visitors about Dog Zone rules and etiquette. (Some of the first ambassadors said that people they approached "did not appreciate" their efforts to educate them, so they stopped.) The city is considering alternative resources for enforcement (for example, having police officers patrol the beach part-time) and asking patrons to make voluntary contributions for the maintenance and enforcement of the Dog Zone. 42 HUNTINGTON ]DOG BEACH 43 The Huntington Dog Beach is on an open stretch of Huntington Beach's City Beach located along the Pacific Coast Highway. The city has a history of dogs on its beaches. Dogs on leashes were allowed when the city beach was a state beach over 20 years ago. The city amended its ordinances to continue that practice when it took over in 1985, but complaints about dogs continued, in part because owners were not cleaning up after their dogs. The city banned dogs in the 1990's. The current Dog Beach was established in 1998, primarily through the efforts of a local dog advocate. The current Huntington Beach City ordinance allows dogs on the beach only in a sTecific area (Dog Beach) and only if they are on a leash no longer than six feet in length.4 When unleashed dogs are on the sand, city enforcement officers (lifeguards and police officers) first seek to obtain voluntary compliance with the ordinance from the dog owner before taking other actions (like issuing citations). 40 California Research Bureau, California State Library Descriptions of Huntington Dog Beach indicate that dogs are allowed to be off -leash in the wet sand and water. While technically the city ordinance requires that dogs must also be on -leash in these areas, this requirement is typically not enforced. There are no fees to use the beach. However, the city parking lot is metered, so Huntington Beach receives parking revenue from visitors bringing their dogs to the beach who pay to park. The Preservation Society of Huntington Dog Beach, a non-profit organization, partners with the city to maintain Dog Beach .45 The Preservation Society has 15,000 members and fourteen staff, including a Dog Beach clean-up crew that consists of four paid employees in the summer and two in the winter. The Preservation Society installed 60 dog bag dispensers on the beach and "use more than one million bags each year." The clean-up crew patrols on weekends, holidays, and some weekdays, informing visitors about the rules and boundaries and providing bags and cleaning utensils for visitors to use. This ongoing cleaning method replaces the previous once -a -month clean-up day. Volunteers also sponsor educational and charity events to support Dog Beach. The Preservation Society maintains a website (www.do beach.org) to provide information, enroll members, and accept donations. The clean-up crew carries official Huntington Dog Beach gifts and souvenirs for sale and visitors are encouraged to "stop by and pick up a new neon T-shirt or doggie toy ... every donation goes towards the up- keep of Dog Beach." The city does not specifically address liability ordinances or post signs that address liability. The Preservation Society carries a group insurance policy that covers every person on Dog Beach for liability and medical expenses. There have been no claims since the policy was put in place two years ago. The city provides the same basic maintenance functions for Dog Beach that it does for other city beaches. The Dog Beach budget is included in the City's beach budget. According to Kyle Lindo, Head of the Marine Safety Division, some beachgoers reportedly feel that the presence of dogs means that the water quality is unhealthy due to dog waste. However, based on regular water testing by the Huntington Beach Health Department, there is no evidence of higher bacteria levels or other water quality problems relative to other city beaches. Complaints at Huntington Dog Beach generally arise from situations that begin with one individual trying to enforce the rules, and can escalate into dog -owner versus dog -owner California Research Bureau, California State Library 41 conflicts. Anecdotally, there are occasional dog bites to humans that go unreported because the person does not want to jeopardize the Dog Beach .46 A short documentary about Huntington Beach Dog Beach can be viewed at http://www.heatherbartiett.coin./films.htmi. OCEAN BEACH DOG BEACH 47 For over 30 years, San Diego's Ocean Beach Dog Beach has been a leash -free beach where people and their pets enjoy the sand and water with surfers. With 38 acres, Dog Beach is one of the largest leash -free beaches for dogs in the country. According to San Diego Park and Recreation, during San Diego's warmest months an estimated 10,000 dogs visit each week. In 1972, the Ocean Beach Town Council formally adopted the site to protect it as a community asset. But, after 25 years of continual use, the beach was in disrepair. For the 25th Anniversary of Dog Beach, the Ocean Beach Town Council established a non- profit subcommittee — the Dog Beach Committee — to fundraise and make improvements. This volunteer subcommittee works closely with the Parks and Recreation Department and other city offices, community groups, business partners, and volunteers. It uses donations and public/private partnerships when possible. The Dog Beach Committee maintains a Dog Beach website at htt://ww-vyL.dg&beachsandi_iego.or /. City Parks and Recreation Department staff maintains Dog Beach; they collect trash and groom the sand, and stock plastic bag dispensers that have been installed along the beach (although volunteers do the majority of this task). Park rangers, police officers, and lifeguards monitor dog owners to be sure that they are picking up after their dogs. Those who do not may be charged with a misdemeanor or an infraction, and fined. DOG BEACH The city spent roughly $10, 000 on extra trashcans, nagging signs and plastic "mutt mitts" at its Dog Beach, where the surf was closed to swimmers 125 times in 2000. The measures led to "measurably fewer dog piles. That's the term we use, " says Ted Medina, deputy director for coastal parks. He estimates the beach is 30% - 40% cleaner than it was before the effort started last year... Traci Watson, Health & Science, USA Today, June 6, 2002 On-going funding for Dog Beach comes from the city general fund beach maintenance program; it is not a separate item. The City of Ocean Beach does not receive any revenue from Dog Beach. Public health and water quality issues plagued Dog Beach a few years ago. Dog poop was left on the beach and water monitoring found high levels of bacteria that led to beach closures on a regular basis. The possibility of closing the beach to dogs was even raised. As a result, in 2002 a volunteer organization, Friends of Dog Beach, raised funds and completed a number of improvements. With some city funds and community involvement, the group added dog bag dispensers, plastic trash barrels, a dog drinking fountain, new signs, and an improved entrance to the beach.48 42 California Research Bureau, California State Library The Friends of Dog Beach continues to work with the city to maintain Dog Beach. They provide plastic dog bags and sponsor weekly cleanups with other organizations. Water quality has gotten better as a result of the improvements made at Dog Beach. However, it remains a chronic problem due to the beach's location at the mouth of the San Diego floodway, which is an urban runoff site! According to county officials, pet waste from Dog Beach is a contributing factor, but it is not the primary component in the water quality problems. 49 Liability at Dog Beach is addressed by listing the regulations at the entrance. They state that the dog owners and users are responsible for themselves and their pets while using the facility and that when problems arise it is up to the involved parties to resolve those issues among themselves. Lifeguards or animal control officers respond to safety issues. CORONADO DOG BEACH 50 Coronado's Dog Beach was established about five years ago after residents petitioned their city council. The Dog Beach is a two -block area at the north end of the two-mile long city Beach. There are no formal hours or other rules posted. There are also no lifeguards or park rangers, although the city provides regular beach maintenance services along with dog bags and dispensers. The cost is included in the city maintenance budget for all beaches. Dog owners are responsible for cleaning up and monitoring the beach. They are also responsible for any incidents involving their dogs. The city does not post information regarding liability. The Recreation Department receives complaints or reports. DEL MAR DOG BEACH AND FIESTA ISLAND DOG BEACH 51 Del Mar Dog Beach in San Diego has been in existence for about 25 years. It is a "seasonal" dog beach: the off -leash season runs from mid-September through mid-June. It is open from sunrise to sunset. Fiesta Island Dog Beach in San Diego was established about five years ago. This dog beach is a 5.2 mile fenced area that includes the shoreline. It is open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At both beaches, lifeguards and park rangers are located on site and enforce the rules. The city of San Diego performs regular beach maintenance plus dog waste disposal. Dog owners are expected to clean up after their dogs. On Fiesta Island, owners are required to keep their dogs on a leash when outside of the dog run area. Owners are also responsible for incidents involving their dogs but, like Coronado's Dog Beach, there are no formal signs describing responsibility. San Diego's Parks and Recreation Department receives complaints or reports. According to Heal the Bay's Beach Report Card website (hftp://www.healthebay.org/brc/closures.asp), Ocean Beach Dog Beach was closed for four days in early April 2006 due to a water/sewer line spill. California Research Bureau, California State Library 43 OFF -LEASH DOGS ON THE BEACH: ONE VIEW "Happy dogs ... happy owners ... happy community! Dog Beach has been a blessing to me long before I owned a dog. As an active cyclist, I would often cycle the trail along PCH and would often stop at dog beach. I admired the City of Huntington Beach (I am an 8 year resident) for having this beach. I would watch in amazement the dogs enjoying themselves and people, even surfers and other non -owners, enjoying the therapeutic effects which pets engender. I couldn't wait to get a dog, so that I too can enjoy dog beach. I currently became a dog owner and have thoroughly been enjoying dog beach. The most pleasant (and shocking) observations that I've made at Dog Beach is, first and foremost, its cleanliness. One would expect a pet "playground" to be a disgusting area. However, owners are very conscientious and "pick up" after themselves which is encouraged by the availability of "baggies." Secondly, I am continuously surprised by all the people that come to Huntington Beach from cities that are not necessarily nearby. People actually "travel" to come to Huntington Dog Beach!" Alvin Huntington Beach, CA Letter on Dog Beach Website OFF -LEASH DOGS ON THE BEACH: AN ALTERNATE VIEW "My family always had dogs and I love a friendly well-behaved dog but I am strongly opposed to off -leash dogs dominating Its Beach and Lighthouse Field. Before off -leash dog use, I would go to Its Beach almost every fine day in summer. Now I avoid the Field and Its beach because of the up to 50 uncontrolled dogs running loose, defecating and barking at all times of the day. The diverse bird -life has all but disappeared. City leaders and State Park personnel have caved in to a special interest group. Dog owners should find and fund an appropriate site for a fenced park. Off -leash dogs are not an acceptable use for any State Park or beach." Gil Greensite Rescue Santa Cruz Beaches Petition August 15, 2004 44 California Research Bureau, California State Library A MODEL OFF -LEASH DOG BEACH The off -leash dog beaches described in the previous section range from a city -maintained beach where dogs are permitted 24 hours to a dog zone that limits dogs to the wet sand and water, and is maintained by non -city staff and volunteers. These beaches share common elements and also have unique characteristics. California State Parks views an off -leash dog area as a local recreation need that is more appropriately addressed at a municipal- or county -owned beach. In contrast to these recreation spaces, state parks and beaches are intended to provide recreation that reflects statewide interests. (See box at right for an excerpt of the state's "Recreation Policy," a broad policy that addresses the needs of Californians and encompasses the range of recreation and park providers at all levels.) Perhaps the first and primary policy issue in relation to establishing an off -leash dog area on a state beach is determining whether providing recreational opportunities for dog owners and their pets is a state responsibility. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS UNLEASHED DOG PILOT" The California Department of Parks and Recreation developed the parameters of an off -leash dog area pilot program, including a pilot at a State Beach, a few years ago. Although the pilot program was not implemented, the "blueprint" created provides a useful model of a dog park (or dog beach).* BACKGROUND CALIFORNIA'S RECREATION POLICY — AN EXCERPT Adequacy of Recreation Opportunities The supply of parklands, waters, open space, recreation facilities and services must be adequate to meet future and current demands, particularly in the State's most populated areas. It is State policy that: ..."Public service providers closest to the recreation resources, and particularly to the sources of recreation demand, shall have the primary responsibility for providing comprehensive recreation opportunities. In urban, suburban and rural areas, these essential responsibilities shall generally fall to agencies of the cities, counties and special districts. It will be the responsibility of State agencies to take the lead where resources or recreation demands are of regional or far-reaching significance..." California's Recreation Policy, 2005 In 2001, Senator Jackie Speier introduced legislation that would have required the California Department of Parks and Recreation to review and identify state park locations that would be suitable for an unleashed dog area pilot program.** As a result, the department created a task group that consisted of staff from California State Parks and the * According to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the pilot was not implemented because the Department of Finance determined that establishing a dog beach was an inappropriate use of bond funds (i.e., establishing and maintaining a dog beach is a function normally associated with local parks). ** SB 712/2001 (Speier), as introduced, included the "unleashed dog area" provisions. However, these provisions were later amended out of this bill. California Research Bureau, California State Library 45 Senator's office, advocates of off -leash dog areas, and representatives of the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the California State Park Ranger Association. SUGGESTED DOG PARK ETIQUETTE ❑ Dogs must be leashed prior to arriving and leaving the designated off -leash area. Owners/handlers must carry one leash per dog while in an off -leash area. ❑ Dogs must be properly licensed, inoculated against rabies, and healthy. No dog less than four months of age is permitted in the off -leash area. ❑ Female dogs in heat are not permitted within a dog park. ❑ Aggressive and menacing behavior is not allowed. Any dog exhibiting aggressive behavior must be removed from the facility immediately. ❑ Owner/handler shall carry a suitable container and/or equipment for removal and disposal of dog feces. Dog feces shall be immediately removed and properly disposed of in the covered trash cans. ❑ Dogs must be in sight and under the control of the owner/handler at all times. ❑ No more than three dogs per owner/handler is allowed in the facility at any one time. ❑ An adult must supervise children under the age of 14. ❑ The facility is open only during posted hours. ❑ Owners accept responsibility for the actions of their dogs. The task group was charged with identifying potential pilot areas, recommending minimum site requirements, and establishing an evaluation program. The task group's final product included roles and responsibilities for California State Parks and volunteers, rules governing the use of the facilities, and evaluation criteria (measures of success). These are identified below. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The task group proposed the following assignment of roles and responsibilities. California State Parks • Provide leadership required with this program. • Provide overall coordination of volunteers. • Provide the land for off -leash dog -park facilities; process a general plan amendment and appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance where necessary. • Design and oversee construction in accordance with CEQA compliance. The design will be a collaborative effort with volunteers, where possible. • Provide normal grounds maintenance (not including cleaning up after dogs). • Measure, assess, or otherwise evaluate impacts on resources and visitors. • Provide cost estimates for new or renovated off -leash areas and provide necessary regulatory permits. . Some of the "Desired Site Design Criteria" developed by the task group are not applicable to a dog beach. Other criteria such as "covered trash cans and plastic bag dispenser station" and "clear and well-placed signage for posting rules of etiquette and an information board for park information" clearly apply. 46 California Research Bureau, California State Library Volunteers • Provide regularly scheduled site clean up. • Distribute park rules to new users by handouts, bulletin -board posts, or through verbal conversations with other site users. • Stock receptacles with plastic bags. • Assist with monitoring, use of facility, and gathering of information related to measure of success. • Work through District Superintendents or his/her designated representative regarding maintenance needs and establish priorities for repair and renovation. Advocacy Groups • Meet as needed with park staff to discuss successes, issues, problems, and recommendations. • Organize volunteers to donate labor and materials, or funds for site improvement. • Organize off -leash training sessions or other permitted special events. • Assist in developing and distributing education information. • Solicit and identify funding for amenities, programs, and improvement not provided by the department. MEASURES OF SUCCESS The four measures of success are directly related to the overall purpose of the off -leash dog area: "to provide a safe and enjoyable recreational experience to dog owner/handier and their dogs, while not impacting park visitors or the environment." 1. Dog owners/handlers: The satisfaction level with the facility and the experience. The frequency of use and number of visits (to be included as a part of the owner/escort survey). 2. Other visitors to the park: The satisfaction level of park visitors without dogs (to be gathered as a part of the park's ongoing Visitor Satisfaction Survey conducted by staff). 3. Safety of dogs and park visitors: Incidents of injuries to dogs or visitors. Park staff will gather this information as a part of the normal procedure for reporting visitor injuries, crimes, or other incidents. 4. Environment: The type of environmental assessment will be tailored to meet the needs of the selected site. Environmental assessment will be the responsibility of Departmental staff. California Research Bureau, California State Library 47 EVALUATION CRITERIA • Use • Community Involvement • Enforcement • Safety • Maintenance • Economic Impact Denver Parks and Recreation, 2005 CITY OF DENVER EVALUATION CRITERIA The city of Denver Parks and Recreation recently completed a twelve-month pilot that tested the feasibility of incorporating off -leash dog parks into the city park's array of services. The pilot criteria (see box) provided a structure for evaluating the pilot sites and developing standards for implementing permanent dog parks. 53 Some of these criteria — like community involvement, enforcement, and economic impact — would be useful to include with the "Measures of Success" criteria listed above when establishing and evaluating dog beaches. 48 California Research Bureau, California State Library APPENDIX A — CALIFORNIA CODES PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 5008.1 (a) When it is determined by the director to be in the public interest, and subject to the fees, rules, and regulations of the department, visitors to units of the state park system may bring animals into those units. (b) Any animal brought into a state park system unit pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be under the immediate control of the visitor or shall be confined, and under no circumstance shall the animal be permitted to do any of the following: (1) Pose a threat to public safety and welfare. (2) Create a public nuisance. (3) Pose a threat to the natural or cultural resources of the unit or to the improvements at the unit. (c) The department may require a person bringing an animal into a state park system unit pursuant to subdivision (a) to provide proof of appropriate immunizations and valid licenses. (d) This section does not apply to dogs used to lawfully pursue game in season at units of the state park system where hunting is allowed. 5008.2 (a) Peace officers and other designated employees of the department may capture any animal (1) which is not confined or under the immediate control of a person visiting the unit, (2) which poses a threat to public safety and welfare, to the natural or cultural resources of the unit, or to the improvements at the unit, or (3) which is a public nuisance. (b) Peace officers may dispatch any animal which poses an immediate or continuing threat (1) to public safety and welfare or (2) to wildlife at the unit. (c) Owners of animals with identification that have been captured or dispatched pursuant to this section shall be notified within 72 hours after capture or dispatch. (d) This section does not apply to dogs used to lawfully pursue game in season at units of the State Park System where hunting is permitted. (e) The authority conferred by this section on peace officers or designated employees of the department may only be exercised on or about property owned, operated, controlled, or administered by the department. California Research Bureau, California State Library 49 50 California Research Bureau, California State Library APPENDIX B — FEDERAL CODES CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS TITLE 36 - PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY CHAPTER I - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 2 - RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION Sec. 2.15 Pets. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) Possessing a pet in a public building, public transportation vehicle, or location designated as a swimming beach, or any structure or area closed to the possession of pets by the superintendent. This subparagraph shall not apply to guide dogs accompanying visually impaired persons or hearing ear dogs accompanying hearing-impaired persons. (2) Failing to crate, cage, restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise physically confine a pet at all times. (3) Leaving a pet unattended and tied to an object, except in designated areas or under conditions which may be established by the superintendent. (4) Allowing a pet to make noise that is unreasonable considering location, time of day or night, impact on park users, and other relevant factors, or that frightens wildlife by barking, howling, or making other noise. (5) Failing to comply with pet excrement disposal conditions which may be established by the superintendent. (b) In park areas where hunting is allowed, dogs may be used in support of these activities in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and in accordance with conditions, which may be established by the superintendent. (c) Pets or feral animals that are running -at -large and observed by an authorized person in the act of killing, injuring or molesting humans, livestock, or wildlife may be destroyed if necessary for public safety or protection of wildlife, livestock, or other park resources. (d) Pets running -at -large may be impounded, and the owner may be charged reasonable fees for kennel or boarding costs, feed, veterinarian fees, transportation costs, and disposal. An impounded pet may be put up for adoption or otherwise disposed of after being held for 72 hours from the time the owner was notified of capture or 72 hours from the time of capture if the owner is unknown. (e) Pets may be kept by residents of park areas consistent with the provisions of this section and in accordance with conditions which may be established by the superintendent. Violation of these conditions is prohibited. (f) This section does not apply to dogs used by authorized Federal, State and local law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties. California Research $ureau, California State Library 51 52 California Research Bureau, California State Library APPENDIX C — EXCERPTS FROM HEAL THE BAY / 15THANNUAL BEACH REPORT CARD, MAY 25, 2005 (ANNOTATED) Each threshold is based on the prescribed standards set in the California Department of Health Service's Beach Bathing Water Standards. The magnitude of the water quality threshold exceedance and laboratory variability was addressed by the inclusion of standard deviations in setting the thresholds. The standard deviations used were developed during the 1998 laboratory inter -calibration study led by the Southern California Coastal Waters Research Project and the Orange County Sanitation Districts that involved over 20 shoreline water quality monitoring agencies in Southern California. TABLE A-1. Bacterial Indicator Exceedance Thresholds in cfu/100ml. The number of points subtracted from 100 for total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus are: 6 points for bacterialdensities falling in group one (threshold inus one standard deviation or T — I s.d.), 18 points for group two (T + 1 s.d.), and 24 points for group three (indicator densities > T + 1 s.d.). The point system for total to fecal ratio is: 7 points for group one, 21 points for group two, 35 points for group three, and 42 points for group four (very high health risk). Exceedance of the total to fecal ratio threshold leads to lower grades because exposure to water with low ratios causes an even higher incidence of a variety of adverse health effects relative to the heath risk associated with the other bacterial indicators. TABLE A-2. THRESHOLD POINTS 1 2 3 4 Group: T— 1 s.d.' T+ 1 s.d. > T + s.d. Very high Total Coliform Total Coliform 6,711-9,999 10,0002-14,900 > 14,900 na Fecal Coliform 268-399 400-596 > 596 na Enterococcus 70-103 104-155 > 155 na Total to fecal Ratio 10.1-13 7.1-10 2.1-7 < 2.1 when: Total > 1,000 s.d.-standard deviation. 2 Bold numbers are the State Health Department standards for a single sample. The number of points subtracted from 100 for total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus are: 6 points for bacterialdensities falling in group one (threshold inus one standard deviation or T — I s.d.), 18 points for group two (T + 1 s.d.), and 24 points for group three (indicator densities > T + 1 s.d.). The point system for total to fecal ratio is: 7 points for group one, 21 points for group two, 35 points for group three, and 42 points for group four (very high health risk). Exceedance of the total to fecal ratio threshold leads to lower grades because exposure to water with low ratios causes an even higher incidence of a variety of adverse health effects relative to the heath risk associated with the other bacterial indicators. TABLE A-2. THRESHOLD POINTS California Research Bureau, California State Library 53 1 2 3 4 Group: T — 1 s.d. T + 1 s.d. > T + 1 s.d. Very high risk Total Coliform Fecal Coliform 6 18 24 Enterococcus: Total to Fecal Ratio: 7 21 35 42 when: Total > 1,000 s.d.-standard deviation California Research Bureau, California State Library 53 These points are added to obtain a subtotal for that week. The point subtotal for the most current week's worth of data is multiplied by 1.5 in order to give it more weight. Then the points from the previous three weeks are added in for an overall pint total. The total number of points for the 28 -day period is divided by the average number of samples collected in a week. This number is then subtracted from the original 100 points to obtain a grand total from which a letter grade is derived. The grading system is as follows. TABLE A-3. GRADING SYSTEM Grade Points A+ ---------_ - 100 A = 90-99 B = 80-89 C = 70-79 D = 60-69 F = 0-59 54 California Research Bureau, California State Library 2004-2005 Beach Report Card Grades By County California Research Bureau, California State Library 55 Dogs Off -Leash County Beach AB411 Dry Wet Allowed, Dog Leash Beach/Zone Required Humboldt Clam Beach County A A D X Park near Strawberry Creek Mendocino MacKerricher State A+ X Park at Virgin Creek Mendocino Van Damme State A+ X Park at the Little River Sonoma Gualala Regional Park A+ X Beach Sonoma Stillwater Cove B X Regional Park Beach Sonoma Doran Regional Park A X Beach Marin Rodeo Beach, North A+ X Marin Rodeo Beach, South A+ X Marin Baker Beach, A+ X Horshshoe Cove SW Marin Baker Beach, B X Horseshoe Cove NW Santa Cruz Natural Bridges State A+ A+ A X Beach Santa Cruz Seabright Beach A A F X Santa Cruz Twin Lakes Beach A+ A F X Santa Cruz New Brighton Beach A+ A F X Santa Cruz Seacliff State Beach A+ A D X Santa Cruz Rio Del Mar Beach A+ A F X Santa Cruz Palm/Pajaro Dunes A+ A+ B X Beach Monterey Asilomar State Beach, A+ X projection of Arena Av. Monterey Carmel City Beach, A X projection of Ocean Ave, west end San Luis Cayucos State Beach, A+ A F X Obispo downcoast of the pier San Luis Olde Port Beach B B F X Obispo Harford Beach north California Research Bureau, California State Library 55 56 California Research Bureau, California State Library Dogs Off -Leash County Beach AB411 Dry Wet Allowed, Dog Leash Beach/Zone Re uired San Luis Avila Beach, B B F X Obispo projection of San Juan Street San Luis Pismo Beach, A+ A+ F X Obispo projection of Wadsworth Street Santa Goleta Beach B C F X Barbara Los Leo Carrillo Beach at A+ B F X An 'eles 35000 PCH San Diego Del Mar, San Dieguito A B F X River Beach San Diego Mission Bay, Fiesta A+ X Island Bridge (south side San Diego Ocean Beach, San D C F X Diego River outlet Dag Beach San Diego Coronado at North A A F X Beach ASNI Beach Source: Heal the Bay's 15' Annual Report Card, May 25, 2005. 56 California Research Bureau, California State Library SOURCES Action for Animals and other organizations. Emergency Petition to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior to Promulgate and Enforce 36 C.F.R. Section 2.15(a)(2) at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Filed in San Francisco, August 16, 2005. Batch, Eric, Matt Hale and Ellen Palevsky. The Case for Space: Expanding Recreational Opportunities for Dog Owners and Their Pets. A report prepared for FREEPLAY. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, [2004]. Beck, David L. "Ruling May Prompt City to Revisit its Off -Leash Law." San Jose Mercury News, August 18, 2005, 3A. Blatter, Helene. "S.F. Beach Dogs to Stay Leashed for Now." North Gate News Online. Reporting by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, October 22, 2003. li..tt ://journali.sm.Berkel.e .edu/zt n.o/stories/001480.html. California. Department of Parks and Recreation. Pilot Program for Unleashed Dog Areas, Sacramento: The Department, December 17, 2001. California. State Parks. Provides general information and links to specific parks at www.parks.ca,;ov. California. State Parks. California's Recreation Policy. Sacramento: California State Parks, 2005. California. State Parks. Rules & Guidelines for Protecting the Snowy Plover. Sacramento: California State Parks, 2002. Colwell, Mark A.; and others. Final Report: 2005 Snowy Plover Breeding in Coastal Northern California, Recovery Unit 2. Arcata: Humboldt State University, [2005]. Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS). Beaches, Bacteria, and Bans: How California Can Keep Its Coast Healthy. Fact Sheet. Protecting California's Ocean and Coast: Luncheon Briefings on Science and Policy, February 2, 2006. Denver Parks and Recreation Department. Dogs Off -Leash Pilot Program, 2005 Report. Denver: The Department, 2005. Dog Friendly. A commercial website listing pet -friendly accommodations and activities throughout the United States at http://www.dogfriendJy com/. California Research Bureau, California State Library 57 DogPAC Santa Barbara. Meeting the Need: Providing Off -Leash Recreational Space in Santa Barbara. A Position Paper. Santa Barbara: DogPAC, 2002. http:/hvwNv.dogpacsb.org/position2.html. Jackson, Harlock. Public Open Space and Dogs: A Design and Management Guide for Open Space Professionals and Local Government. Prepared for the Petcare Information and Advisory Service. Available on PetNet at 11�://_www. e�tnett.com.au/o ens ace/frontis.html. Hatch, Daphne A. Western Snowy Plover (A Federally Threatened Species) Wintering Population and Interaction with Human Activity on Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1988 Through 1996 San Francisco: Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Division of Resource Management and Planning, November 15, 1996. Heal the Bay. Beach Report Card, 2004-2005. 15th Annual Report. Santa Monica: Heal the Bay, May 25, 2005. htip://www.healthebay.org/brc/default.aM. Herold, Ann. "Dog Heaven." Los Angeles Times. LAtimes.com, March 19, 2006. httn://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm- doa.beach 12marl 9,0,2223983.9ory. Huntington Beach Dog Beach website at ht!p://www.dorbeach.or y/fa .html. Jiang, Sunny, and others. "Human Adenoviruses and Coliphages in Urban Runoff - Impacted Coastal Waters of Southern California." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, No. 1. January 2001. pp. 179-184. Kain, Tara. Dog Etiquette for the Dog -Friendly Beach. Dog-Friendly.Com at http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/travel/info/tips/beachetig/shtml, April 26, 2003. King, Trish, with Terry Long. "Dog Parks: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Chronicle of the Dog (The Association of Pet Dog Trainers) XI, No. 6, November/December 2004. Trish King is Director of Behavior and Training, Marin County Humane Society. Lafferty, Kevin D. "Birds at a Southern California Beach: Seasonality, Habitat Use and Disturbance by Human Activity." Biodiversity and Conservation 10, No. 11, November 2001. Lafferty, Kevin D. "Disturbance to Wintering Western Snowy Plovers." Biological Conservation 101, February 2001. McDonald, Jeff. "Volunteers Spruce up Dog Beach." San Diego Union -Tribune. November 27, 2005, B-2. 58 California Research Bureau, California State Library National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation Beaches, California. New York: NRDC, July 2005. Ocean Beach Dog Owners Group. Response to the Emergency Petition to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior to Promulgate and Enforce 36 C.F.R. Section 2.15(a)(2) at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. San Francisco: Ocean Beach Dog Owners Group. September 28, 2005. Pasco, Jean O. "This Dog Park is a Shore Thing: Huntington Beach Area Offers Access Since Life Isn't a Beach Often Enough for Canines." Orange County (Orange Peeled: A Look at Life Inside the County). Los Angeles Times. July 21, 2003, B-3. Reiterman, Tim. "Fighting Beach Pollution in the Lab." Los Angeles Times. January 29, 2006. Rodgers, Terry. "Mission Bay Water is Found to be Safe." San Diego Union -Tribune. October 16, 2004. littp://www.si�nonsandie 7o.coni/uniontrib/20041016/news 2ml6swim.html. Rodgers, Terry. "Nest Fences Worry Dog Owners." San Diego Union -Tribune. September 30, 2004, B-4. Sample, Herbert A. "S.F. Dog Owners Barking Mad: They Say Pet Should Continue to Roam Unfettered in Parks." The Sacramento Bee, News, Sacbee.com, July 25, 2005. San Francisco Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Benefits of Off - Leash Recreation. San Francisco: SPCA, [undated]. 1.. Scriggins, Shane, and Richard Murray. `Off -Leash' Areas — Exercising Principles of Good Governance in Urban Animal Management, Australia Veterinary Association Annual Conference, 2000. h.tt ://www.ava.coin.au?UAM? roc00/seri. > Yiiis.htm. Slater, Dashka. "Scenes: Dog Docket." Legal Affairs. July/August, 2002. http://www.legalaf'fairs.org/printer.fTiendly.msp?id=248. Surfrider Foundation. State of the Beach 2005 — California. San Clemente: Surfrider Foundation, 2005. Thomas, Kate, and others. Effects of Human Activity on the Foraging Behavior of Sanderlings Calidris Alba. Biolocal Conservation 109, March 2002. United States. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). Golden Gate National Recreation Area Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Public Scoping Workshops, Informational Brochure, Washington, D.C.: California Research Bureau, California State Library 59 NPS. 2006. Dog Management Information Hotline at 415-561-4728, and website at http://www.nps.gov/goga/pets/regne�)�/index.htm. United States. Geological Survey (USGS). Fecal Indicator Bacteria and Sanitary Water Quality. Lansing, MI: USGS, Michigan Water Science Center. [2005] htt ://mi.water.us s. 7ov/h2oc ual/B"actHOWeb..html. University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. Guidelines for Establishment and Maintenance of Successful Off -Leash Dog Exercise Areas. Program in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine, Center for Animals in Society. Davis: University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, 2004. Valente, Dr. Suzanne. Analysis of the Hatch Report. San Francisco: Ocean Beach DOG. http://oceanbeachdo�..!,.home.mindspring.com/id40.html. Accessed March 24, 2006. Valente, Dr. Suzanne. The Scientific Truth about the Snowy Plover. San Francisco: Ocean Beach DOG. htt://oceanbeachdog.home.minds rin r.cotn/id4O.html. Accessed March 24, 2006. Watson, Traci. "Dog Waste Poses Threat to Water." Health and Science. USA Today, June 6, 2002. IiIV://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-06-07-dog-usat.htm. Yin, Sophia, and Claudia Kawczynka. "An Interview with Dr. Nicholas Dodman." The Bark Unleashed (e -zine) at htt.://thebark.com/ezine/livin behavior/behavior.html, accessed April 3, 2006. 60 California Research Bureau, California State Library, ENDNOTES ' California Dog Owners Group (CaIDOG), a nonprofit organization representing advocates of off -leash space, website at bgp://www.caklog.org. z California State Parks website at http://www.parks.ca.gov/?pa.e id -91. 3 Letter from Bradly S. Torgan, General Counsel, California State Parks, to John Barisone, City Attorney, and Danettee Shoemaker, Director, City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation, dated October 26, 2005. 4 DPR Operations Manual 0311.5.7.4 Dogs, September 2004, 3-38. 'National Parks website at htt://www.n s. o2v; 36 CFR Part 2. 6 Point Reyes National Seashore Official Website, Visiting with Dogs at Point Reyes National Seashore, at littp://www.nps.gov/pore/visit dogs.lhtm. 7 Bureau of Land Management representative in telephone conversation February 28, 2006. $ Los Padres National Forest Brochure, obtained from website at http://www.fs.:fed.us/r5/lospadres/about!. 9 Karin Jaffe, telephone conversation on March 24, 2006. 10 San Francisco Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Benefits of Off -Leash Recreation (San Francisco: SPCA) [undated]; Marin Humane Society; and Sophia Yin and Claudia Kawczynka, "An Interview with Dr. Nicholas Dodman," The Bark Unleashed (e -zine) at http://thebark.com/ezine/living behavior/behavior.html [undated]. Dr. Dodman is the Director of the Behavior Clinic, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. 1' San Francisco SPCA; Eric Batch and others, The Case for Space: Expanding Recreational Opportunities for Dog Owners and Their Pets, A report prepared for FREEPLAY (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Policy, Planning, and Development [20041); and Santa Barbara DogPAC at http;//yww d�gpacsb.org. 12 California State Parks, Snowy Plover Protection at http://www.pa.rks.ca.gov/?page id -22542, and California State Parks, Rules & Guidelines for Protecting the Snowy Plover at hqp://www.parks.ca.gov/panes/937/filys/snowYplover rules. df. 13 Terry Rodgers, "Nest Fences Worry Dog Owners," San Diego Union -Tribune, September 30, 2004, B-4, 14 Heal the Bay, Beach Report Card, 2004-2005, 15`h Annual Report (Santa Monica: Heal the Bay, May 25, 2005), htt ://www.healtheba .or assets/ dfdocs/bre/annual/2005/re ort web. df.; and Surfrider Foundation, Health Threats from Polluted Coastal Waters, Coastal A -Z (San Clemente: the Foundation, 2005), h!W://www.surfrider.orp,/a-z/liealtli water.as . " Heal the Bay, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, Epidemiological Study (Santa Monica: Heal the Bay, 1995). 16 Heal the Bay Beach Report Card. 17 Barry Kelleher, Park Designer, Park and Recreation Department, City of San Diego, telephone conversation on March 24, 2006. " Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS), Beaches, Bacteria, and Bans: How California Can Keep Its Coast Healthy, Fact Sheet, Protecting California's Ocean and Coast: Luncheon Briefings on Science and Policy, February 2, 2006; and Tim Reiterman, "Fighting Beach Pollution in the Lab," Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2006. 19 Dr. Jack Colford, Mission Bay Epidemiology Study, National Beaches Conference, 2004; Terry Rodgers, "Mission Bay Water is Found to be Safe," San Diego Union -Tribune, October 16, 2004. California Research Bureau, California State Library 61 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontTib/20041016/news 2m16swim.html; and Heal the Bay, Beach Report Card 20 Sunny Jiang and others, "Human Adenoviruses and Coliphages in Urban Runoff -Impacted Coastal Waters of Southern California," Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, No. 1, January 2001, 179- 184. 21 Surfrider Foundation, Health Threats from Polluted Coastal Waters. 22 Surfriders Foundation and Heal the Bay expressed this concern to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, Bill Analysis ofAB 359 (Gordon), A pril 11, 2005. (Hearing Date June 14, 2005); and Heal the Bay's website atlittR://www.healthebayorn.currellti.sues/d9gheach/cleiault.asp,. 23 Tim Reiterman, "Fighting Beach Pollution in the Lab." 24 Letter from Theodore Jackson, Jr., Deputy Director, Park Operations, California State Parks, to Elaine Poladhek, Manager, Open Space Management, City of Santa Monica, dated April 19, 2005, 21 Santa Monica City Council Meeting, Agenda Information Item 12-A: Request of Georja Umano Jones that Council Consider a Proposed Pilot Project for a Dog Park on the Beach, January 11, 2005. 26 Steve Hammack, Superintendent of Parks, City of Santa Cruz, e-mail dated May 1, 2006, 2' University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Guidelines for Establishment and Maintenance of Successful Off -Leash Dog Exercise Areas (Davis: University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Program in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine, Center for Animals in Society, 2004). " Kyle Lindo, Director, Marine Safety Division, Huntington Beach, telephone conversation on March 10, 2006. 29 Trish King with Terry Long, "Dog Parks: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Chronicle of the Dog (The Association of Pet Dog Trainers) XI, No. 6, November/December 2004. Trish King is Director of Behavior and Training, Marin Humane Society. 30 University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, Guidelines for Establishment and Maintenance of Successful Off -Leash Dog Exercise Areas. 31 Letter from Ron P. Schafer, Departments Angeles District Superintendent, California State Parks, to Elaine Polachek, Manager, Open Space Management, City of Santa Monica, dated March 8, 2005. 32 Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water,Bil I Analysis ofAB 359 (Gordon), 2005. 33 Traci Watson, "Dog Waste Poses Threat to Water," Health and Science, USA Today, June 6, 2002. hq://www.usatoda.coin/news/science/2002-06-07-dog-usat.litni. 34 Mike Branson, City Forester, Department of Parks and Beach, City of Carmel, telephone conversation, March 6, 2006. 35 Associated Press, "Carmel -By -The -Sea Unveils Latest Treat for its Canine Residents," SFGate.com, Sunday, August 24, 2003, 36 Steve Hammack, Superintendent of Parks, City of Santa Cruz, telephone conversation on March 10, 2006; "Adventure No. 131" — Lighthouse Field State Beach Brochure at http://www.parks,ca.aov/default.a..sp?page id=550; and David L. Beck, "Ruling May Prompt City to Revisit its Off -Leash Law," San Jose Mercury News, August 18, 2005, 3A. 37 Friends of Lighthouse Field website at www,folf.org, 38 Alison Biskner, Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department, telephone conversation on March 22, 2006; City of Santa Barbara website at http://sbpd.com; and Santa Barbara DogPAC website at htt ://dor . acsb.or . 62 California Research Bureau, California State Library 39 Kevin Takei, Park Superintendent, East Bay Regional Park, Point Isabel, telephone conversation, March 14, 2006; Park brochure and other information, Point Isabel Dog Owners (PIDO) at hat :L/ ids, accessed March 10, 2006. 4° Kevin Takei, Park Superintendent, East Bay Regional Park, Point Isabel. 41 Geoffrey Hall, Special Projects Officer, Parks, Recreation & Marine Department, City of Long Beach, telephone conversation on March 17, 2006; The Dog Zone Project Description submitted to the California Park and Recreation Society for the Facility Design and Park Planning Awards, [2005]; City of Long Beach Recommendation to Approve an Ordinance Permitting Beach Access for Dogs (District 3), September 21, 2004; and Hautedogs, a network of dog owners and supports, website at htt :lam, /www.hautedo s.or Ylbeacii.htmi. 42 Geoffrey Hall, Long Beach Parks, Recreation & Marine Department. 43 Hgntington Dog Beach website at www.dol�beach.org; Kyle Lindo, Director, Marine Safety Division, Huntington Beach, telephone conversation on March 10, 2006; Jean O. Pasco, "This Dog Park is a Shore Thing: Huntington Beach Area Offers Access Since Life Isn't a Beach Often Enough for Canines," Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2003, B-3. 44 Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08.070, Dogs and other animals. 45 Martin Senat, President of Preservation Society of Huntington Dog Beach, e-mail correspondence dated April 4, 2006. 46 Kyle Lindo, Marine Safety Division, Huntington Beach. 4' The Original Dog Beach in Ocean Beach website at www.do 7beachsandie Yo.or ; Barry Kelleher, San Diego Park and Recreation Department; and Dennis Simmons, Beach Manager, Developed Regional Parks, Park and Recreation Department, City of San Diego, e-mail correspondence with Daryl Barnett, President of Freeplay, dated January 28, 2004. 48 Dennis Simmons, San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 49 Barry Kelleher, San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 5' Eric Raiter, Coronado Beach Visitor Center, San Diego Park and Recreation Department. 51 Ryan Hanson, San Diego Park and Recreation Department; and Barry Kelleher, San Diego Park and Recreation Department. " California Department of Parks and Recreation, Pilot Program for Unleashed Dog Areas (Sacramento: The Department, December 17, 2001). 53 Denver Parks and Recreation Department, Dogs Off -Leash Pilot Program 2005 Report (Denver: Parks and Recreation Department) 2005. California Research Bureau, California State Library 63 Tracy Bonano From: susan.addleman@cox.net Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:10 PM To: Maureen Megowan Cc: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com; Bridget; patricia.derudder@gmail.com; Jennie Goodin Subject: Re: RPV to Revisit Dog Beach Issue Tomorrow Night - Great Opportunity to promote a Dog Park !! Hi Maureen, I wanted to let you know that I mas at the beach yesterday. I was appalled at the state of the beach. What had previously been a pristine beach that we could enjoy was polluted. Dog feces was everywhere. While I did see an owner try to pick up after their dog, it was not possible to get everything out of the seaweed. Children and adults were also abundant exploring the beach, its rocks and marine life. They are being exposed, and the public health is being compromised. I wholeheartedly support the designation of a dog park on the Peninsula, and have expressed my opinion to the council people I have come in contact with. Using the beach for this purpose does not support the health of the majority of the residents, nor the preservation of the marine life. One of the hallmarks of our community is our stewardship of our open spaces. I hope the council continues this legacy. Once the beach is spoiled it will take years to restore. Unfortunately I will not be available tomorrow to attend the meeting since it is Spring Break. So I have copied the emails you gave us to express our concerns. I lead a Girl Scout troop that has a cluster of girls that are working on planning a silver project for the area to protect the marine life. I am also copying their mothers so they are aware of the situation, and can guide the girls accordingly. ---- Maureen Megowan <mmegowan@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Susan, The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will revisit the issue of allowing dogs on Rancho Palos Verdes Beach during the April 3, 2012 City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. Possible actions could include modifying or rescinding the previous action to initiate a pilot dog beach program in fall 2012. It is very probable that the City Council will just eliminate the dog beach primarily due to the lack of parking at Trump. The public is welcome to attend the meeting and provide testimony or provide written comments by email at parks@rpv.com and cc@rpv.com ,. Regardless of how you feel about the dog beach issue, please plan on attending this meeting tomorrow night or send an email to the City Council indicating your support for the construction of a dog park in lieu of the dog beach. O 3 While I am in favor of an off -leash dog beach, it is clear that some type of regulation of hours may be needed to effectively deal with parking issues, pollution, etc. that have been raised. The concerns raised by local neighbors of the RPV dog beach underscores the need for a well designed public off -leash dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The high usage of the RPV dog beach clearly shows the demand that dog owners have for a place to run their dogs off -leash. Palos Verdes Peninsula dog owners need a dog park to exercise their dogs. A dog park also serves a strong social purpose as it enables other dog owners to get out and meet each other . Those people who have physical disabilities and find it difficult to work their way down the existing paths to the dog beach, should also have a place that is easily accessible to play with their dogs. A dog park would also reduce the usage of the dog beach, if the dog beach is retained, if there was another location available to exercise their dogs. This is a great opportunity for those of us who support the construction of a dog park as this whole issue of the overuse of the dog beach has shown the strong need that is out there for an off leash dog park. Please join us at the city council meeting on Tuesday night and speak out about the need to build a dog park. When you arrive at the meeting, fill out a speakers card and submit it to the City Clerk so that you will called to speak during the public hearing about the dog beach. Thank you for your help with this. Warmest Regards, Maureen Megowan Remax Palos Verdes Realty Your Real Estate Consultant For Life 310-541-6416 / 310-259-7124 (cell) DRE License # 01368971 Take a seat. I'll do the rest! http://www.maureenmegowan.com D Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:36 PM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: 3 Apr 12 Council Meeting -Reconsideration of Decision on Open Dog Beach From: R. Lauck [mailto:rlauck@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:23 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: 3 Apr 12 Council Meeting -Reconsideration of Decision on Open Dog Beach. Dear Mayor and Council Members, Regarding your reconsideration of the decision to temporarily permit unleashed dogs on the sand beach at Trump Golf Course, we urge you to re -affirm and enforce current City Ordinance 6.04.050, which prohibits dogs from all RPV city beaches. We believe the sand beach is the only extensive one within the RPV coast. (Terranea Resort has a small sand beach). As such, it is the only RPV beach where people, especially children, can enjoy playing on the sandy beach, digging, building and lying on the sand as they do. Allowing dogs to run free on this beach would be a serious public health and safety issue. We further believe that even allowing leashed dogs on the beach is also a serious public health issue. The argument that the dog owners would be required to clean up after their dogs and leash them when they return to the cliff top does not guarantee a beach free of dog droppings. We have years of experience with dog owners' non-compliance with laws requiring them to clean up their dog's defecations. Nearly on a daily basis we clean up dog defecations on our property, walkways and parkways. And every trail has fresh dog defecations every time we walk them even though bags are provided at our expense at the trail heads. Hoping that requiring dog owners to pick up their dog defecations on the beach will protect children from coming in contact with them is a futile exercise and would do nothing to insure public health on the beach. And dogs also urinate on a regular basis and regurgitate and that is essentially impossible to pick up. We strongly recommend that the City Council re -affirm current City Ordinance 6.04.050 prohibiting dogs from this valuable public recreational resource. Respectfully, Bob and Donna Lauck 310-541-4416 riauckCa@cox.net 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:50 PM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: Dog Beach Hi Katie — RPV resident Helen Chen called last week to indicate that she is against RPV Beach being designated as a dog beach. She cited the difficultly of enforcing the rules requiring people to pick up after their pets and the unpleasant environment that situation creates. She asked that her comments be passed along to the City Council., Please include this email as part of Late Correspondence for Item 3 on April 3, 2012, Thanks! Carolynn a, 4/2/2012 Katie Howe From: Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:06 PM To: 'Katie Howe' Subject: Opposing Dog Beach Rancho Palos Verdes residents Bill and Marty Foster called to indicate that they are against a dog beach at RPV Beach. Reasons include increased traffic and Liability concerns. 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 6 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 7:56 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonand Subject: FW: Dog Beach -----Original Message- I ---- From: S Perestam [mailto:stexex@cox.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:48 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I regularly walk my leashed dog around the Trump property and the beach below. Most of these walks are delightful, except when encountering unleashed dogs. Specifically, one incident occurred at the junction of the Trump property and the trail leading to the beach, where the "Please leash your dog" sign is posted. I had to pick up my leashed dog as he was accosted by four unleashed "friendly" dogs, according to their owner, on their way down to RPV's Public(Dog)Beach. The current pilot program is already an imposition on guests of Trump National, the Portuguese Bend Beach Club, as well as people who walk their dogs on -lease along the beach. We are now the proud owners of one of the two off -lease Dog Beaches in Los Angeles County. Sometimes it doesn't take an extended test period to determine the success or failure of a pilot program. Please end this misguided experiment before RPV's Dog Beach appears in guidebooks and weekend outing articles, resulting in even a greater impact on neighbors and residents. Thank you. Carol Perestam, RPV Tracy Bonano From: DBe1190275@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:29 AM To: cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Cc: saverpvshoresinfo@cox.net Subject: Opposed to Dog Beach Proposal I am against the proposed use of this beach area. No matter the regulation or restriction there will be people who ignore the rules. Now the situation is escalated by media exploitation. I am Donald Bell and resident of Rancho Palos Verdes. I served on the PUMP committee and volunteered as a Keeper of the Forrestal Tract for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for 3 years. I am a dog owner (now 2 wheaten terriers) and have been for my entire life of over 70 years. I am a resident of the Ladera Linda neighborhood for 33 years. I have the walked the proposed area for more than 30 years. I am a member of the Portuguese Bend Beach Club and regularly walk my dogs from the Trump Club House parking lot in Founders Park and the upper trails. I have had our dogs on the proposed dog beach on leash. This morning Channel 7 broadcast from the Public Parking area adjacent to the Trump Clubhouse. They were just leaving as I arrived to walk my dogs in Founders Park and on the upper trail around West Bluff in the Reserve. There were also two additional unmarked TV broadcast trucks filming there toward Founders Park. I did not see them actually filming the proposed dog beach. Viewers will think Founders Park is now the dog area! RPV has now generated a tremendously successful awareness program of the existence of a dog beach. Anyone guess how many dog owners there might be in the greater Los Angles area? No matter what your decision, the area will be forever overcrowded. See what happens this weekend with good weather. Council now has to generate a prompt plan to protect Trump property, the non -dog public, and Founders Park (which increasingly has trash blowing around or dog feces in the grass or on trails). You cannot just say no to the dog beach and expect people to change their habits. To protect the Palos Verdes Peninsula Nature Preserve after public awareness began to destroy the area, it required the Ranger program be established. And still all user groups violate the rules to the detriment of the area. The treasures that make our city special are increasingly being loved to death!!! And Council is responsible for the cumulative changes that are in my opinion detrimental. I believe there is a formula that works like this: Added amenities = (noise+trash+ traffic+damage) squared. As real as E=MC squared. 4/3/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Ann Strauch [astrauch@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:05 AM To: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Cc: Randall Gary Subject: Proposed Dog Park at RPV Beach Dear City Counsel & Parks, RPV, I'm resident of Ladera Linda & a dog owner. I'm adamantly against turning our beach below Trumps into a dog park. Yesterday (Monday) at 4:30 I visited the beach below my home, & it was overrun with people & dogs. I'm a dog lover, but the situation was totally out of control... and potentially dangerous. To cite a disturbing example, I noted a particularly oversized Geman shepherd (GS) mix creating havoc among the adults, children, & other dogs present. I was midway between the switchback trails down to the ocean & PB Club, where I observed the GS deposit a large pile. When I looked around for an owner to pick up the mound, no one appeared to take care of it. It was left where it was on the sand, kids playing not far away. As I continued to keep my eyes on the GS, I noted that he out-and-out harassed other dogs, possibly wanting to play, but becoming overly insistent, nipping hindquarters to get attention, even though the other dogs tried to distance themselves from him. As dog owner, I know that there's a very thin line between play & aggression, if two dogs are not compatible playmates. I also noted that several people expressed concern, dog owners & parents of kids alike. But the owner could not be identified, as no one was supervising or controlling the animal. As I neared the switchbacks back up to the golf course, I noticed a man handing out near the rocks that go around the cliffs toward the secondary trail leading up to walking path. As I neared him, someone else was asking him if the GS was his. The man replied Yes. The questioner then informed him that his dog was halfway down the beach & totally out of control. The owner of the GS responded that that was fine, that he wanted the GS to get his exercise. AS AN RPV RESIDENT & DOG OWNER, I OBJECT TO THE CROWDS OF PEOPLE & UNCONTROLLED ANIMALS TAKING OVER OUR BEAUTIFUL BEACH. Sincerely, Ann Strauch 3519 Heroic Dr. RPV CA 90275 (310) 377 3015 3 4/3/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:20 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: Safe beaches -----Original Message ----- From: Anne Hazard [mailto:Hazard44@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:18 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Safe beaches Dear City Council, I love dogs. In my 62 years I've always had at least one. But I don't think that the little beach area is a good place for them. Dog parks usually have guards and safe areas . It is so secluded there. I think it will become a problem for our beautiful beach and city. Please find another spot! Sincerely, Anne Hazard RPV resident Sent from my iPhone 1 3 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Bryce Lowe -White [brycelw@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:08 AM To: Katie Howe Subject: Dog Beach meeting Attachments: DogBeachAbuse_March2012_2.pdf; ATT00214.htm; Dog BeachAbuse_March20l2.pdf; ATT00217.htm Hey Katie, Would it be possible to show a short video at the meeting on Tuesday. Its raw footage with no narration or music and a few pictures included in the video. Let me know if this would be possible I could bring a thumbdrive in. Here are a few of the images I would like you to at least share with the rest of the council if I am not able to show them during the meeting. x. 4/3/2012 v PAO Rp From: susanne johnson [shibbytu@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:12 PM To: cc@rpv.com; Katie Howe Subject: Ranger observations today at Trump Beach Attachments: ATT00010.htm; photo.JPG Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I just arrived home from a walk on the bluffs at Trump's with a friend. When we arrived there, I was excited to see a Ranger's SUV in the parking lot. In all of my years walking over there, I have never seen a Ranger there and was happy to finally firsthand see how our parks and beaches are kept safe by them. It was a nice quiet day over there, but there were still a couple of off -leash dogs in Founders Park. The dog owners were nice and they kept their dogs close to them as we approached, but still they were in an area that is never to be off leash. As we headed out to the path along the bluff top we spotted a Ranger, out of sight from the rest of the area over by the picnic tables. We observed him for about ten minutes and the entire time he was texting on his phone. We noticed to the left of him below on the path above the beach a couple of off -leash dogs, one running thru the preserve's native plants and not keeping to the path. When we approached the Ranger I said that there was an off -leash dog running thru the plants down below and his response was, "Nothing we can do about it at this time," without barely looking up from his texting. I said, "I heard that there was." He then started walking in the opposite direction as we were. We continued on our walk along the bluff and returned to the path that leads back up to the parking lot and saw the Ranger walking towards the parking lot as well. When he reached the parking lot, he got in his car, started his car, left his car door open and just sat there. At this point, we went into the clubhouse to get an employee to observe that the Ranger was "doing his job in his car." In the city staff report that was just released, it states that since February 21 st, Rangers have provided an average of 6-10 hours of patrol over at Trump's. The staff report also stated that the Rangers have issued a total of 2 citations for off - leash dogs in the area and gave 3 warnings to hikers with dogs attempting to access the beach below Shoreline Park. After what I just observed over there, perhaps this is why the Rangers have issued so few citations and warnings... because they are not doing their job. I find these observations made today particularly disturbing when this very important matter of what is to become of the Trump Beach is before the council 4/3/2012 0 3. again tomorrow night. Whether or not this is to become some kind of dog beach or not, policing still needs to take place. It would not be legal to have off -leash dogs at any of the points that I saw them at today. The policing by Rangers or by dog lovers is not taking place over there now when it matters the most so what might be a regular day over there in the future seems frightening to me. I do know since the February 21 st council meeting that you all have taken quite a lot of your time to understand this situation at the Trump Beach and that you are trying to keep it managed with the Ranger service. I appreciate you all for bringing this important issue back before you tomorrow evening. I am writing this letter today because whatever is decided tomorrow evening, I am sure you all would care to know what a fine job the Rangers are doing for all of us here in our city. S.Johnson RPV Sent from my iPhone 4/3/2012 0 Tracy Bonano From: v [verikon@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:46 PM To: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Subject: BAN DOGS AT RPV BEACHES - PLEASE POST - CC MEETING 4-3-12 Attachments: no dog beach.doc; ATT00091.htm Dear Jim Wright, First, allow us to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election win to our City Council. In regard to this ridiculous dog beach issue before the Council, you have shown yourself to be the only voice of reason, common sense, decency, and above all, respect for the office and the solemn duties that come with it in protecting the public 0 s safety, health, well-being, and common good. We citizens commend you, and hope that the other City Council members will look to you for guidance, since you have shown yourself to be the only principled leader on what is a very simple and basic matter. Sadly, here again we find the public having to police their City officials, wasting our time and energy making points that should be obvious, demanding that we be protected from the undeniable dangers presented by unleashed dogs and the great deterrence they would impose to public usage of our precious beach. We had expected some common sense in this uncomplicated matter from Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich, despite their failure to put an end to the Annenberg debacle, but what is with the other two members we recently elected into office???? Jerry Duhovik, who ran on his law enforcement background and Susan Brooks who has run for Congress, and they have voted not to protect the safety of beach -goers on this clear- cut matter????????? Needless to say we are shocked and disappointed that they have not risen above their personal desires nor the selfish desires of those who would impose their dogs on other defenseless individuals, and are not looking out for the public. There are reasons behind the RPV dog laws, relevant portions attached, which we urge your colleagues to carefully read. It is disturbing to learn that these Council members recently spent taxpayer money on a ❑visionquest❑, when they cannot even see immediately in front of them the wrong they have attempted to perpetrate. If this is what the public is in for in the next few years, they may as well resign in shame right now. Jim, please inform your colleagues and obsessed dog -owners alike who wish to impose their dogs and responsibilities on others, that this is what it comes down to❑Dogs off -leash cannot be controlled. Endangering the public by allowing them to run wild amongst people of all ages and physical status, including babies, children, and the elderly, all of whom are defenseless in protecting themselves, can and will result in injuries from dog attacks, disease from dog feces and urine, even death which would be blood on the hands of any counsel member who would be so irresponsible as to allow this measure to go into effect. Surely there will be dog deaths as well, and lawsuits galore. Please see articles and information attached and forwarded under separate cover that support all the claims and facts presented in this letter. And to the selfish dog -owner proponents of this deadly proposal, please wake-up and take note: The ❑oh, my dog won❑t hurt you❑ line, though it may be seemingly well-intentioned, is offensive and not true. The public should be able to enjoy this treasured beach without worrying about dogs jumping on you at any second, without fear that they or their loved ones or their fellow citizens might be mauled to death, without dogs slobbering on them, or their blankets and possessions saturated with dog urine, without exposure to worms resulting from feces on the beach, without having to put up with the discordant endless noise of dogs growling and barking that disrupt the peace and drown out the calming sound of the waves they have come to this 4/3/2012 0/ beach to enjoy, without the disturbance of dog fights, without having to worry about not being able to defend oneself or family from a dog attack, without being hit in the head or eyes by a go -fetch frisbee, without tolerating disturbances, disruption, and destruction of the delicate eco -life system the City should be protecting, and so on. Furthermore, some people are afraid of dogs, and it doesn❑t matter how nice you think your dog is since a dog is still is a dog, and a dog can turn, and, as instructed in one of the attached articles, no one we know is equipped to immobilize dogs with our forearms stuck in their mouths, and then fight off attacking dogs by poking their eyes out, so we are left only with the other alternative, to ❑pray❑. Tell the dog -owners that would impose their animals on us, that they are the ones that chose to have these pets, and the responsibility that comes with pet ownership should not be forced upon the public. We are dismayed that the Council did not put a stop to this dangerous proposal back in August, 2011, when, unbeknownst to me, the City received a letter from Trump that they failed to post on the website until recent complaints, yet another failure in government transparency. How disrespectful and imposing of the City to ignore our fine neighbor who has expended so much time, money, energy and thought into making this beach and its access so pleasant, peaceful, and beautiful for the public to enjoy. It is wrong to impose this ill-advised plan with all its liabilities on Trump and to disrupt and diminish his operation. The dog -beach idiocy should have been dropped on the basis of the Trump request alone. It is not our desire nor our natural inclination to have to be so blunt, but the blatant failure in leadership has once again unfortunately necessitated us, along with other concerned and frustrated members of the public, to have to spell out the bottom line to the rest of the Council, before the problems from their faulty decision escalate, and more time and money is wasted. Those in positions of authority should have the foresight to avoid proposals fraught with inevitable injurious and deadly outcomes, let alone proposals that would disrupt and destroy the environment, interfere with a private business that is an asset to the community, and deprive enjoyment of this unique beach from a defenseless public who has moved here and traveled here from far and wide. After reading the recent article in the Daily Breeze, it appears that the other Council members have already decided to stop this madness with their saving -face ruse of an excuse, ❑dog beach too popular❑, so I hope this is the last we will have to deal with this matter. However, we believe even leashed dogs (with the exception of those that assist the handicapped) have no place at this particular beach. Such access to dogs appears to be in violation of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 6.04.050, and considering the limited narrow path access, and the reasons mentioned above, access to dogs, leashed or unleashed, should be denied and enforced. Again, Jim, thanks for your caring and your leadership. Best regards, Valerie Blitz Murray Blitz Attachments 4/3/2012 cU Dear Jim Wright, First, allow us to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election win to our City Council. In regard to this ridiculous dog beach issue before the Council, you have shown yourself to be the only voice of reason, common sense, decency, and above all, respect for the office and the solemn duties that come with it in protecting the public's safety, health, well-being, and common good. We citizens commend you, and hope that the other City Council members will look to you for guidance, since you have shown yourself to be the only principled leader on what is a very simple and basic matter. Sadly, here again we find the public having to police their City officials, wasting our time and energy making points that should be obvious, demanding that we be protected from the undeniable dangers presented by unleashed dogs and the great deterrence they would impose to public usage of our precious beach. We had expected some common sense in this uncomplicated matter from Brian Campbell and Anthony Misetich, despite their failure to put an end to the Annenberg debacle, but what is with the other two members we recently elected into office???? Jerry Duhovik, who ran on his law enforcement background and Susan Brooks who has run for Congress, and they have voted not to protect the safety of beach -goers on this clear-cut matter????????? Needless to say we are shocked and disappointed that they have not risen above their personal desires nor the selfish desires of those who would impose their dogs on other defenseless individuals, and are not looking out for the public. There are reasons behind the RPV dog laws, relevant portions attached, which we urge your colleagues to carefully read. It is disturbing to learn that these Council members recently spent taxpayer money on a "visionquest", when they cannot even see immediately in front of them the wrong they have attempted to perpetrate. If this is what the public is in for in the next few years, they may as well resign in shame right now. Jim, please inform your colleagues and obsessed dog -owners alike who wish to impose their dogs and responsibilities on others, that this is what it comes down to... Dogs off -leash cannot be controlled. Endangering the public by allowing them to run wild amongst people of all ages and physical status, including babies, children, and the elderly, all of whom are defenseless in protecting themselves, can and will result in injuries from dog attacks, disease from dog feces and urine, even death which would be blood on the hands of any counsel member who would be so irresponsible as to allow this measure to go into effect. Surely there will be dog deaths as well, and lawsuits galore. Please see articles and information attached and forwarded under separate cover that support all the claims and facts presented in this letter. And to the selfish dog -owner proponents of this deadly proposal, please wake-up and take note: The "oh, my dog won't hurt you" line, though it may be seemingly well-intentioned, is offensive and not true. The public should be able to enjoy this treasured beach without worrying about dogs jumping on you at any second, without fear that they or their loved ones or their fellow citizens might be mauled to death, without dogs slobbering on them, or their blankets and possessions saturated with dog urine, without exposure to worms resulting from feces on the beach, without having to put up with the discordant endless noise of dogs growling and barking that disrupt the peace and drown out the calming sound of the waves they have come to this beach to enjoy, without the disturbance of dog fights, without having to worry about not being able to defend oneself or family from a dog attack, without being hit in the head or eyes by a go - fetch frisbee, without tolerating disturbances, disruption, and destruction of the delicate eco -life system the City should be protecting, and so on. Furthermore, some people are afraid of dogs, and it doesn't matter how nice you think your dog is since a dog is still is a dog, and a dog can turn, and, as instructed in one of the attached articles, no one we know is equipped to immobilize dogs with our forearms stuck in their mouths, and then fight off attacking dogs by poking their eyes out, so we are left only with the other alternative, to "pray". Tell the dog -owners that would impose their animals on us, that they are the ones that chose to have these pets, and the responsibility that comes with pet ownership should not be forced upon the public. 165 We are dismayed that the Council did not put a stop to this dangerous proposal back in August, 2011, when, unbeknownst to me, the City received a letter from Trump that they failed to post on the website until recent complaints, yet another failure in government transparency. How disrespectful and imposing of the City to ignore our fine neighbor who ,has expended so much time, money, energy and thought into making this beach and its access so pleasant, peaceful, and beautiful for the public to enjoy. It is wrong to impose this ill-advised plan with all its liabilities on Trump and to disrupt and diminish his operation. The dog -beach idiocy should have been dropped on the basis of the Trump request alone. It is not our desire nor our natural inclination to have to be so blunt, but the blatant failure in leadership has once again unfortunately necessitated us, along with other concerned and frustrated members of the public, to have to spell out the bottom line to the rest of the Council, before the problems from their faulty decision escalate, and more time and money is wasted. Those in positions of authority should have the foresight to avoid proposals fraught with inevitable injurious and deadly outcomes, let alone proposals that would disrupt and destroy the environment, interfere with a private business that is an asset to the community, and deprive enjoyment of this unique beach from a defenseless public who has moved here and traveled here from far and wide. After reading the recent article in the Daily Breeze, it appears that the other Council members have already decided to stop this madness with their saving -face ruse of an excuse, "dog beach too popular", so I hope this is the last we will have to deal with this matter. However, we believe even leashed dogs (with the exception of those that assist the handicapped) have no place at this particular beach. Such access to dogs appears to be in violation of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 6.04.050, and considering the limited narrow path access, and the reasons mentioned above, access to dogs, leashed or unleashed, should be denied and enforced. Again, Jim, thanks for your caring and your leadership. Best regards, Valerie Blitz Murray Blitz Attachments City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Excerpts Relevant to Dogs Off -leash and on the Beach 6.04.050 - Animals prohibited on beaches. & No person shall bring onto a beach or into the waters ofthe Pacific Ocean adjacent to any beach any cattle, horse, mule, goat, sheep, swine, dog, cat or other animal of any kind. 12.16.050 - Dogs and pets. & No person may bring a dog or a'ny other pet unless authorized by the ciPj manager or the cipj manager's designee, onto any park or portion of a parl< unless the animal is restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length and is in the charge, care, custody and control of such person. No person may bring a dog or any other pet unless authorized by the ciPj manager orthe ciPj manager's designee onto a golf course or designated play area under any circumstances. Defend yourself against aggresive dogs Posted: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 by kamikaze Kamikaze As a dog trainer and handler many times i get questions from people about how they should defend themselves against a dog attacking them. This is a very interesting question but it has no instant clear solution. But maybe this article can help you and set you on the right track. First of all before we are going to deal with the techniques and tactics let's take a look at dog handling and training. There are different types of dogs and different types of handlers/owners. Some combinations between dog and owner work fine and some don't. Those who don't work out are the ones that give problems. The ones that work fine are those were the owner knows his animal, it's needs and temperament. The ones that spoil the fun are those who either: Got themselves a dog to show of. Don't have a clue about the needs of a dog. Think their dog is a human. Need a dog to boost their ego. Selected the wrong dog for the job. Next we should take a look at the dogs. There are different races of dogs, each of them bread for a different purpose. A Maltezer will never attack you the same way as a Bloodhound would. Their purpose is different as is their body size. But within the different races I need to say that every dog has it's own character and temper. Some are easy going, others are nervous, some like to bark and some just bite without a warning. When buying a dog make sure you know exactly what you want the dog to do for you. Do you want him to guard you (defence dog), do you want him to attack trespassers (attack dog) or do you need company (companion dog) ? When reading the papers and listening to the news we always hear about the same dog races to be the bad ones. They are called dangerous, attack dogs, vicious, etc... and the law is trying to ban those dogs or put restrictions on breeding them. To my opinion this is completely wrong. Most of the time the dog is paying for the stupidity and ego of his owner. The dogs listed usually as dangerous are Rottweiler German Sheppard Pit -bull Doberman Bulldogs Alaskan Malamutes Siberian Huskies Great Danes etc... If you take a look at them it is easy to understand why these dogs are on the blacklist. They are all working dogs of considerable size and weight. But if you look at statistics you will find that people are attacked more frequently by the terriers than by a dog of the blacklist. The only difference is to be found in the damage the attack provokes. A 45kg dog with a bite pressure of 750 kg per square centimetre does a lot more damage than a little doggie reaching 10 cm of height and weighing 3 kg. Well now, how do we defend against a dog that is going for us ? first of all if it's a trained police dog 100% sure , than stand still and don't move at all. They are trained to bite when you flee or resist. Lie down on the floor face down or stand still with your hands up. They are trained to recognize these signals. These dogs are the easiest to deal with. Next type of attacker is the one that is not trained at all. Depending on the type of dog (race) he will go for one target or another. Wrap your arm in your jacket and offer your arm to the dog. 60% chance he will go for it. When he bites resist a little , that will make him tighten his grip , fall on top of the dog and immobilize him with you 61� forearm (still stuck in his mouth) , next stick your thumb in his eye and take it out. Don't try hitting his nose. He will only get more ferocious. Take out both of his eyes before you release him. A 45 kg Rotweiler is very difficult to subdue so don't hesitate, he will not give you a second chance. (I don't like this but i write this to protect the innocent victims of the consequences of stupid owners) If it's a large heavy dog (type Rotweiler) the chances are he will try to get at your legs. They are a little reluctant to get up to grab your arm. If he tries , kick at him and always face the dog. Don't turn around to run away. That will only excite him more and trigger even more his hunting instincts. Call for help , scream and get people to help you , try to pick up stones or sticks and throw them at the dog. If you are made of the stuff hero's are made off you can try something completely different. In the case the dog come running to you and is alone and barking, run towards him and make lot's of noise while you swing your arms around. This will make you look bigger and you have a 73% chance you scare the dog of. (Only 23% if the dog doesn't bark). Barking dogs don't bite goes the saying and to some level it is true. A dog barks to warn you or to hide his own fear. Next and most dangerous categories of dogs are the ones who are only partially trained. They don't respond to commands and don't recognize obvious signals. They go for the kill so to speak. They have enough self confidence to not be scared away but they are not trained enough to stop when the victim stops resisting. These are the ones that make most victims. They are the hardest to defend against. The only option you have is the same you use against an untrained dog. But be aware that those dogs will be more difficult to subdue or to lure into biting in you arm. Some of them are trained to bite in the shoulder or the genitals so be very careful. If there are more than one dog attacking you than pray. This is the same as being attacked by a pack of wolves. The hunt in group and wile you defend yourself against one the others will circle and take you in the back. Put your back against a wall or car and get a stick try to hold them off until help arrives. As you can see it is very difficult to defend against a dog if you don't know what you are up to and in order to be able to distinguish different types of dogs and attacks you need to be an professional handler or at least an experienced owner/handler. -07 The best to take care of all these dogs without killing or maiming them is to use pepper spray. The regular spray sold in your local town will do just fine. These sprays are cheap, they come in different sizes and colours and they are easy to carry and put away. They work against every type of dog attack they are pretty harmless to the dog and will give you plenty of time to get away. So I suggest that next time you go out for a walk in the park or wherever the chance exists you will be attacked by a dog you make sure to carry a pepper spray. About the Author: Peter Vermeeren is a traditional martial arts teacher for over 30 year. His websites can be found here: http://www.takaharudojo.org and http://www.kamikaze-portal.com Thanks for this great article. I'm not as qualified as the author of this article, but I suggest this just as an alternative approach and welcome comments. I've never had to use this, because I've used the 'face -down' with snarling dogs and like bullies when challenged, they've backed off. As the author mentions, I think the first thing is to consider that if an enraged dog really engages, then one should be prepared for a mortal fight. You will probably be hurt, so accept it and prepare mentally that either you or the dog will not walk away. The next point is to neutralise the attack before starting to do some damage of your own. As it attacks, I'd suggest trying to grab the loose skin around the dog's head and neck as a handle and direct its attack away from you. If you have managed to withstand the initial charge and still manage to retain a grip on its skin, then shift your grip around behind its head and lift it up so that its front legs come off the ground. If you lose grip and it attacks again (it certainly will), try again. Even if it does manage to bite you, you have nothing to lose in continuing to fight. Stay on your feet and keep grabbing for its handle. If you get it, the dog will lash out ferociously, but the important point to note is that you control the fight for as long as you can hold it (which will not be very long, so need to move quickly). Next step is the nasty part and the author mentioned some methods such as gouging and choking and I'm sure he is right. Another option is to use surrounding terrain. A second 'handle' can be found in the tail or in loose skin around the rump. This would enable the dog to be lifted with both hands if you are physically able. Spiked fences, barbed wire or steep drops could provide appropriate dropping points for the dog.... to name but a few. I feel confident that I could hold the weight of a thrashing rottweiler size dog for some time in this way, but I know there are larger breeds and I confess those would be difficult to handle in this way. How To: Defend Yourself Against A Dog Dogs may be man's best friend, but they can turn in the blink of an eye. Learn how to defend yourself when Lassie attacks. By Nick Clarke, Page 1: Avoid dog attacks ❑What to do when dogs attack❑A dog may be man's best friend, but even the most docile one can turn in the blink of an eye. No matter how much we tame and train them, so long as man is man and nature is nature, there will always be an underlying threat between the two. In fact, dog attacks account for 4.7 million injuries in the U.S. every year, with pit bulls, rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes being the most dangerous. Nonetheless, dogs are among the best pets you could own. In general, they are giving, playful creatures, and the loyal ones will risk their lives to guard their masters.❑❑Responsible owners, and non -owners, must prepare themselves with defense techniques in the event that man's best friend decides to attack. I'm not trying to demonize the species, but everyone who shares their home with a four -legged friend should know how to diffuse an attack situation calmly and effectively with minimal injury to both man and dog. Here are some tips on how to defend yourself when a dog attacks. Avoid the attack It has been said that prevention is better than a cure, so before you find out how to defend yourself from a dog attack, it's important to look at ways you can avoid one completely. After all, who wants to wrestle with a four -legged beast when, with a few simple tricks, you could send him packing? Initially, avoid intruding on a dog's territory. No matter how ignorant you're willing to be about their characteristics, dogs are one of the most territorial animals on earth, and will lash out if they think you're moving in on their turf. In this instance, never approach an unattended dog; odds are that the dog has marked his patch and, invariably, you'll be stepping on it. If this happens, slowly edge out of the dog's personal space, and don't make any sudden movements to suggest that you're a threat. Secondly, make sure that the dog knows who you, are before attempting to handle him. Move carefully toward the animal and allow him to sniff you. Many dogs attack on reflex because they have been crept up on. Establish your presence, make friends with the dog, and avoid this common pitfall. Thirdly, don't tease a dog or get him excited; let sleeping dogs lie -- literally -- and avoid a snarling, eating or nursing dog. Dogs that have just become mothers are particularly on guard; exercise extreme caution in her presence. Heed the warning signs You know when an angry guy in a bar is about to throw down. Why should a dog be any different? Suss CD the telltale signs of an impending attack and get out while you can -- with your limbs still intact. Growling is typically the first sign that a dog is likely to attack. In addition, if the dog is drooling from the mouth, and his eyes are wild with rage, you can pretty much assume that man's best friend isn't in the best of moods. A dog's body functions in a similar way to a human's, in that it can be used to identify his mood and emotions. Check to see if his body is tense, his hackles (the area between his shoulders and tail) are up, his ears are erect, and if his tail is held high and wagging faster than normal. If the signs don't sit well, you might want to get out of Dodge. More tips on what to do when a dog attacks... Page 2: Dog attacks What not to do Avoid looking directly into an angry dog's eyes, which is seen as aggressive behavior and will almost certainly provoke an attack. And never allow a dog to move behind you; if a dog begins to circle you -- a clear sign of an impending attack -- turn with him. The bottom line is that it's easier for the dog to attack you from behind, so don't make yourself an easy target. There's no point in trying to run away either, as most dogs can easily outrun humans. What's more is that you turn into prey as soon as you begin to run from the dog -- you might as well be a piece of raw steak. If the dog is still a threat and attacks, avoid wildly kicking or punching it. This is because a dog that latches on isn't going to easily let go, no matter how hard you hit him. In one case, a large dog was struck on the head with a baseball bat and still maintained his grip, so manpower alone won't be successful. Although running away or lashing out are instinctual reactions, it's important to reign these in; they will antagonize the dog and lessen your chances of survival or getting away unscathed. What to do If you feel threatened by a dog, stand absolutely still and always face it. So stand strong, put your hands by your side, and wait to see how the dog reacts. It's often a good idea to place something between you and the animal. Doing this breaks the dog's direct line of attack, and even if he does attack he will get a mouthful of something other than your flesh. To diffuse the escalating situation, speak slowly and calmly to the dog. Again, avoid eye contact and focus on his ear or tail while you whisper something like "good boy" or "go home now." Ease the dog into a sense of calm and security, and he'll hopefully turn and walk away. If the dog does attack and takes you to the floor, immediately curl into a ball, cover your face and neck with your hands, play dead, and avoid screaming. The dog will soon lose interest and go on to find something or somebody else to play with. Take up arms When and if a dog attacks, it would be ideal if you had something with which to defend yourself. That's not to say you should hurt the dog though. If local law permits, a stun gun is recommended, but don't use it on the dog. Instead, use the electrical buzzing sound to deter the dog before he strikes. Alternatively, a can of deterrent spray can be an effective and humane way to stop an attack. beware of dog Most men love keeping a dog; they boost our egos, reaffirm our masculinity, make us more appealing to Dx women, and they are invariably better company than a nagging girlfriend during the Super Bowl. But spending so much time with man's best friend does lend itself to the risk of attack. Remember: There's no such thing as a dog that doesn't bite and while they are good company, they are also unpredictable, which makes them dangerous. Ultimately, every dog is different and no technique is 100% effective. To begin with there are trained and untrained dogs, which react differently in an attack. The same is true with different species and genders. Man and dog alike run on instinct in intense situations, and no matter how much we know, we still may succumb to human nature and do the wrong thing. Nevertheless, if you are armed with the right information, you'll have the best chance of emerging from an attack with little or no injury. THIS SHOWS THE MENTALITY OF CERTAIN SELFISH DOG -OWNERS: We went to "Rosie's Dog Beach" for their first time today!! The weather was unusually warm so my husband decided to take the day off from work to take our kids (dogs) out to play!! Our usual jaunt is the Huntington -Dog Beach but we came here for the first time and we had a great time.; As others said, find the meters with the 25 cents per 15 minutes and stay away from the $12.00 flat rate lot. There are many places to park and the meters take MasterCard and Visa. The parking lots are also close to to the sand so you don't have to walk in the heat for too long. [ i 'My dogs had a blast running around but unfortunately, it was VERY crowded with people today, There were too many families with children eating their lunches so my dogs got distracted and along with the other dogs, the families were getting "trampled" with dogs. I don't see why families without dogs come the this beach. There are plenty of beaches that are more child friendly than "Rosie's Dog Beach", Your towels, bags, and children will get marked (peed on) here!!!!!i i Other than that rant, please make sure your dogs are treated with a commercial grade flea repellent (ex. Frontline, Advantage, Revolution, etc) because all beaches have sand fleas. For the safety of your pets, keep them treated with a waterproof flea and tick repellent. Also, since the dogs are not separated by size here, keep them close to you and only bring dogs that are socialized. Nervous and aggressive dogs do not do well with other dogs or people.; 1.. The beach was clean today for the most part. The sandy areas are filled with trash bins to pick up after your dogs, We had fun today watching our dogs run around with the other dogs. My only concern today was watching 2 red nosed Pit Bulls circle one of my dogs and I could not find the owner. I have nothing against Pits but I do have a gripe about owners not paying attention to their dogs. Although most of the people seemed responsible, please be careful if you have small dogs, Overall, its a great place for dogs to play and it is legal here to allow them off their leashes!!! My Complaints about Some Dog Beach Patrons:[']';F-;- My dog was attacked here by a dog who the owner said "was so friendly" and apparently my dog was "giving her a look" (that apparently said, "please stick your teeth into my side") - After this, she didn't take her dog out of the beach as she should have. The problem is that some dog owners just have no common sense. ❑ ❑- There are posted rules and they're good ones. If every visitor followed them, we'd all be in good shape, but they don't. (A few examples. ..)[i Don't try to have a friggin picnic on the dog beach! And don't yell at my dog when she wants your food! 00- Make sure your young children are up on your shoulders or you're paying attention to them - they could get knocked over by dogs. Also - if some dogs knock down your kid's sandcastle, don't yell at me. ❑- If you bring your soccer ball to the beach to kick with your buddies, my dog's going to try to steal it from you and run around the beach with it, eventually popping it. I'm very sorry that she did this, but again, it's a dog beach and rolling balls are, by default, dog toys. Witness To Rainbow Beach Pitbull Attack: Dogs Attacked Jogger "Like He Was a Piece of Steak" The man who alerted authorities to a New Year's Day attack of a jogger by two pitbulls at Rainbow Beach has offered details of his eyewitness account of the attack to the Sun -Times. They aren't pretty. Stanley Lee, who lives in an apartment near the beach in the South Shore neighborhood, said he first heard the barking dogs and cries for help from Joseph Finley, and grabbed a baseball bat. When Lee arrived at the scene he said he found the dogs attacking Finley "like he was a piece of steak." "I hurried up and put my clothes on and grabbed a bat and ran out and saw two pit bulls just going at this man," Lee said. "So I just started beating the dogs with the bat. I was trying to beat them dogs' heads in. It was just horrific. And these dogs weren't like your ordinary pit bulls. It was like they were bred exactly for fighting. They just wouldn't let the man go." Police shot and killed the pitbulls after they tried to attack them. Lee said he suffered no injuries trying to stop the attack, although his bat has bite marks on it. The owner of the dogs, Jimmy Johnson, was cited twice for each dog for failing to restrain them and not having city dog licenses. Johnson faces fines of more than $2,000 when he's expected in court in March. An Animal Care and Control spokesman said the dogs escaped through an open gate. Finley remains in critical condition at Stroger Hospital after undergoing surgery for bites on his feet and legs. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8341963 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE CALL UPON YOU TO PUT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ANY CONSIDERATION FOR AN "OFF -LEASH DOG BEACH". JUST THE THOUGHT OF SUCH AN IMPOSITION IS DISTURBING TO BEACH -GOERS WHO WISH TO GO TO SUCH A PUBLIC PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO WADE OR SWIM IN THE INEVITABLE DOG EXCREMENT, WHO COME TO THE SHORE EXPECTING PEACE AND QUIET AND THE UNDISTURBED SOUND OF THE WAVES, NOT BARKING DOGS, OR THE USUAL NASTY DOG FIGHTS THAT ENSUE. FURTHERMORE WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PERHAPS REST BY THE SEA WITHOUT HAVING TO BE ON CONSTANT GUARD FOR A DOG JUMPING ON US, ATTACKING US, BITING US, SLOBBERING ON US, A FRISBEE HITTING US THAT THOUGHTLESS DOG OWNERS SEND THEIR DOGS TO FETCH, AND SO ON. THE TRUMP BEACH HAS A NARROW UP/DOWN PATHWAY WHERE AN OFF -LEASH DOG COULD EASILY CAUSE A BEACH -GOER TO GO OVER THE EDGE. IT'S BAD ENOUGH WITH DOGS ON A C5 LEASH. ALLOWING DOGS OFF LEASH WILL ONLY RESULT IN MANY WOULD-BE BEACH -GOERS ALTOGETHER AVOIDING THE PLACE THEY ONCE CHERISHED, A SPECIAL PLACE THEY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ATTEND WITHOUT DOG OWNERS AND THE CITY UNFAIRLY IMPOSING THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS, AND DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE ON OTHERS WHO HAVE NO WAY OF AVOIDING THE DOGS - THEREBY, EFFECTIVELY KEEPING A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE BEACH. THIS PROPOSAL IS TOTALLY WRONG, AND WILL UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY. DOG OWNERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR PETS SHOULD NOT TAKE PRIORITY OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS WHEN IN A PUBLIC PLACE, AND THIS ONE IS UNIQUE AND UNREPLACEABLE. THERE ALREADY EXISTS SUCH A BEACH LOST TO DOGS IN NEARBY LONG BEACH WHERE THEY CAN GO. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY DOG OWNERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE, AND NOT ONLY CHILDREN THAT ARE DEATHLY AFRAID OF DOGS. THEY FORGET THAT DOGS OFF -LEASH CAN AND DO VERY EASILY REVERT TO THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS, A VERY REAL FEAR. MANY DOG OWNERS ARE COMPLETELY DISRESPECTFUL OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FEEL THE SAME WAY THEY DO ABOUT THE CANINE LOVE OF THEIR LIFE, OR WHO DO NOT WISH THE PROBLEMS THAT COME WITH TAKING A PET IMPOSED UPON THEM. WE CALL UPON THE CITY NOT TO SANCTION THIS GREAT AND UNNECESSARY IMPOSITION AND DISTURBANCE. FURTHERMORE, EVEN WHEN SUCH DOG OWNERS FEEL THEIR PETS TAKE PRIORITY OVER PEOPLE, IF DOG OWNERS REALLY CARED ABOUT THEIR PETS, THEY WOULD NOT SUBJECT THEM TO AN "OFF -LEASH DOG PARK", VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED AND DETAILED IN THE ATTACHED ARTICLE I URGE YOU TO READ FROM THE WEB, WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO APPARENTLY THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDS AND DEEPLY CARES ABOUT DOGS. http://blackbeltdogtraining.com/articies_dogtraining/dogparks.pdf PLEASE LET US KNOW THAT THE CITY WILL NOT ALLOW THE LEASH RESTRICTION TO BE LIFTED SO THAT WE HUMANS - THE ELDERLY, CHILDREN, AND THOSE IN BETWEEN - CAN BREATHE A SIGH OF RELIEF. THANK YOU! VALERIE BLITZ MURRAY BLITZ Many people like dog parks for the wrong reasons. People constantly feel that their dogs need to play with other dogs and run around and chase each other. They feel this is a good way to get exercise (for their dogs that is) and for social interaction. There are several things wrong with this idea. 1. Dogs are not social animals in the sense that they like to get together with new dogs to hang out and chat. That is a human characteristic, and one that is based on equality. Dogs function on a hierarchical structure. That means that each time a new group of dogs gets together, they will in some way establish who belongs where. 2. Exercise, as in the form of walking together is something that establishes the pack and its leaders; therefore it is something that should be done within your pack. That means you and your dog (s). By taking your dog for a walk or a run, you establish yourself as the leader of the pack. People are lazy and think they can take their dogs to the park and then shoot the breeze with all the other lazy people at the park while their dogs run around. Often these people are totally unaware of what is going on with their dogs. I've been to numerous dog parks and watched oblivious owners chit chatting with each other while their dog is being chased around by a wild pack. The owners think it's cute and often ignore many signs that the dog is actually reaching out for his leaders help. Eventually this dog will grow to disrespect the owner or become a dog that has issues. D/3 I've seen and heard the stories that would change anyone's mind as it relates to dog parks. I can tell you of a lab killing an Akita puppy, countless dogfights, owners getting bitten by trying to break up dogfights and countless dogs that are behaviorally ruined from horrible dog park experiences. As I said, it only takes one bad dog to set off a pack behavior that can not be controlled by any person at a dog park. And, when this happens, some dogs are gonna get hurt. When dogs are chasing, their prey drive is set off and they are in drive mode. This can be playful for most dogs, but there are those dogs that, once in drive mode, can get very dangerous. These issues are not breed specific, so there are no labels that I'll put on any dogs with respect to breed. Dogs are dogs and these characteristics relate to all breeds across the board. When a dog enters a dog park his behavior / instinct is to establish himself in the pack. All the dogs that are currently there immediately surround him. The dogs that go to the park regularly have territorial dominance and may or may not express it to a new dog. The new dog may or may not accept it. If he does, it's all good, if not there will be a struggle. Dogs do not communicate like humans do; they base their lives on their rank in the pack. If, all the dogs in the park are dogs that your dog knows, and dogs that have a good pack structure there is less likelihood for problems. However, you cannot control who comes to the park and who does not. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. One bad dog can spoil the whole pack and one can end up DEAD. Before I researched this issue, I too would take my dog to the dog park. As I watched the struggles I quickly figured out what I am trying to tell you here. I was, and am capable of breaking up most any dogfight, and have done so on several occasions. I learned quickly that dogs, for the most part are not happy at dog parks, or at the very least can be much happier playing with their own pack or owners without going to the park. I've seen firsthand what I would not want you to see happen to your dog. If a pack of dogs surround your dog and start ripping him apart, you will be incapable of stopping them, believe me. The risk of this happening is worth avoiding the dog park altogether. In my mind, there is no middle ground on this. Even if the park separates the big dogs and little dogs, it doesn't change anything. All dogs regardless of size have these struggles. People who don't believe dogs have rank struggles or function on the alpha structure are those who are in total denial, who don't understand anything about dogs or who have never clearly tried to understand the mind of the canine. The picture below should give you a good example of what can happen to your dog at a dog park. This is not a small dog, but three dogs attacked him and the owner could do nothing to help him. This dog lost one ear for certain and may end up losing the other one as well. This dog is FOREVER disfigured physically and damaged psychologically because people just don't understand the problems with dog parks... This dog did nothing to instigate the fight and ended up at the receiving end of a nasty fight, all for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course the owner thought they were doing the right thing. Look at this picture and understand, that this, or worse can happen to your dog. It will be over in a flash and you will be powerless to do anything about it. Humans are mostly incapable of seeing warning signs before a fight breaks out. If they are capable then for the most part they will not be able to stop the fight once it breaks out. There are no benefits to taking your dog to a dog park. Your dog does not need to interact with strange dogs in order to be socialized. This is a huge mistake that humans make on dog behavior. If you want to introduce your dog to other dogs, it should be done in a controlled environment. It should be done with another dog whose temperament you are sure of and it should be done in a controlled environment. Dogs will form close bonds with other dogs that they interact with on a regular basis. This can be an asset or a liability. If the dog bonds stronger with the other dog than you, you lose control over the dog. This might sound petty, but it is my opinion that my dog should see me as the source of everything, not another dog. I am his leader, and I have the ability to protect him. The other dog does not have these tools. I am selective on who I introduce my dog 3 to. He does not need to meet other dogs that I don't approve of. My dog is happiest with me and is comfortable in any situation I bring him in to. He is good with any other dog, birds, cats, children and the list goes on. This is because I spent the time with him and did the work to make this happen. When he came to me he was another out of control dog that could not be fixed. I've had several dogs like this and fixed each one of them. I speak from a place of experience... the experience in fixing the ones others could not or would not fix. In closing I would like to add that these same principles apply to hiking trails, beaches, etc. However dog parks that are closed off or confined are the greatest danger, as the areas are more likely to trigger territorial dominance. When dogs run free, for example on the beach you have no control over their, introduction or their interaction, you can't control if one dog will chase the other dog into the street, you are not in control. Yelling doesn't work. People who simply let their dogs run off leash and are unable to recall their dog with any distractions are an accident waiting to happen. They are irresponsible and cause more damage than good to their own -dogs as well as all dogs. They are an accident waiting to happen, and are also the ones who are absolutely clueless on dog behavior. When something happens, they are the ones that just shrug their shoulders. If you truly love your dog, you will give him the structure that a leader will give. You will train your dog and teach him that the best place to be is with you at your side. Your dog will understand that you control everything that is good in his life and that you will protect him from everything that is bad. You will be a leader of the pack and you will not listen to the stupid things that people say about your dog needs to run free to be a dog. Your dog can run free in a controlled environment. Remember, the shelters are full of dogs that were owned by people who thought dogs should be dogs. They are being killed every minute of every day because of human ignorance. Don't be one of these humans, do it for your dog. No dog that was properly trained and knew his place in the pack was ever given up by his or her owners. I'd like to stress that I have nothing to gain by speaking out against dog parks. I speak out for the dogs that cannot speak for themselves. Please do your homework and see that what I am telling you is true and that it may save your dogs life. It breaks my heart to see dogs suffer for the human emotions, thoughts and responsibilities we put upon them. To see the faces of the animals in the shelter as I walk by their cages, their eyes pleading for a chance at life. If humans only understood the simplicity of the canine mind, thousands of dogs would be saved. http://on.wsj.com/wsTNZN Dog waste is more than just an annoying chore, it can pose a serious health risk. Here's why. A large number of common parasites, including round worm, are transmitted by dog waste. Even though it takes about one year for the dog waste to disintegrate, other parasites can remain in the soil for many years. As a result, any human or animal who comes in contact with the soil also comes in contact with the infected eggs. Children have an even greater risk at getting some of these diseases cause they are constantly in contact with the soil on the ground. Whether its playing football, soocer or just digging up dirt, they come in contact with it. Afterwards, they tend to put their fingers in their mouths or rub there eyes. But even a group of teens or adults playing Frisbee or touch football in an open area could be in danger. Parasitic infections can make humans extremely sick, and for pregnant women, can pose a serious harm to their unborn child. Animal waste is one of the most common sources of the following diseases: (click the links to find info on the types of diseases) Coccidia, Giardia, Hookworms, Parvo Virus, Roundworms (ascarids), and Whipworms. 0-5 Not only does dog waste contain parisites and diseases, it also effects the water we drink. Here is an aricle from USA today regarding Dog waste and the water we all drink. Dog waste poses threat to water By Traci Watson, USA TODAY For as long as the dog has been man's best friend, dog waste has posed a menace to man's nose and foot. Now science has revealed a more unsavory truth: It's an environmental pollutant. In the mid-1990s, scientists perfected methods for tracking the origin of nasty bacteria in streams and seawater. From Clearwater, Fla., to Arlington, Va., to Boise the trail has led straight to the hunched -up dog ❑ and to owners who don't pick up after their pets. At some beaches, dogs help raise bacteria levels so high that visitors must stay out of the water. Goaded by such studies, some cities have directed as much as $10,000 in the last few years to encourage dog owners to clean up after their pets. A few municipalities have started issuing citations to those who ignore pet clean-up ordinances. Many dog lovers are in denial about their pooches' leavings. But researchers have named the idea that areas used by dogs pump more bacteria into waterways ❑ the "Fido hypothesis." Dogs are only one of many fixtures of suburban America that add to water pollution. Lawn fertilizers, rinse water from driveways and motor oil commonly end up in streams and lakes. But unlike those sources, dogs generate disease -causing bacteria that can make people sick. Studies done in the last few years put dogs third or fourth on the list of contributors to bacteria in contaminated waters. "Dogs are one of our usual suspects," says Valerie Harwood, a microbiologist at the University of South Florida. "At certain sites, we find their effect to be significant." It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that dog do is nasty. But it took science to determine how nasty it is. From mutt to blue-blooded champion, all dogs harbor so-called coliform bacteria, which live in the gut. The group includes E. coli, a bacterium that can cause disease, and fecal coliform bacteria, which spread through feces. Dogs also carry salmonella and giardia. Environmental officials use measurements of some of these bacteria as barometers of how much fecal matter has contaminated a body of water. This wouldn't matter if pet dogs were as rare as pet chinchillas. But four in 10 U.S. households include at least one dog, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. The association's statistics also show that Americans owned 54.6 million dogs in 1996 and 68 million dogs in 2000. Of that total, 45% were "large" dogs 40 pounds or more. Those numbers add up to a lot of kibble. That wouldn't matter if all dog owners also owned a pooper- scooper. But several studies have found that roughly 40% of Americans don't pick up their dogs' feces (women are more likely to do so than men). New analysis provides answers The environmental impact of dog waste went unrecognized for decades. Then scientists developed lab techniques to determine the origin of fecal bacteria contaminating water. One method is a variant of DNA fingerprinting. Another method looks at the antibiotic resistance of microbes from different species. Scientists caution that the methods are still new. They are able to distinguish between major and minor sources of pollution, but they can't say with precision whether dogs contribute 20% or 30% of the pollution in a stream. "There's inherently some error," says Don Stoeckel, a microbiologist for the Ohio district of the U.S. Geological Survey who's studying. bacteria -tracking methods. "I think the best (they) can do is give you some evidence of the magnitude of each source." Nonetheless, Stoeckel says, the analytical tools do provide useful information. Researchers have studied dozens of waterways. Wild birds and humans usually head the roster of who's fouling the water. But in some areas, dogs make significant deposits. At Morro Bay, Calif., for example, dogs contribute roughly 10% of the E. coli, says Christopher Kitts, a microbiologist at California Polytechnic State University -San Luis Obispo. "And that can be the difference between a beach closing and a beach not closing," he says. Places where dogs dirty the water: Stevenson Creek in Clearwater, Fla. Residents were worried that a sewage treatment plant contaminated the creek. But when Harwood tested the water, she found that dogs, along with leaky septic tanks and wild animals, were to blame for high bacteria counts. Dog feces probably washed out of yards by the creek, Harwood says. Four Mile Run in Arlington and Fairfax counties, Va. Studies show that dogs add to the contamination in this suburban Washington, D.C. stream. Officials calculate that the 12,000 dogs living in Four Mile Run's watershed leave behind more than 5,000 pounds of "solid waste" every day. Boise River in Boise. The river suffers from high bacteria levels that make it unsuitable for swimming. Testing of streams and drainpipes flowing into the river showed that in urban areas, dogs were a leading culprit. In some spots, dogs and cats account for even more of the bacteria than human feces ❑ from dysfunctional septic tanks and leaky sewage pipes ❑ do. Fines don't sway some Even where dogs aren't the prime offenders, they're one of the few polluters authorities have control over. At many California beaches, for example, seagulls and other birds are most responsible for high bacteria levels. But federal laws protect birds. That leaves dogs. Officials know that they have a lot of educating to do before people realize their pooch can be a canine sewage pipe. Some people find it humiliating to carry a plastic bag. A survey by the Center for Watershed Protection in 1999 found that of the 41 % of respondents who rarely or never clean up after their dogs, 44% would refuse to do so in the face of fines and neighbors' complaints. Reasons included, "because it eventually goes away," "small dog, small waste," and "just because." So more cities may follow the lead of Laguna Beach, Calif., a wealthy beach enclave. The city provides pooper-scoopers at the local dog park. But many people "don't take care of their little friends," says Victor Hillstead, the city's parks and buildings manager. So the city hired Entre -Manure, poop -scooping service based in nearby Dana Point whose motto is "#1 in the #2 Business." Since the city's contract started in January, the service has collected 187 pounds of dog waste from the city. "I'm real proud of that fact," says Craig Stern, founder and chief picker -upper. "That's pollution that'll never reach the ocean." The Official Website of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) 0 Health and Human Services Home Consumer Community Health & Safety Environmental Health Environmental Exposure Beaches and Algae Pet Waste and Bathing Beaches This brochure will educate pet owners on environmentally sound waste disposal practices to protect the recreational waters of Massachusetts. Health Risks Possibly Associated with Pet Waste Pet waste can contain bacteria and parasites, causing infections such as the following: Campylobacteriosis: A bacterial infection that causes diarrhea in humans. Giardiasis: A protozoan infection of the small intestine that can cause diarrhea, cramping, fatigue, and weight loss. Salmonellosis: Symptoms include fever, muscle aches, headache, vomiting, and diarrhea. Toxocariasis: An animal to human infection that is caused by roundworms found in the intestines of dogs. The parasite can cause vision loss, rash, fever or cough, and is a particular threat to children exposed to parasite eggs in sand and soil. Questions and Answers Why is Pest Waste A Concern? There are a lot of pets, producing a lot of waste, and while pet waste is not the most significant pollutant, it can contribute to pollution over time. Why pick up after my dog, won't the tide wash it away? Dog waste may pose a health threat to swimmers, wildlife, surfers and other dogs. It can pollute the water and lead to beach closures and closure of shellfish beds. I only have a small dog; it can't really harm the water, can it? 000 It can be hard to picture how a single dog depositing a small amount of waste can result in water pollution. However, studies have shown that the combined impact of all pets and wildlife within a watershed can be significant when it comes to water quality and human health. Be Aware When animal waste ends up in the waterit decomposes, using up oxygen. During summer months, low dissolved oxygen levels harm fish and other aquatic life. Beaches and shellfish beds may be closed, if evidence that disease -causing bacteria and viruses might be present is found on routine water testing. Pet waste can be a cause of test results that close beaches and shellfish beds. The majority of water pollution comes from small sources - especially at the household level. Many towns have "pooper scooper" ordinances that require pet owners to pick up and remove fecal matter from public property. Fines can be imposed on those caught violating these laws. Pet Waste is Natural However, efficient drainage systems and roads now make it easy for pet waste to reach beach waters. Waste left on the ground either passes through storm sewers untreated or washes directly into oceans, lakes, and streams. Pet waste is unpleasant and can pose health risks when left on beaches or in other recreational areas. To make sure your pet isn't contributing to the problem, always clean up after your pet and deposit waste in an appropriate manner. Quick Tips Reuse old bags: grocery, sandwich, newspaper, produce and bread bags to pick up and contain pet waste. U -S Keep a supply of bags near your dog's leash. Tie bags onto the leash if you don't have a pocket or pack. Do More to Protect the Shore Always carry a plastic bag to pick up your pet's waste. Do not throw pet waste near a storm drain; use a trash can. Pet waste can also be flushed down a toilet, but please don't flush the bag. Make sure to dispose of pet waste in a sealed bag so it doesn't spill during trash collection. Do not flush pet or wildlife waste from your deck or dock into the water. Obey local leash laws and seasonal bans at beaches. For More Information Bureau of Environmental Health❑MA Department of Public Health❑250 Washington Street, 7th fl❑Boston, MA 02108 MA Bathing Beaches Project Website:❑www.mass.gov/dph/beaches Phone: 617-624-5757 ❑ Fax: 617-624-5777 ❑TTY: 617-624-5286 Download this Brochure Pet Waste and Bathing Beaches Guidelines for Pet Owners (PDF) This information is provided by the Environmental Toxicology Program within the Department of Public Health. Complementary Content Accessibility Policy EOHHS Web Feedback EOHHS Site Policies Contact Us About This Website © 2012 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ❑Mass.Gov® is a registered service mark of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. City of.Rancho Palos Verdes .mun.icipal Code Excerpts Relevant to Dogs Off -leash and on the Beach 6.04.050 - Animals prohibited on beaches. & No person shall bring onto a beach or into the waters ofthe Pacific Ocean adjacent to any beach any cattle, horse, mUle, goat, sheep, swine, dog, cat or other animal of any kind. 12.1.6.050 - Dogs and pets. & No person may bring a dog or a'ny other pet unless authorized by the ciPj manager or the ciPj manager's designee, onto any park or portion of a parl< unless the animal is restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length and is in the charge, care, custody and control of such person. No person may bring a dog or any other pet unless authorized by the ciPj manager orthe ciPj manager's designee onto a golf course or designated play area under any circumstances. Defend yourself against aggresive dogs Posted: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Kamikaze As a dog trainer and handler many times i get questions from people about how they should defend themselves against a dog attacking them. This is a very interesting question but it has no instant clear solution. But maybe this article can help you and set you on the right track. ar First of all before we are going to deal with the techniques and tactics let's take a look at dog handling and training. There are different types of dogs and different types of handlers/owners. Some combinations between dog and owner work fine and some don't. Those who don't work out are the ones that give problems. The ones that work fine are those were the owner knows his animal, it's needs and temperament. The ones that spoil the fun are those who either: -1. Got themselves a dog to show of. -1. Don't have a clue about the needs of a dog. -1. Think their dog is a human. -1. Need a dog to boost their ego. -1. Selected the wrong dog for the job. Next we should take a look at the dogs. There are different races of dogs, each of them bread for a different purpose. A Maltezer will never attack you the same way as a Bloodhound would, Their purpose is different as is their body size. But within the different races I need to say that every dog has it's own character and temper. Some are easy going, others are nervous, some like to bark and some just bite without a warning. When buying a dog make sure you know exactly what you want the dog to do for you. Do you want him to guard you (defence dog), do you want him to attack trespassers (attack dog) or do you need company (�7Q (companion dog) ? When reading the papers and listening to the news we always hear about the same dog races to be the bad ones. They are called dangerous, attack dogs, vicious, etc... and the law is trying to ban those dogs or put restrictions on breeding them. To my opinion this is completely wrong. Most of the time the dog is paying for the stupidity and ego of his owner. The dogs listed usually as dangerous are: -1. Rottweiler -1. German Sheppard -1. Pit -bull -1. Doberman -1. Bulldogs -I.Alaskan Malamutes -I. Siberian Huskies -1. Great Danes -1. etc... If you take a look at them it is easy to understand why these dogs are on the blacklist. They are all working dogs of considerable size and weight. But if you look at statistics you will find that people are attacked more frequently by the terriers than by a dog of the blacklist. The only difference is to be found in the damage the attack provokes. A 45kg dog with a bite pressure of 750 kg per square centimetre does a lot more damage than a little doggie reaching 10 cm of height and weighing 3 kg. Well now, how do we defend against a dog that is going for us ? first of all if it's a trained police dog 100% sure , than stand still and don't move at all. They are trained to bite when you flee or resist. Lie down on the floor face down or stand still with your hands up. They are trained to recognize these signals. These dogs are the easiest to deal with. Next type of attacker is the one that is not trained at all. Depending on the type of dog (race) he will go for one target or another. Wrap your arm in your jacket and offer your arm to the dog. 60% chance he will go for it. When he bites resist a little, that will make him tighten his grip, fall on top of the dog and immobilize him with you forearm (still stuck in his mouth) . next stick your thumb in his eye and take it out. Don't try hitting his nose. He will only get more ferocious. Take out both of his eyes before you release him. A 45 kg Rotweiler is very difficult to subdue so don't hesitate, he will not give you a second chance. (I don't like this but i write this to protect the innocent victims of the consequences of stupid owners) If it's a large heavy dog (type Rotweiler) the chances are he will try to get at your legs. They are a little reluctant to get up to grab your arm. If he tries , kick at him and always face the dog. Don't turn around to run away. That will only excite him more and trigger even more his hunting instincts. Call for help , scream and get people to help you , try to pick up stones or sticks and throw them at the dog. If you are made of the stuff hero's are made off you can try something completely different. In the case the dog come running to you and is alone and barking, run towards him and make lot's of noise while you swing your arms around. This will make you look bigger and you have a 73% chance you scare the dog of. (Only 23% if the dog doesn't bark). Barking dogs don't bite goes the saying and to some level it is true. A dog barks to warn you or to hide his own fear. Next and most dangerous categories of dogs are the ones who are only partially trained. They don't respond to commands and don't recognize obvious signals. They go for the kill so to speak. They have enough self confidence to not be scared away but they are not trained enough to stop when the victim stops resisting. These are the ones that make most victims. They are the hardest to defend against. The only option you have is the same you use against an untrained dog. But be aware that those dogs will be more difficult to subdue or to lure into biting in you arm. Some of them are trained to bite in the shoulder or the genitals so be very careful. If there are more than one dog attacking you than pray. This is the same as being attacked by a pack of wolves. The hunt in group and wile you defend yourself against one the others will circle and take you in the back. Put your back against a wall or car and get a stick try to hold them off until help arrives. As you can see it is very difficult to defend against a dog if you don't know what you are up to and in order to be able to distinguish different types of dogs and attacks you need to be an professional handler or at least an experienced owner/handler. The best to take care of all these dogs without killing or maiming them is to use pepper spray. The regular spray sold in your local town will do just fine. These sprays are cheap, they come in different sizes and colours, and they are easy to carry and put away. They work against every type of dog attack they are pretty harmless to the dog and will give you plenty of time to get away. So I suggest that next time you go out for a walk in the park or wherever the chance exists you will be attacked by a dog you make sure to carry a pepper spray. About the Author: Peter Vermeeren is a traditional martial arts teacher for over 30 year. His websites can be found here: http://www.takaharudojo.org and http://www.kamikaze-portal.com Thanks for this great article. I'm not as qualified as the author of this article, but I suggest this just as an (4—�) alternative approach and welcome comments. I've never had to use this, because I've used the 'face -d own' with snarling dogs and like bullies when challenged, they've backed off. As the author mentions, I think the first thing is to consider that if an enraged dog really engages, then one should be prepared for a mortal fight. You will probably be hurt, so accept it and prepare mentally that either you or the dog will not walk away. The next point is to neutralise the attack before starting to do some damage of your own. As it attacks, I'd suggest trying to grab the loose skin around the dog's head and neck as a handle and direct its attack away from you. If you have managed to withstand the initial charge and still manage to retain a grip on its skin, then shift your grip around behind its head and lift it up so that its front legs come off the ground. If you lose grip and it attacks again (it certainly will), try again. Even if it does manage to bite you, you have nothing to lose in continuing to fight. Stay on your feet and keep grabbing for its handle. If you get it, the dog will lash out ferociously, but the important point to note is that you control the fight for as long as you can hold it (which will not be very long, so need to move quickly). Next step is the nasty part and the author mentioned some methods such as gouging and choking and I'm sure he is right. Another option is to use surrounding terrain. A second 'handle' can be found in the tail or in loose skin around the rump. This would enable the dog to be lifted with both hands if you are physically able. Spiked fences, barbed wire or steep drops could provide appropriate dropping points for the dog.... to name but a few. I feel confident that I could hold the weight of a thrashing rottweiler size dog for some time in this way, but I know there are larger breeds and I confess those would be difficult to handle in this way. How To: Defend Yourself Against A Dog Dogs may be man's best friend, but they can turn in the blink of an eye. Learn how to defend yourself when Lassie attacks By Nick Clarke, Page 1: Avoid dog attacks ?What to do when dogs attack?A dog may be man's best friend, but even the most docile one can turn in the blink of an eye. No matter how much we tame and train them, so long as man is man and nature is nature, there will always be an underlying threat between the two. In fact, dog attacks account for 4.7 million injuries in the U.S. every year, with pit bulls, rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes being the most dangerous. Nonetheless, dogs are among the best pets you could own. In general, they are giving, playful creatures, and the loyal ones will risk their lives to guard their masters. ??Responsible owners, and non -owners, must prepare themselves with defense techniques in the event that man's best friend decides to attack. I'm not trying to demonize the species, but everyone who shares their home with a four -legged friend should know how to diffuse an attack situation calmly and effectively with minimal injury to both man and dog. Here are some tips on how to defend yourself when a dog attacks. Avoid the attack It has been said that prevention is better than a cure, so before you find out how to defend yourself from a dog attack, it's important to look at ways you can avoid one completely. After all, who wants to wrestle with a four -legged beast when, with a few simple tricks, you could send him packing? Initially, avoid intruding on a dog's territory. No matter how ignorant you're willing to be about their characteristics, dogs are one of the most territorial animals on earth, and will lash out if they think you're moving in on their turf. In this instance, never approach an unattended dog; odds are that the dog has marked his patch and, invariably, you'll be stepping on it. If this happens, slowly edge out of the dog's personal space, and don't make any sudden movements to suggest that you're a threat. Secondly, make sure that the dog knows who you are before attempting to handle him. Move carefully toward the animal and allow him to sniff you. Many dogs attack on reflex because they have been crept up on. Establish your presence, make friends with the dog, and avoid this common pitfall. Thirdly, don't tease a dog or get him excited; let sleeping dogs lie -- literally -- and avoid a snarling, eating or nursing dog. Dogs that have just become mothers are particularly on guard; exercise extreme caution in her presence. Heed the warning signs You know when an angry guy in a bar is about to throw down. Why should a dog be any different? Suss the telltale signs of an impending attack and get out while you can -- with your limbs still intact. Growling is typically the first sign that a dog is likely to attack. In addition, if the dog is drooling from the mouth, and his eyes are wild with rage, you can pretty much assume that man's best friend isn't in the best of moods. A dog's body functions in a similar way to a human's, in that it can be used to identify his mood and emotions. Check to see if his body is tense, his hackles (the area between his shoulders and tail) are up, his ears are erect, and if his tail is held high and wagging faster than normal. If the signs don't sit well, you might want to get out of Dodge. More tips on what to do when a dog attacks... Page 2: Dog attacks What not to do Avoid looking directly into an angry dog's eyes, which is seen as aggressive behavior and will almost certainly provoke an attack. And never allow a dog to move behind you; if a dog begins to circle you -- a clear sign of an impending attack -- turn with him. The bottom line is that it's easier for the dog to attack you from behind, so don't make yourself an easy target. There's no point in trying to run away either, as most dogs can easily outrun humans. What's more is that you turn into prey as soon as you begin to run from the dog -- you might as well be a piece of raw steak. If the dog is still a threat and attacks, avoid wildly kicking or punching it. This is because a dog that latches on isn't going to easily let go, no matter how hard you hit him. In one case, a large dog was struck on the head with a baseball bat and still maintained his grip, so manpower alone won't be successful. Although running away or lashing out are instinctual reactions, it's important to reign these in; they will antagonize the dog and lessen your chances of survival or getting away unscathed. What to do If you feel threatened by a dog, stand absolutely still and always face it. So stand strong, put your hands by your side, and wait to see how the dog reacts. It's often a good idea to place something between you and the animal. Doing this breaks the dog's direct line of attack, and even if he does attack he will get a mouthful of something other than your flesh. To diffuse the escalating situation, speak slowly and calmly to the dog. Again, avoid eye contact and focus on his ear or tail while you whisper something like "good boy" or "go home now." Ease the dog into a sense of calm and security, and he'll hopefully turn and walk away. If the dog does attack and takes you to the floor, immediately curl into a ball, cover your face and neck with your hands, play dead, and avoid screaming. The dog will soon lose interest and go on to find something or somebody else to play with. Take up arms a� When and if a dog attacks, it would be ideal if you had something with which to defend yourself. That's not to say you should hurt the dog though. If local law permits, a stun gun is recommended, but don't use it on the dog. Instead, use the electrical buzzing sound to deter the dog before he strikes. Alternatively, a can of deterrent spray can be an effective and humane way to stop an attack. beware of dog Most men love keeping a dog; they boost our egos, ,reaffirm our masculinity, make us more appealing to women, and they are invariably better company than a nagging girlfriend during the Super Bowl. But spending so much time with man's best friend does lend itself to the risk of attack. Remember: There's no such thing as a dog that doesn't bite and while they are good company, they are also unpredictable, which makes them dangerous. Ultimately, every dog is different and no technique is 100% effective. To begin with there are trained and untrained dogs, which react differently in an attack. The same is true with different species and genders. Man and dog alike run on instinct in intense situations, and no matter how much we know, we still may succumb to human nature and do the wrong thing. Nevertheless, if you are armed with the right information, you'll have the best chance of emerging from an attack with little or no4njury. TII:IS SI:- OWS ":I`I11 MEN17A.1:11"I'Y OF CERTAIN SELFIS1 I DOG -OWNERS: We went to " Rosie's flog Beach" for their first time today!! The weather was unusually warm so my husband decided to take the day off froze. work to take our kids (dogs) out to play!! Our Lzsual jaunt is the 1-luntington Dog Beach but we came here for the first time and we had a great ti:me.'??A.s others said, find the meters with the 25 cents per 1.5 minutes and stay away from the $12.00 flat rate lot. There are many places to park and the meters take MasterCard and Visa. The parking lots are also close to to the sand so you don't have to walk in the heat for too Ion, -,.?'?My dogs had a blast running around but unfortunately, it was V1-.R.Y crowded with people today. 1"here were; too rnany farnilics with children eating their It z rhes so zt y clogs got distracted and along vial the other drags, the ianI lies were getting "trarripled" %pith dogs. I don't see- why families without drags conte the this beach. 'there are plenty ofbeaches that are more child f ie adl than "R.osie's Dog l3each". Your towels. lags, and children will get marked (peed on) here" ?!" ?Other than Haat rant, please make sure your dogs are treated with a commercial grade flea repellent: (ex. Frontline, Advantage, Revolution, etc) because all beaches have sand fleas. For the safety of your pets, keep them treated. with a waterproof flea and. tick repellent. Also, since the dogs are not separated by size here, keep them. close to you and only bring dogs that are socialized. Nervous and aggressive dogs do not do well with other dogs or people,??The beach was clean today for the most part. The sandy areas are filled with trash bins to pick up after your dogs. We had fun today watching our dogs run around withthe other dogs. My only concern today was watching 2 red nosed Pit Bulls circle one of my dogs and 1 could not f rid the owner. I have nothing against lits but I do have a gripe about owners not paying attention to their clogs. Although most of the people seemed responsible, please be careful if you have small dogs. Overall, its a great place for dogs to play and it is legal here to allow them off their leashes!!! My Complaints about Some Dog Beach Patrons:??- My dog was attacked here by a dog who the owner said "was so friendly" and apparently my dog was "giving her a look" (that apparently said, "please stick your teeth into my side") - After this, she didn't take her dog out of the beach as she should have. The problem is that some dog owners just have no common sense.??- There are posted rules and they're good ones. If every visitor followed them, we'd all be in good shape, but they don't. (A few examples...)??- Don't try to have a friggin picnic on the dog beach! And don't yell at my dog when she wants your food!??- Make sure your young children are up on your shoulders or you're paying attention to them - they could get knocked over by dogs. Also - if some ogs knock down your kid's sandcastle, don't yell at me. ??- P �� If you bring your soccer ball to the beach to kick with your buddies, my dog's going to try to steal it from you and run around the beach with it, eventually popping it. I'm very sorry that she did this, but again, it's a dog beach and rolling balls are, by default, dog toys. Witness To Rainbow Beach Pitbull Attack: Dogs Attacked Jogger "Like He Was a Piece of Steak" The man who alerted authorities to a New Year's Day attack of a jogger by two pitbulls at Rainbow Beach has offered details of his eyewitness account of the attack to the Sun -Times. They aren't pretty. Stanley Lee, who lives in an apartment near the beach in the South Shore neighborhood, said he first heard the barking dogs and cries for help from Joseph Finley, and grabbed a baseball bat. When Lee arrived at the scene he said he found the dogs attacking Finley "like he was a piece of steak." "I hurried up and put my clothes on and grabbed a bat and ran out and saw two pit bulls just going at this man," Lee said. "So I just started beating the dogs with the bat. I was trying to beat them dogs' heads in. It was just horrific. And these dogs weren't like your ordinary pit bulls. It was like they were bred exactly for fighting. They just wouldn't let the man go." Police shot and killed the pitbulls after they tried to attack them. Lee said he suffered no injuries trying to stop the attack, although his bat has bite marks on it. The owner of the dogs, Jimmy Johnson, was cited twice for each dog for failing to restrain them and not having city dog licenses. Johnson faces fines of more than $2,000 when he's expected in court in March. An Animal Care and Control spokesman said the dogs escaped through an open gate. Finley remains in critical condition at Stroger Hospital after undergoing surgery for bites on his feet and legs. http: //abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8341963 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE CALL UPON YOU TO PUT AN IMMEDIATE END TO ANY CONSIDERATION FOR AN "OFF -LEASH DOG BEACH". JUST THE THOUGHT OF SUCH AN IMPOSITION IS DISTURBING TO BEACH -GOERS WHO WISH TO GO TO SUCH A PUBLIC PLACE WITHOUT HAVING TO WADE OR SWIM IN THE INEVITABLE DOG EXCREMENT, WHO COME TO THE SHORE EXPECTING PEACE AND QUIET AND THE UNDISTURBED SOUND OF THE WAVES, NOT BARKING DOGS, OR THE USUAL NASTY DOG FIGHTS THAT ENSUE. FURTHERMORE WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PERHAPS REST BY THE SEA WITHOUT HAVING TO BE ON CONSTANT GUARD FOR A DOG JUMPING ON US, ATTACKING US, BITING US, SLOBBERING ON US, A FRISBEE HITTING US THAT THOUGHTLESS DOG OWNERS SEND THEIR DOGS TO FETCH, AND SO ON. (�9 THE TRUMP BEACH HAS A NARROW UP/DOWN PATHWAY WHERE AN OFF -LEASH DOG COULD EASILY CAUSE A BEACH -GOER TO GO OVER THE EDGE. IT'S BAD ENOUGH WITH DOGS ON A LEASH. ALLOWING DOGS OFF LEASH WILL ONLY RESULT IN MANY WOULD-BE BEACH -GOERS ALTOGETHER AVOIDING THE PLACE THEY ONCE CHERISHED, A SPECIAL PLACE THEY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ATTEND WITHOUT DOG OWNERS AND THE CITY UNFAIRLY IMPOSING THESE HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS, AND DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE ON OTHERS WHO HAVE NO WAY OF AVOIDING THE DOGS - THEREBY, EFFECTIVELY KEEPING A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE BEACH. THIS PROPOSAL IS TOTALLY WRONG, AND WILL UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CITY. DOG OWNERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR PETS SHOULD NOT TAKE PRIORITY OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS WHEN IN A PUBLIC PLACE, AND THIS ONE IS UNIQUE AND UNREPLACEABLE. THERE ALREADY EXISTS SUCH A BEACH LOST TO DOGS IN NEARBY LONG BEACH WHERE THEY CAN GO. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY DOG OWNERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE, AND NOT ONLY CHILDREN THAT ARE DEATHLY AFRAID OF DOGS. THEY FORGET THAT DOGS OFF -LEASH CAN AND DO VERY EASILY REVERT TO THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS, A VERY REAL FEAR. MANY DOG OWNERS ARE COMPLETELY DISRESPECTFUL OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FEEL THE SAME WAY THEY DO ABOUT THE CANINE LOVE OF THEIR LIFE, OR WHO DO NOT WISH THE PROBLEMS THAT COME WITH TAKING A PET IMPOSED UPON THEM. WE CALL UPON THE CITY NOT TO SANCTION THIS GREAT AND UNNECESSARY IMPOSITION AND DISTURBANCE. FURTHERMORE, EVEN WHEN SUCH DOG OWNERS FEEL THEIR PETS TAKE PRIORITY OVER PEOPLE, IF DOG OWNERS REALLY CARED ABOUT THEIR PETS, THEY WOULD NOT SUBJECT THEM TO AN "OFF - LEASH DOG PARK", VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED AND DETAILED IN THE ATTACHED ARTICLE I URGE YOU TO READ FROM THE WEB, WRITTEN BY SOMEONE WHO APPARENTLY THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDS AND DEEPLY CARES ABOUT DOGS. http://blackbeltdogtraining.corn/articles_dogtraining/dogparks.pdf PLEASE LET US KNOW THAT THE CITY WILL NOT ALLOW THE LEASH RESTRICTION TO BE LIFTED SO THAT WE HUMANS - THE ELDERLY, CHILDREN, AND THOSE IN BETWEEN - CAN BREATHE A SIGH OF RELIEF. THANK YOU! VALERIE BLITZ m_ NJMtNye0.3am Many people like dog parks for the wrong reasons. People constantly feel that their dogs need to play with other dogs and run around and chase each other. They feel this is a good way to get exercise (for their dogs that is) and for social interaction. There are 3� several things wrong with this idea. 1. Dogs are not social animals in the sense that they like to get together with new dogs to hang out and chat. That is a human characteristic, and one that is based on equality. Dogs function on a hierarchical structure. That means that each time a new group of dogs gets together, they will in some way establish who belongs where. 2. Exercise, as in the form of walking together is something that establishes the pack and its leaders; therefore it is something that should be done within your pack. That means you and your dog (s). By taking your dog for a walk or a run, you establish yourself as the leader of the pack. People are lazy and think they can take their dogs to the park and then shoot the breeze with all the other lazy people at the park while their dogs run around. Often these people are totally unaware of what is going on with their dogs. I've been to numerous dog parks and watched oblivious owners chit chatting with each other while their dog is being chased around by a wild pack. The owners think it's cute and often ignore many signs that the dog is actually reaching out for his leaders help. Eventually this dog will grow to disrespect the owner or become a dog that has issues. I've seen and heard the stories that would change anyone's mind as it relates to dog parks. I can tell you of a lab killing an Akita puppy, countless dogfights, owners getting bitten by trying to break up dogfights and countless dogs that are behaviorally ruined from horrible dog park experiences. As I said, it only takes one bad dog to set off a pack behavior that can not be controlled by any person at a dog park. And, when this happens, some dogs are gonna get hurt. When dogs are chasing, their prey drive is set off and they are in drive mode. This can be playful for most dogs, but there are those dogs that, once in drive mode, can get very dangerous. These issues are not breed specific, so there are no labels that I'll put on any dogs with respect to breed. Dogs are dogs and these characteristics relate to all breeds across the board. 3A When a dog enters a dog park his behavior / instinct is to establish himself in the pack. All the dogs that are currently there immediately surround him. The dogs that go to the park regularly have territorial dominance and may or may not express it to a new dog. The,new dog may or may not accept it. If he does, it's all good, if not there will be a struggle. Dogs do not communicate like humans do; they base their lives on their rank in the pack. If all the dogs in the park are dogs that your dog knows, and dogs that have a good pack structure there is less likelihood for problems. However, you cannot control who comes to the park and who does not. One bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. One bad dog can spoil the whole pack and one can end up DEAD. Before I researched this issue, I too would take my dog to the dog park. As I watched the struggles I quickly figured out what I am trying to tell you here. I was, and am capable of breaking up most any dogfight, and have done so on several occasions. I learned quickly that dogs, for the most part are not happy at dog parks, or at the very least can be much happier playing with their own pack or owners without going to the park. I've seen firsthand what I would not want you to see happen to your dog. If a pack of dogs surround your dog and start ripping him apart, you will be incapable of stopping them, believe me. The risk of this happening is worth avoiding the dog park altogether. In my mind, there is no middle ground on this. Even if the park separates the big dogs and little dogs, it doesn't change anything. All dogs regardless of size have these struggles. People who don't believe dogs have rank struggles or function on the alpha structure are those who are in total denial, who don't understand anything about dogs or who have never clearly tried to understand the mind of the canine. The picture below should give you a good example of what can happen to your dog at a dog park. This is not a small dog, but three dogs attacked him and the owner could do nothing to help him. This dog lost one ear for certain and may end up losing the other one as well. This dog is FOREVER disfigured physically and damaged psychologically because people just don't understand the problems with dog parks... (3-31 This dog did nothing to instigate the fight and ended up at the receiving end of a nasty fight, all for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course the owner thought they were doing the right thing. Look at this picture and understand, that this, or worse can happen to your dog. It will be over in a flash and you will be powerless to do anything about it. Humans are mostly incapable of seeing warning signs before a fight breaks out. If they are capable then for the most part they will not be able to stop the fight once it breaks out. There are no benefits to taking your dog to a dog park. Your dog does not need to interact with strange dogs in order to be socialized. This is a huge mistake that humans make on dog behavior. If you want to introduce your dog to other dogs, it should be done in a controlled environment. It should be done with another dog whose temperament you are sure of and it should be done in a controlled environment. Dogs will form close bonds with other dogs that they interact with on a regular basis. This can be an asset or a liability. If the dog bonds stronger with the other dog than you, you lose control over the dog. This might sound petty, but it is my opinion that my dog should see me as the source of everything, not another dog. I am his leader, and I have the ability to protect him. The other dog does not have these tools. I am selective on who I introduce my dog to. He does not need to meet other dogs that I don't approve of. My dog is happiest with me and is comfortable in any situation I bring him in to. He is good with any other dog, birds, cats, children and the list goes on. This is because I spent the time with him and did the work to make this happen. When he came to me he was another out of control dog that could not be fixed. I've had several dogs like this and fixed each one of them. I speak from a place of experience... the experience in fixing the ones others could not or would not fix. In closing I would like to add that these same principles apply to hiking trails, beaches, etc. However dog parks that are closed off or confined are the greatest danger, as the areas are more likely to trigger territorial dominance. When dogs run free, for example on the beach you have no control over their introduction or their interaction, you can't oy control if one dog will chase the other dog into the street, you are not in control. Yelling doesn't work. People who simply let their dogs run off leash and are unable to recall their dog with any distractions are an accident waiting to happen. They are irresponsible and cause more damage than good to their own dogs as well as all dogs. They are an accident waiting to happen, and are also the ones who are absolutely clueless on dog behavior. When something happens, they are the ones that just shrug their shoulders. If you truly love your dog, you will give him the structure that a leader will give. You will train your dog and teach him that the best place to be is with you at your side. Your dog will understand that you control everything that is good in his life and that you will protect him from everything that is bad. You will be a leader of the pack and you will not listen to the stupid things that people say about your dog needs to run free to be a dog. Your dog can run free in a controlled environment. Remember, the shelters are full of dogs that were owned by people who thought dogs should be dogs. They are being killed every minute of every day because of human ignorance. Don't be one of these humans, do it for your dog. No dog that was properly trained and knew his place in the pack was ever given up by his or her owners. I'd like to stress that I have nothing to gain by speaking out against dog parks. I speak out for the dogs that cannot speak for themselves. Please do your homework and see that what I am telling you is true and that it may save your dogs life. It breaks my heart to see dogs suffer for the human emotions, thoughts and responsibilities we put upon them. To see the faces of the animals in the shelter as I walk by their cages, their eyes pleading for a chance at life. If humans only understood the simplicity of the canine mind, thousands of dogs would be saved. htt-o://on.wsj.com/wsTNZN Dog waste is more than just an annoying chore, it can pose a serious health risk. Here's why. A large number of common parasites, including round worm, are transmitted by dog waste. Even though it takes about one year for the dog waste to disintegrate, other parasites can remain in the soil for many years. As a result, any human or animal who comes c�� in contact with the soil also comes in contact with the infected eggs. Children have an even greater risk at getting some of these diseases cause they are constantly in contact with the soil on the ground. Whether its playing football, soocer or just digging up dirt, they come in contact with it. Afterwards, they tend to put their fingers in their mouths or rub there eyes. But even a group of teens or adults playing Frisbee or touch football in an open area could be in danger. Parasitic infections can make humans extremely sick, and for pregnant women, can pose a serious harm to their unborn child. Animal waste is one of the most common sources of the following diseases: (click the links to find info on the types of diseases) Coccidia, Giardia, Hookworms, Parvo Virus, Roundworms (ascarids), and Whipworms. Not only does dog waste contain parisites and diseases, it also effects the water we drink. Here is an aricle from USA today regarding Dog waste and the water we all drink. Dog waste poses threat to water By Traci Watson, USA TODAY For as long as the dog has been man's best friend, dog waste has posed a menace to man's nose and foot. Now science has revealed a more unsavory truth: It's an environmental pollutant. In the mid-1990s, scientists perfected methods for tracking the origin of nasty bacteria in streams and seawater. From Clearwater, Fla., to Arlington, Va., to Boise the trail has led straight to the hunched -up dog ? and to owners who don't pick up after their pets. At some beaches, dogs help raise bacteria levels so high that visitors must stay out of the water. Goaded by such studies, some cities have directed as much as $10,000 in the last few years to encourage dog owners to clean up after their pets. A few municipalities have started issuing citations to those who ignore pet clean-up ordinances. Many dog lovers are in denial about their pooches' leavings. But researchers have named the idea that areas used by dogs pump more bacteria into waterways ? the "Fido hypothesis." Dogs are only one of many fixtures of suburban America that add to water pollution. Lawn fertilizers, rinse water from driveways and motor oil commonly end up in streams and lakes. But unlike those sources, dogs generate disease -causing bacteria that can make people sick. Studies done in the last few years put dogs third or fourth on the list of contributors to bacteria in contaminated waters. "Dogs are one of our usual suspects," says Valerie Harwood, a microbiologist at the University of South Florida. "At certain sites, we find their effect to be significant." 3G It doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure out that dog do is nasty. But it took science to determine how nasty it is. From mutt to blue-blooded champion, all dogs harbor so-called coliform bacteria, which live in the gut. The group includes E. coli, a bacterium that can cause disease, and fecal coliform bacteria, which spread through feces. Dogs also carry salmonella and giardia. Environmental officials use measurements of some of these bacteria as barometers of how much fecal matter has contaminated a body of water. This wouldn't matter if pet dogs were as rare as pet chinchillas. But four in 10 U. S. households include at least one dog, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. The association's statistics also show that Americans owned 54.6 million dogs in 1996 and 68 million dogs in 2000. Of that total, 45% were "large" dogs 40 pounds or more. Those numbers add up to a lot of kibble. That wouldn't matter if all dog owners also owned a pooper-scooper. But several studies have found that roughly 40% of Americans don't pick up their dogs' feces (women are more likely to do so than men). New analysis provides answers The environmental impact of dog waste went unrecognized for decades. Then scientists developed lab techniques to determine the origin of fecal bacteria contaminating water. One method is a variant of DNA fingerprinting. Another method looks at the antibiotic resistance of microbes from different species. Scientists caution that the methods are still new. They are able to distinguish between major and minor sources of pollution, but they can't say with precision whether dogs contribute 20% or 30% of the pollution in a stream. "There's inherently some error," says Don Stoeckel, a microbiologist for the Ohio district of the U.S. Geological Survey who's studying bacteria -tracking methods. "I think the best (they) can do is give you some evidence of the magnitude of each source." Nonetheless, Stoeckel says, the analytical tools do provide useful information. Researchers have studied dozens of waterways. Wild birds and humans usually head the roster of who's fouling the water. But in some areas, dogs make significant deposits. At Morro Bay, Calif., for example, dogs contribute roughly at California Polytechnic State University -San Luis Obispo and a beach not closing," he says. Places where dogs dirty the water: 10% of the E. coli, says Christopher Kitts, a microbiologist "And that can be the difference between a beach closing -1. Stevenson Creek in Clearwater, Fla. Residents were worried that a sewage treatment plant contaminated the creek. But when Harwood tested the water, she found that dogs, along with leaky septic tanks and wild animals, were to blame for high bacteria counts. Dog feces probably washed out of yards by the creek, Harwood says. -1. Four Mile Run in Arlington and Fairfax counties, Va. Studies show that dogs add to the contamination in this suburban Washington, D.C. stream. Officials calculate that the 12,000 dogs living in Four Mile Run's watershed leave behind more than 5,000 pounds of "solid waste" every day. -l. Boise River in Boise. The river suffers from high bacteria levels that make it unsuitable for swimming. Testing of streams and drainpipes flowing into the river showed that in urban areas, dogs were a leading culprit. In some spots, dogs and cats account for even more of the bacteria than human feces ? from dysfunctional septic tanks and leaky sewage pipes ? do. Fines don't sway some Even where dogs aren't the prime offenders, they're one of the few polluters authorities have control over. At many 3% California beaches, for example, seagulls and other birds are most responsible for high bacteria levels. But federal laws protect birds. That leaves dogs. Officials know that they have a lot of educating to do before people realize their pooch can be a canine sewage pipe. Some people find it humiliating to carry a plastic bag. A survey by the Center for Watershed Protection in 1999 found that of the 41 % of respondents who rarely or never clean up after their dogs, 44% would refuse to do so in the face of fines and neighbors' complaints. Reasons included, "because it eventually goes away," "small dog, small waste," and "just because." So more cities may follow the lead of Laguna Beach, Calif., a wealthy beach enclave. The city provides pooper- scoopers at the local dog park. But many people "don't take care of their little friends," says Victor Hillstead, the city's parks and buildings manager. So the city hired Entre -Manure, poop -scooping service based in nearby Dana Point whose motto is "#1 in the #2 Business." Since the city's contract started in January, the service has collected 187 pounds of dog waste from the city. "I'm real proud of that fact," says Craig Stern, founder and chief picker -upper. "That's pollution that'll never reach the ocean." The Official Website of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOIIHS) Health and Human Services -1. Home Consumer Community health. & Safety Environmental. Health. Environmental. Exposure Beaches and Algae Pet Waste and Bathing Beaches This brochure will educate pet owners on environmentally sound waste disposal practices to protect the recreational waters of Massachusetts. Health Risks Possibly Associated with Pet Waste Pet waste can contain bacteria and parasites, causing infections such as the following: Campylobacteriosis: A bacterial infection that causes diarrhea in humans. Giardiasis: A protozoan infection of the small intestine that can cause diarrhea, cramping, fatigue, and weight loss. Salmonellosis: Symptoms include fever, muscle aches, headache, vomiting, and diarrhea. Toxocariasis: An animal to human infection that is caused by roundworms found in the intestines of dogs. The parasite can cause vision loss, rash, fever or cough, and is a particular threat to children exposed to parasite eggs in sand and soil. Questions and Answers Why is Pest Waste A Concern? There are a lot of pets, producing a lot of waste, and while pet waste is not the most significant pollutant, it can contribute to pollution over time. Why pick up after my dog, won't the tide wash it away? Dog waste may pose a health threat to swimmers, wildlife, surfers and other dogs. It can pollute the water and lead to beach closures and closure of shellfish beds. I only have a small dog; it can't really harm the water, can it? It can be hard to picture how a single dog depositing a small amount of waste can result in water pollution. However, studies have shown that the combined impact of all pets and wildlife within a watershed can be significant when it comes to water quality and human health. Be Aware -1. When animal waste ends up in the water it decomposes, using up oxygen. During summer months, low dissolved oxygen levels harm fish and other aquatic life. -l. Beaches and shellfish beds may be closed, if evidence that disease -causing bacteria and viruses might be present is found on routine water testing. Pet waste can be a cause of test results that close beaches and shellfish beds. -1. The majority of water pollution comes from small sources - especially at the household level. -1. Many towns have "pooper scooper" ordinances that require pet owners to pick up and remove fecal matter from public property. Fines can be imposed on those caught violating these laws. Pet Waste is Natural However, efficient drainage systems and roads now make it easy for pet waste to reach beach waters. Waste left on the ground either passes through storm sewers untreated or washes directly into oceans, lakes, and streams. Pet waste is unpleasant and can pose health risks when left on beaches or in other recreational areas. To make sure your pet isn't contributing to the problem, always clean up after your pet and deposit waste in an appropriate manner. Quick Tips -1. Reuse old bags: grocery, sandwich, newspaper, produce and bread bags to pick up and contain pet waste. -1. Keep a supply of bags near your dog's leash. -1. Tie bags onto the leash if you don't have a pocket or pack. Do More to Protect the Shore -l. Always carry a plastic bag to pick up your pet's waste. -1. Do not throw pet waste near a storm drain; use a trash can. Pet waste can also be flushed down a toilet, but please don't flush the bag. -1. Make sure to dispose of pet waste in a sealed bag so it doesn't spill during trash collection. -1. Do not flush pet or wildlife waste from your deck or dock into the water. -1.Obey local leash laws and seasonal bans at beaches. For More Information Bureau of Environmental Health?MA Department of Public Health?250 Washington Street, 7th fl?Boston, MA 02108 MA Bathing Beaches Project Website:?www.mass.gov/dph/beaches Phone: 617-624-5757?Fax: 617-624-5777?TTY: 617-624-5286 Download this Brochure -1. Pet Waste and Bathing Beaches Guidelines for Pet Owners (PDF) This information is provided by the Environmental Toxicology Program within the Department of Public Health. Complementary Content -1. Accessibility Policy EOHHS Web Feedback EOHHS Site Policies Contact Us About This Website cO 2012 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ?Mass.Gov® is a registered service mark of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01�0 From: ray van dinther [raymadelin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:07 PM To: City Council; Traffic@rpv.com Cc: nicole jules; Madeline Ryan; annamcdougall@cox.net; david.lukac@freshandeasy.com; Jessica Zaccaro Subject: Speed increase on PVDE between Bronco and Sunnyside Ridge Dear City Council and Traffic Commission, This is my final appeal to you before tomorrow night to please not vote to increase the speed limit in this area on PVDE between Bronco and Sunnyside Ridge. This was unanimously voted against by the Traffic Commission and the Lomita sheriff - off the record - stated that if you increase the speed limit people will automatically drive at 8mph above the signed speed limit. Please ..... we will be in serious danger. This area above is s bends switchbacks and there are constant serious accidents now. People are hospitalized with serious injuries every month. Some never recover. For us living in this area we are in danger now trying to get in and out of our homes. We cannot cross the road to visit our neighbors. There are small children and not so small children walking there are, mothers with strollers, runners and cyclists and 10 horses all navigating this area. I can only beg you at this point to vote against this madness. This has been brought about by one woman who rather than pay for exceeding the speed limit.wants to endanger all the people living and driving along PVDE. She does not live on PVDE, she just wants to get her own way and because she is a in a position of power, is using her influence to cajole this. I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow night to plead our case as I am unwell .... most of it brought about by the stress of this situation. I have personally had to attend to too many people above my house who have crashed as a result of this dangerous part of the road. Please, do not allow this to happen .... I beg you. Ray Van Dinther 28180 PVDE 4/3/2012 Y. From: ray van dinther [raymadelin@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:23 PM To: City Council; Traffic@rpv.com Cc: citymanager@rpv.com; nicole jules; cc Anna McDougall; David Lukac; Jessica Zaccaro; pvpasofino@yahoo.com Subject: PS Speed increase on PVDE between Bronco and Sunnyside Ridge One other thing I forgot to mention. I absolutely challenge the validity and accuracy of the new traffic study done by the city. It is seriously flawed. I beg you to look at the areas they recorded traffic and speeds and made their recommendations from. All straight areas of PVDE. They did not monitor our (the most dangerous part of PVDE) at all Bring them back, make them make new recommendations based on PVDE between Bronco and Sunnyside Ridge. This area is a totally unique and dangerous situation. It is where all the accidents are happening and they didn't even look at it. They monitored ONLY between Sunnyside and Stone Gate, a completely straight section of the road. Thanks you for your attention Ray Van Dinther 4/3/2012 4�1- From: Barbara Hartl [bhartl@cox.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 7:01 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Tuesday's agenda PV Drive East Attachments: City Council meeting April 2012- redraft.doc I I R, - fflm City Council meeting April 201... Dear Council members, As a measure of assurance that each council member receives my correspondence intended for tomorrow's City Council meeting, I am appending my concerns and reply to Staff's Report here. I am the author of the Petition cited by Staff, and know that I (as well as the many hundreds of Petitioners), have been misrepresented to the Committee in the Staff Report. as has our cause. We are not a group that simply wants "the right to drive fast." To the contrary; we want to make PUDE safe. I have attached my reply to Staff's report, which I hope you will take the time to read and consider, as I am out of the country and cannot attend the meeting in person. Thank you. Barbara Hartl On behalf of the Petitioners in favor of accurately determining the speed limits for radar enforcement on Palos Verdes Drive East, I submit the following. 1) I did not ever offer that Officer Conduct was at the fore of any complaint (it was offered by Staff, Nicole Jules, to me as a better use of my time and efforts. 2) I did not receive a speeding citation at any time or reason relevant to this petition, (which was asserted by Staff in their report). 3) There is no evidence that any Petitioner ever demanded "the right to Drive Faster." That is a red herring and a fabrication. The issue is and remains conducting an unbiased survey of Palos Verdes Drive East so as to eliminate the speed traps that, by Officer Blanchard's testimony at the September 2011 Traffic Committee meeting, enable officers to issue upwards of 1000 citations per year on Palos Verdes Drive East alone. PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST IS LESS SAFE WHEN ARTIFICIALLY LOW SPEED LIMITS ARE BEING ENFORCED. By keeping speed limits depressed, officers issue citations at an approximate rate of 12 per hour. They are not targeting nor are they forced to target the unsafe drivers. By increasing the illegally low speed limit to the legally required limit, law enforcement will be forced to focus efforts on the motorists who actually contribute to making PVDE a less safe road. There are no data that defend or suggest that the aggressive enforcement of the illegally low speed limits has made any impact on the accident rate or safety of PV Drive East. THE 5 MPH INCREASE IN SPEED LIMIT ON THE NORTHERN SECTION OF PV DRIVE EAST IS THE MINIMUM INCREASE REQUIRED BY LAW The new survey proposing a 35 mile per hour speed limit includes a 5 mph reduction from the 40mph speed limit required by the survey data. The new survey revealed that all sections of PVDE marked at 30 mph should be increased to 40 mph. The Surveyor recommended a 5 mph reduction resulting in a 35mph speed limit. This is allowed by the law if the City can establish that there is a significant unseen hazard established by higher than average accident rates on those segments of road. The survey data does not support a 5 MPH reduction based on traffic accident statistics, especially on the segment near Marymount College. Even when a 5 MPH speed reduction is justified by data, the law does NOT ALLOW any further reductions for any reason and such contemplation is not at the City's discretion. THE NEW SURVEY WAS NOT UNBIASED (AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT). BOTH STAFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR BIAS AND HAVE SOUGHT TO BYPASS LEGAL PROCEDURES FOR SETTING SPEED LIMITS ON PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST 1. It is a matter of record that after hearing the petitioners' concerns, the Traffic Committee and Staff resolved to defend the clearly flawed Traffic Surveys and asserted themselves as lawmakers, deciding what the laws and speed limits should be, rather than to ensure that the City supports what the laws are. 2. This 2011 Survey was performed by the City's own Engineering firm. 0 a. who defended the merits of the prior survey at the September 2011 Traffic Committee meeting and b. who was well aware of the past survey history and Traffic Committee's ruling not to increase the speed limits and, c. who proposed justification for the 5 mph reduction on every segment. Staff's bias is reinforced by a corrupt traffic enforcement who sought to bias the new survey in the days and weeks leading up to it. Law enforcement deliberately corrupted the new survey. According to CA MUTCD guidelines, traffic enforcement officers should not be present for at least two weeks preceding a T&E Survey so as not to influence motorists' driving habits. (City's senior engineer, Nicole Jules, stated that it was the City's policy to suspend enforcement for 4 weeks prior to conducting a survey). In defiance to the City's instructions, officers continued to patrol (or pretend to patrol) their usual locations up until the day of the survey, with the sole objective to corrupt the survey. In fact, to prove to the City that there was a problem with Officer Conduct, just 10 days prior to the survey, and after several hours of incoming complaints, I personally took a photograph of Officer Knox actively intending to corrupt the survey, and emailed it to the City's senior engineer, Nicole Jules. To her credit, after receiving the complaint, she had him removed (for that day) from PVDE. THE RESIDENTS OF PVDE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO POLICE THE POLICE. This officer's behavior not only corrupted the survey according to CA MUTCD guidelines, but his misconduct is an overt display of the contempt he has for the law and of the rights of the residents and visitors who travel on Palos Verdes Drive East to have a legitimate Traffic and Engineering Study completed. These biases contributed to the lowering of the surveyed speed by Marymount College -- just below the threshold (by 1 mph) so that the surveyor could assert a 40 MPH speed limit, which was further reduced to 35 mph by imposing a 5 MPH reduction. Consequently, even according to this surveyor's data, over 72% of the motorists will still be deemed "unlawful" when traveling on the stretch of PVDE in front of Marymount College. CONCLUSION: To date, the courts have dismissed every issued citation that was contested on the basis of the petitioners' complaints. As a result of the Traffic Committee's failure to support the law, Petitioner's sought relief for the victims of this vigilante traffic enforcement from the court, and the court has responded. Our hope is that, likewise, the City will also show its support to uphold the law. We petitioners will not support traffic enforcement that uses ill -begotten Surveys. Such traffic enforcement serves merely to harass residents and their visitors, and renders PVDE less safe by diverting traffic enforcement's focus from the unsafe drivers to the masses. Petitioners will continue to object to tainted surveys and the unlawful use of the 5mph reduction. Law enforcement should be required to enforce legally derived speed limits, and if the City won't help ensure that they do, the Petitioners will. Our hope is that we can work together to achieve a fair and lawful resolution. Thank you. Barbara Hard U From: Nicole Jules [nicolej@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:55 PM To: 'Carla Morreale'; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: late correspondence - item 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules, P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax -----Original Message ----- From: Ortolano'[mailto:ortolanor@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:46 PM To: Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; Jerry.Duhovic@rpv.com; Susan.Brooks@rpv.com; Jim.Knight@rpv.com Cc: Ralph Ortolano; Nicole Jules Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: APRIL 3, 2012 AGENDA; Public Hearing, Regular Business No. 4; PVDE Posted Speed Zones Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Members: Several of you may know that I am a criminal defense attorney. I am glad that the author of the Traffic Engineering Study presented to you in this matter has returned to the speed zone segments that had been used by previous traffic engineers going back decades. I am glad that the current engineer abandoned the indefensible attempted justification by Jack Rydell of the study invalidated in 2007, wherein he merely tried to move around the boundaries of the speed zones to bootstrap his data. I am glad that the engineer is recommending posted speed limits closer to the actual 85th percentile speeds contemplated by the legislature. I am glad that the engineer seems to understand that the speed study process is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC process that respects the common sense of the average driver to drive a safe speed; the same as the common sense of the average citizen is respected in the rendering of jury verdicts. However, I am concerned that there was an apparent attempt by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department --Lomita Station to bias the speed study results. I personally witnessed at least three instances within days of the study wherein patrol vehicles were present in the speed study zones. I know that MY speeds were inappropriately biased in a downward direction on the segment between Ganado Drive and Diamonte Lane, and I would suspect that this was the case with several other drivers. Rather than driving what I felt to be a safe speed, I drove more slowly due to the intimidating effect of police presence in the study zone. I am aware of reports by others that police patrol vehicles were observed in the study zones in the days surrounding the study. If you look at all previous speed studies on this segment, you will note that the 85th percentile speed would justify a posted speed limit of at least 40 MPH, and in many cases, 45 MPH. D �f Further, pursuant to Calif. Vehicle Code Sec. 22358.5, physical road conditions such as road width, curvature, grade, surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver do not qualify as justifications to downgrade posted speeds. The speed study cites "horizontal and vertical curves" as justification for recommending a 5 MPH downgrade in speeds. Pursuant to the above-cited Code section, this is inappropriate. The mere fact that pedestrians walk on adjacent sidewalks or that bicyclists transit the road cannot be brandished like a shamanistic talisman by city traffic engineers who seek a 5 MPH downgrade. There must be hard accident data that JUSTIFY the 5 MPH reduction. On this segment (# 2), there is no such justification, ESPECIALLY when the subject roadway is at least 56 feet wide and there is more than ample'room to pass bicyclists, and without a showing that the SWTIRS data justify the downgrade due to a higher -than -average accident rate caused by relevant speeds. Given that a 40 MPH speed is recommended on Segment #1, where there is far less passing room, it is appropriate that a 40 MPH speed be posted on Segment #2, where there is a whole 12 -foot -wide lane of passing room, in addition to shoulders. On a roadway this wide, the presence of bicyclists is apparent and the sight lines are MUCH longer than on the balance of the highway (up to 1/2 mile). Further, posted speed limits that apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week should not be downgraded because of temporary conditions that apply a fraction of this time. The cited heavy bicycle traffic on weekend mornings occurs less than 15 percent of the week, yet this is cited as a bootstrap explanation to reduce posted speeds 100 percent of the week. This is why there is a Safe Speed Law in California. Drivers are charged to drive a speed that is safe under the circumstances, irrespective of the posted speed limit. Accordingly, I assert (and would assert in court) that the Traffic Engineering Study does not justify a 5 MPH speed reduction on Segment #2 (Ganado to Diamonte Lane). This segment should be posted 40 MPH. Other than my objections to the recommended posted speed for Segment #2, I congratulate Nicole Jules and her contractor for attempting to conduct a better speed study than Jack Rydell's. Very respectfully, Ralph J. Ortolano, Jr. 0 IRANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: APRIL 2, 2012 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, April 3, 2012 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material D Email from Sunshine Email from Tim Weiner with letter from Carol MacAllister 2 Emails from: Sharon Yarber; Lindley and Sandra Ruddick; Connie Semos 3 Letter from Community Association for Tract 16540 3 FOR Emails from: Edna G. Bay; Gary Huffman; Vic Quirarte; Erminio Bugliosi and Ivana Rinascente; Justin and Bailey Grodin; Bruce Megowan; Debbie Dykstra; Doran B. Richart; Karin Petersen; Rhea Winkler; Greg Ewanizky; Jean Junyszek; John Sattler; Eric Brill; Lia Oprea; Jon Bucci; James Dibbo, Joanne Dibbo, Amelia Dibbo, Alice Dibbo; Jean Longacre; Kathy Pappo; Barb Lancaster; Robin Field; Donna Baranowski; Cindy and Bob Blindbury; Gerri T.; Peter and Kay Myers; A. J. Poulin; Letter from: J.L. Ise AGAINST Emails from: Virginia Padilla; Charles V. Ferraro; Kendra Ard; Betty and Bruno Vieri; Patricia Richardson and Dennis Richardson; Teresa Randall; Yvetta Williams; Julie Sanchez; Herb Stark; Eric Johnson; Gene and Lynne Dewey; Oliver Hazard; George Andrews; Kathy Frazier; Bob Marohn; Manuel Reyna; Robert F. Brink; Dick Brunner; Catherine Coddington; Don Reeves; Mike and Marilyn Nitz; Ken DeLong; Noel Park; Erika and Neil Barber; Email exchange between Tom Redfield and Ed Stevens Emails from: Madeline Ryan; Ray Van Dinther; Richard Smith Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale W:WGENDA\2012 Additions Revisions to agendasi20120402 additions revisions to agenda through Tuesday afternoon.doc Page 2 From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:49 PM To: cc@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com Cc: pc@rpv.com Subject: Budget/Border issues MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council RE: April 3 to May 15, 2012 budget /border issues What is it going to take to get the civil defense and emergency access angles of trail maintenance to be added to the Staffs bi-monthly report about Border Issues? It shouldn't take a "top ten goal" and a Joint Powers Agency to have somebody, routinely, reporting to the Council about what is happening with off-road ingress/egress closures. So it only got a (Score = 4) on your Goals & Priorities list. If RPV doesn't keep -our trails open and post a sign that says THE RPV PUBLIC TRAIL ENDS HERE, how is anybody supposed to know when to approach other jurisdictions about their safety concerns? The way I see it, the signs are not very expensive. I particularly like the ones illustrated in the RPV Trails Network Plan. What we don't seem to have is a Staff that is funded to do the right thing (consider the unintended consequences) as opposed to saving us from "risk". A paid consultant let you to come up your "fuzzy" goals, not Staff. What is it going to take to get the civil defense and emergency access angles of trail maintenance to be added to the Staffs bi-monthly report about Border Issues? SUNSHINE 6 LIMETREE LANE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5909 310-377-8761 sunshinerpv(a).aol.com 1 4/2/2012 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:33 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka'; 'Carolyn Lehr Subject: FW: Letter from Monaco HOA re: proposed garage sale restriction Attachments: PVMonaco.pdf From: Timothy Weiner[mailto:Timothy.Weiner@doj.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:11 AM To: citymanager@rpv.com Cc: cmacallister@mac.com; clehr@rpv.com; cpetru@rpv.com Subject: Letter from Monaco HOA re: proposed garage sale restriction Hi Carolyn, Attached please find a letter from Carol MacAllister, the president of the PV Monaco HOA, in support of the staff recommendation to adopt reasonable restrictions on the number of garage sales a home may have per year. If at all possible, please include this as late correspondence for agenda item #1 (public hearings). Thank you, Tim Weiner CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. 4/2/2012 PALos VERDEs Momco HOMEOWNERS Assoc. unoN P,O. Box 2795 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 USTAFATIM Honorable Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council - I am writing on behalf of the Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association, an association of more than 280 homes in Rancho Palos Verdes. On behalf of our members and Board of Directors, I am writing to ask the City Council to accept the staff recommendation and adopt the pending code amendment (see Agenda, Public Hearings - Item No. 1) to limit the number of residential garage sales to four per year for any property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, The Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association has received numerous complaints from homeowners about one home in our development that has dozens of "garage sales" per year. Residents with homes adjacent to this property have complained to our Board of Directors about parking issues, traffic issues, and of course concerns that an unficenced/unregulated business is actually being run from the this home under the guise of a "garage sale," When our association attempted to address this issue, we learned that there were no restrictions in place that would permit us to approach the offending homeowner, The Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association feels that the proposed code amendment, which would limit the number of garage sales to four per year, is a very reasonable restriction. We urge you adopt the staff recommendation to modify Chapter 17.02,020 of Chapter 1.7,02 (Single Family Residential Districts) to restrict the number of garage sales to four per calendar year. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you, 11 W Carol MacAllister President Palos Verdes Monaco Homeowners Association d -Z From: sharon yarber [momofyago@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:32 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: Carolyn Lehr; Carol W. Lynch Subject: Ancillary Residential use on Commercial Properties Dear Mayor Misetich and Council Members, Please deny staff's recommendation to adopt an ordinance permitting ancillary residential uses on commercial property. Let's take a look at how we got to where we are today. One property owner made a request to put apartments at Golden Cover shopping center. The prior Council entertained the idea, assuming that (i) such housing would be limited to a small percentage of the overall rentable space, (ii) such uses would apply towards the City's inclusionary zoning requirements (i.e. low and moderate income housing), (iii) no dwelling units would be used for transient occupancy, (iv) no dwelling units would face a street, and (vi) the Planning Commission reviewed the change and agreed to its appropriateness. The Council did not approve of such use, indeed many concerns about it were expressed, and it did not direct staff to move forward with preparation of a proposed ordinance. It should be noted that said property owner's representative who appeared at the Council meeting made it clear that there was no intention of using the proposed apartments as low or moderate income housing. Council directed staff to start the process of adopting an ordinance (with no predetermined outcome), which process was to include gathering of input from residents as well as other commercial property owners, and seeking the advise and views of the Planning Commission. What did staff do? It drafted a proposed ordinance without obtaining any community input or commentary from other commercial property owners, and submitted it to the Planning Commission as a concept that had been approved by Council with direction to the PC to adopt. When staff was questioned about whether, indeed, the Council had directed the PC to move forward, staff acknowledged that no such direction or approval had been given. Consequently, after considering the pros and cons of the idea, and the comments received from the public, all of which were in opposition to the idea, the PC voted (6-0, one member was absent) to reject the idea altogether. Only then did staff decide to seek input from other commercial property owners by preparing and mailing out to some 41 owners the survey which is included, along with the few responses recieved, in Tuesday's staff report. No survey was sent out to the community, and no community input has affirmatively been sought. It is interesting to note that the applicant, the owner of the Golden Cove shopping center, did NOT appeal the PC's decision. So it is STAFF, and staff alone, that is attempting to set a new policy for the City by allowing this ancillary use for which there is no support. Why? Please investigate the motives of staff because the appearance of impropritety is great. The staff report includes a statement that the Golden Cove property owner wants a place where employees can spend the night! Is that not "transient use", albeit without any transient occupancy tax? Bottom line is this, such use is not consistent with the General Plan nor the City's zoning, no one is advocating for it except the staff, the Planning Commission has rejected it out of hand, and so should this Council. Please summarily reject staff's recommendation and move on. Mixed use development makes sense in urban areas. RPV does not have a need for, nor even appropriate land to develop as, a mixed use project, in my opinion, but if someone were to present a proposed mixed use project that made sense I would support it. Such projects are developed and conceived from ground up, and planned thoughtfully and thoroughly, not thrown together in a slipshod manner. What staff is pushing for here is not well thought out, and poses far more problems than any benefits that might result from this ancillary use. Of greater importance to me personally is the issue of why the staff feels it has the right to advocate for such a change. That is not the job of the Planning Department. They should be enforcing our zoning and development ordinances and our General Plan, not seeking to change the direction and character of the City when no such policy change has been adopted by the body charged with such responsibility - the elected Council. This is a very troubling trend. I note that staff was advocating for the Annenberg project, when that advocacy went beyond the scope of the responsibilities of the staff. The City Manager is always commenting,about how overworked her.staff is. Perhaps the staff is "overworked" because it is creating work for itself that does not need to be performed. If staff focused on its job, which is to carry out the policies of the Council, and not create its own policies and agenda for the City, then perhaps they would not find themselves overworked. Indeed, we might find that we have a larger staff than is actually needed! This Council should not sanction this conduct by staff, and an appropriate direction from Council to staff to cease attempting to establish policy is warranted. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Yarber 0 From: Lindley Ruddick [elruddick@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:07 PM To: RPV City Council; Leza Mikhail Subject: Planning Case No. ZON2011-00089 Code Amendment to Allow Ancillary Residential Use within the Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zoning Districts through Discretionary Review of a Conditional Use Permit Subject: Planning Case No. ZON2011-00089 We ask that the City Council uphold the findings and Resolution of the Planing Commission and deny the request to allow ancillary residential uses within any commercial zone in Rancho Palos Verdes. The General Plan and zoning ordinances are very clear in what is allowed in specific zoning areas. Ancillary housing is not listed as a use for any property zoned for commercial use. It appears to us that the proposed changes are more than a code amendment and should require a zone change and a change in the General Plan. Neither a code amendment nor a zone change appear to be consistent with the General Plan. If approved as a code amendment or zone change, this could set a dangerous precedent for other ancillary uses in other zones within Rancho Palos Verdes which we do not feel are desirable. We have read all of the information presented on the RPV web site as presented in the Staff reports. As a result, we are of the opinion that only the one property owner who has applied for the change would possibly benefit. We see no benefits to the City and many downside risks as pointed out in the public correspondence and Planning Commission findings. Lindley & Sandra Ruddick RPV Residents 4/2/2012 From: Connie Semos [bconmast@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:48 AM To: cc@rpv.com Dear Mayor Misetich and Councilmembers, Please do not approve the "code amendment" allowing residential use in Commercial zones. The Planning Commission denied it, but the city planner's recommendation is to approve it. The owner of the Golden Cove shopping center requested a Zone Change to mixed zoning last year because he has been unable to lease several second story units. So why did the city planner send questionaires to ALL commercial property owners? Why not send a questionaire to all the residents, since we are likely to be effected by this? If approved, wouldn't this decision enrich the commercial property owners and deprive the city of tax revenues it should be receiving from Commercial Zones? How can anyone be sure that only workers who work there are allowed to live there? Will their extended families also live there? Is this a dorm situation? Will there be washers and dryers and dishwashers for their use? Will they be allowed to entertain guests there? I'm going to assume that parking will not be a problem since the reason behind this issue is one of transportation/commute. Perhpas the Golden Cove owner can't lease his second story retail space because the rent is too high? This is his problem. Not ours. I read the public notice in the PV News. It is being referred to as a Code Amendment? Sounds like a Zone Change to me. Please consider this carefully and do not apoprove this. Connie Semos Rancho Palos Verdes 4/2/2012 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR TRACT 16540 Portuguese Bend Club East 4100 Palos Verdes Drive South Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Mayor and City Council April s, 2012 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3o94o Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Off -Leash Dog Use at RPV Beach below Tramp Golf Course Dear Mayor and City Council: Based on feedback from various members of the community, the Board of Directors of the Community Association for Tract 1654o recommends changes in the arrangements for allowing dogs off -leash on the beach below the Trump National Golf Course. In particular we recommend the following: Limit the number of cars that can park on the Tramp property to those specific parking lots designated for public parking (one by the Club House and one on the eastern edge of the golf course). Recently cars have parked along the roads entering the Trump Golf Course (Ocean Trails Drive and La Rotonda Drive). This enables many more people to access the beach. We recommend the roads have no parking signs posted (or parking by permit only, with the permits issued by the Trump Organization for special events). When the parking lots fill, visitors will have to leave. This will help limit the number of people (and dogs) on the beach at any one time. 2. Investigate the impact of an increase in the number of dogs on the marine life in the tide pools. The tide pools are an "RPV treasure" and should be fully protected. Only a marine biologist is qualified to evaluate the long term risk to the tide pools associated with allowing more dogs on the beach. Heretofore, this has not been a problem or issue, but the number of dogs may make a difference. Also, signs should be posted at the trail heads that the tide pools are environmentally sensitive and protected, and visitors should not enter them, nor allow their dogs to enter them, nor remove or handle any of the marine life in them and are subject to fines if they do so. 3. If needed to protect the tide pools and for the protection of people from dog attacks, require all dogs to be on a leash even on the beach. That should not be a major loss for the dog owners who are otherwise accustom to having their dogs on a leash in public almost everywhere. 4. To further prevent the beach from being overrun with dogs, the City could consider requiring dog owners to get a license from the City for walking their dog on the beach. The City could control the number of licenses being issued and could reissue them annually to allow different people a chance to get a license. There could be a charge for the license giving the City a revenue source for managing the beach. This would tend to favor local residents who should have priority over use of the beach. 5. Designate the beach as a "wilderness beach" in all postings about it with the idea that people should be notified that it has a difficult access, limited facilities (i.e., no bathrooms on the beach), and limited access by emergency responders, like life guards, police, paramedics and firemen). The Tract i654o Board still believes the presence of dogs and dog owners on the beach increases security for our homes. This beach has been used for many years by dog owners without any adverse problems. We have not heard any complaints until recently when the City took over ownership of the beach and opened up the discussion as to whether un -leashed dogs should be allowed on the beach. We strongly believe it is best to leave well enough alone, BUT there needs to be a well thought out plan with limitations and proper warning signs. Thus, the undersigned recommend further in stigation and planning for continuing to allow dogs on this new city beach. Rob�11,fllesiit --'Stephen St art, Vice President David Gakenheimer, CFO 3 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Bay, Edna G [ebay@emory.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:15 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Leash program I write to urge the City of RPV to continue to allow dogs to run free on the RPV Beach (what many people call the Trump Beach). For the last several years that beach has effectively been a dog beach. Though I don't have a dog that runs there, I do love to visit the beach and watch the wonderful time that dogs and humans have romping on the sand and in the water. It is not a beach used by swimmers or surfers — why not let canines and their kin have a good time! Edna G. Bay 3602 Barbara Street San Pedro 90731 This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). 4/2/2012 J Katie Howe From: Gary Huffman [garyhuffman560@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:51 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: rpv.com Dear Sir or Madam: I have been to the dog beach twice recently. Owners have so far been very good about keeping the area clean. I think the idea of continuing the pilot program is great and a good public use for a difficult -to -reach location. Thank You, Gary Huffman 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 3 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:25 PM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: DOG BEACH Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed From: Vic & Sil Quirarte [mailto:vicsilq@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: DOG BEACH Council I am concerned that the Off Leash Dog item is being reconsidered. I have been in support of the plan that was passed about one month ago and I do not understand why you will revisit the plan. I feel that there is a group of citizens, mainly enviornmentalists who object to such a plan, at least thats the way it looks to me. I consider myself an eviormentalist but not a "tree hugger" type. To "cave" to a faction who oppose the dog beach I think indicates a weakness on council. Please remember that you were voted into office to serve ALL the people of RPV not just a small faction who fight for every small piece of "open space" in RPV.. I think the population is over 40,000. Revisiting this item in just one month goes against the plans you have for aggendizing council meetings and not consistent with improved new rules you have discussed in previous meetings. I also want to suggest that you consider allowing dogs ON LEASH at Abalone Cove ---why not? Or will the hard line envionmentalists claim that thats also their beach. There will probably be a large crowd of opponents of the dog beach .attending the council meeting do not let their numbers scare you. I look for council to make a decision and to stand by their decision . Please stand by your original vote. Respectfull Vic Quirarte 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: erminio bugliosi [ebugliosi@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 12:11 AM To: parks@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com; Paolo Giacomoni Subject: Allowing dogs on the beach of the Trump Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear Sirs, We live here since three years now, and we chose this City as well as for its natural beauty also for the sense of civilization that we found in its inhabitants. And this sense of civilization was most evident when the city received back the ownership of the beach under the TRump Golf Course and decided to make it usable also by the resident with their dogs. But now we don't understand the exactly reason why the City are changing this decision? WE need to know exactly what happen. We pay a lot of taxes for home property and no one cents go for our dogs! Walking along the street of our beautiful city we saw that more than 50% (fifty percent) of the people who live in Rancho Palos Verdes are dog owners, and now we have the right to be respected like the other people. We want absolutely that this "little" piece of beach remains available even by the citizens dog owners because we have the same rights to enjoy the beach with our dogs like the other people. If someone doesn't like the presence of our dogs, they can go in an other beach. And we ask also to the City Manager to spend something also for our dogs to install in every park of our City the little fountains for dogs: visiting all our parks we found only one fountain for dogs in The Cerro Park. Please also our dogs need to drink water! Our Best regards Erminio Bugliosi and Ivana Rinascente 28805 Covecrest Dr RPV, CA 90275 Phone 310 9821014 4/2/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: Justin R. Grodin Ogrodin@uswi.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:33 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Save the DOG beach! Hello, Please do not rescind the pilot dog beach program at RPV beach. This has been such a wonderful place to take our dog. The freedom and joy of an off -leash pup at such a beautiful beach makes everyone smile. The "dog beach community" understand the concerns about leaving pet waste behind and are committed to cleaning up after their pets. Look at the very successful Rosie's dog beach in Long Beach. This area attracts dog lovers from all over Southern California boosting the local economy. We need more places like this, not less. Please keep this dog beach open!! Regards, Justin & Bailey 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Bruce Megowan [bmegowan@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:17 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Dear Council Members, While I am in favor of an off -leash dog beach, it is clear that some type of regulation of hours may be needed to effectively deal with parking issues, pollution, etc. that have been raised. The concerns raised by local neighbors of the RPV dog beach underscores the need for a well designed public off -leash dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The high usage of the RPV dog beach clearly shows the demand that dog owners have for a place to run their dogs off-=I`eash. Palos Verdes Peninsula dog owners need a dog park to exercise their dogs. A dog park also serves a strong social purpose as it enables other dog owners to get out and meet each other. Those people who have physical disabilities and find it difficult to work their way down the existing paths to the dog beach, should also have a place that is easily accessible to play with their dogs. A dog park would also reduce the usage of the dog beach if there was another location available to exercise their dogs. Bruce Megowan Palos Verdes Dog Park Supporters 310-541-2980 4/2/2012 '_3 Tracy Bonano From: Debra Dykstra [h20wizel@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 8:57' PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: RE: REAL PERSPECTIVE - Beach & Parking Attachments: Dog Beach Report ---3 3-22.pdf Pardon if you already have this. Please attached photos ............. From: Debra Dykstra [mailto:h20wizel@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:46 AM To: 'parks@rpv.com'; 'cc@rpv.com' Subject: RE: REAL PERSPECTIVE - Beach & Parking Dear City Council Members, After the announcement of the beach, my husband and resolved to staying here permanently during retirement. The area would have essentially everything anyone could want. We were on the fence, as there are more dog friendly beaches in the central coast. That's how important this is. Attached is a springtime Saturday report. Was there over 2 hours and took photos coming in and going out. This was Saturday mid-day. Very, very few dogs. Avg 5-11 dogs max at any one time. No "leftovers" anywhere! Very clean, sat on the beach and kids playing with rocks, with their parents and enjoying the beautiful day — the whole family including fido! Quite a Normal Rockwell Scene with kids, Mom, Dad, and Fido too. By the way, local residents! Think after the newness is gone and people come there after first time, they will see how difficult it is to drive there, walk there, wet dog & sand in the car etc. People, who are not close residents, will not seek this out except for possible weekends and exceptional beach days. It is just too much effort unless they have a full half day to spend. Not many people do. It's 20-30 minutes to get there, another 15 minute walk, time there, clean up the wet sandy dog time, and head home. It is a 3-4 hour excursion for most non-residents. Think there was a rush at the beach because of media initially. It will and already has died down again. The worst thing to do is keep continually bring is up! RPV can eliminate Saturday/Sunday -weekends to control parking issues Memorial Day thru Labor Day if you think that is necessary. At least when people are on vacation or already retired they can still enjoy the beach mid -week. Trump and PBC must realize people come here to walk trails too. It is largely walkers — who still will have the right to walk the coastal trails. Please post signs immediately and give this a fair trial. Met several resident there all been coming here for more than 25 years. The issues have already died down. We need to give a fair trial period of 1 year. Stand up for the underdogs. We all love the beach and respect the water, make no mistake. 4/2/2012 0 BEACH REPORT SATURDAY 11:45-2:15 PM 3-22-2012 After Dog Beach Announcement 2 -3 Weeks Ago CROWDED UNRULEY BEACH - NOT Saturday 3-22 about 12:30 pm v WHOLE FAMILY FUN - INCLUDING FIDO and FIDO Friends. Scarey Place for Kids and Families - APPARENTLY NOT Saturday 3-22 1:00 pm Disgusting Trails Loaded with Dog Poo..... - Not - In Fact, not at all! a �qq ....::::"'`a ------------- n --------------- ---------------- air }'r'+ FRMS' Fi !s $ y /:Yin} }i: � l�,'�a Dx—xtk,.. "Yi<'v`: 1x G: ✓ - air What a horrible scene.......??? And vicious dogs! Where??? For 2 Prime Time Hours - Avg 5-14 dogs at arty one time on a Weekend Saturday 3-221 By 6:30 pm no dogs will likely be there. Please - Give this a Fair Trial Period of 1 Year. 70 w Tracy Bonano, From: Debra Dykstra [h20wizel@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:29 AM To: 'Debra Dykstra'; parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Cc: 'Barb Lancaster' Subject: Dog Beach Compromise - Best Solution For ALL! Importance: High After reading all the e-mails and looking at this objectively and realizing the impacts are almost exclusively on the weekends. The Best Solution is COMPPONSE No Dogs — Saturdays, Sundays, and Major Holidays between May 15 and Sept 15. - bnly licensed dogs during the week - ANY aggressive behaving dog must remain on leash at all times - No dogs allowed on beach when marine mammals present Solution is • Simple • Effective • Major Reduction of impact on Parking & Trump's Business • Major Reduction of impact on Beach and PBC • Major Reduction of impact on Enforcement load (enforce only 2 Sat -Sun) These rules and give this a fair shot of 1 year and GREATLY LIMITS THE MASSES! We all want the best benefits from this including dog owners. Local dog owners want this beach kept nice too! This is the best solution for all. Allow us the fall/winter holidays — please, when families come visit. Please have a serious discussion on this solution Monday. RPV Resident, Scuba Diver, Beach Lover, Marine Mammal lover, and Doq Love ! 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Doran Richart [doranrichart@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:03 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: RPV Dog Beach Ladies and Gentlemen: I am sorry to see that you are already re -considering the 12 month pilot program for the off -leash dog beach by Trump Golf Course. It was a godsend for my golden retriever, who I lost a couple of months ago at age 11-1/2. She learned to body surf there. It was the only place nearby where I could take her for a swim. It was nice to have a special place for her since she was a special certified therapy dog serving at The Canterbury. Anyway, in all my experiences at the dog beach over the years, I have never seen a problem whatsoever. 99% of the dog owners are, and were, responsible. A few bad eggs shouldn't spoil it for all of the rest of us RPV residents who live and pay taxes here!! I have lived here for 28 years. We have so many people beaches -- the dogs deserve a place where they can go enjoy the beach too. Dog parks are fine for some dogs, but not others. My dog hated dog parks because a lot of the dogs were too confrontational. Somehow, it is totally different at dog beaches. The best dogs are those who are well -socialized, and what could be better than socializing at the beach? Please keep the pilot program going! I have a 3 month old golden retriever puppy who is anxiously awaiting the opportunity to go to the dog beach. Personally, I believe that the opponents have TRUMPED UP the problem issues, as they usually do. Sincerely, Doran B. Richart 5016 Rockvalley Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 4/2/2012 1,5 Tracy Bonano From: Doran Richart [doranrichart@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 9:55 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Ladies/Gentlemen: This will follow-up on my e-mail to you of yesterday after reading in today's Daily Breeze, "Dog Beach May be Brought to a Head." Let the pilot program continue. However, to ensure that the dog beach is not overused by others outside this area, do not allow commercialization, i.e., don't issue a permit for "Off Leash in America." Also, I would not be opposed to a permit system to use the beach to ensure that people are responsible about using it and do not do anything to harm the business at Trump Golf Club. The logistics of getting down to the beach will help ensure that it's not overused. Both you and your dog need to be in reasonably good shape to handle the hike down. I have always observed people picking up their dog's poop, but to make sure they do, have a few plastic bag dispensers on the beach and on the trail. In short, there are no insurmountable hurdles to make this a success. There will always be complaints no matter what you do, so they must be put in perspective. The minority should not be allowed to drown out the majority. Sincerely, Doran B. Richart of Rancho Palos Verdes 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: kpetersen [lapdogdesigns@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:17 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: RPV Off -Leash Dog Beach Rancho Palos Verdes City Council - A few months ago, I was overjoyed when I read in the Palos Verdes News about the dog beach below Trumps Golf Course. I live here on the hill and now have my third labrador retriever puppy (each previous dog lived close to 15 years). The breed loves water and to live next to the Pacific Ocean and not be able to let my dog run on a beach was always heart breaking to me. Monday mornings I have been taking my Carly (9 months old) to the RPV dog beach and she has had the most wonderful runs on the beach and in the surf. I keep her on leash on the walk down to and back from the beach and only allow her off leash when she won't interfere with anyone else walking or other dogs. Of course I always have a poop bag with me but also I carry another bag to pick up any trash on the beach or on the trail during our walk. I was astounded to read that already this project is being questioned. There are miles of beaches for non -dog owning people to walk and for us on the hill only one small beach for our dogs to run free. I recognize that dog owners must respect other people, other dogs and property and keep the trails and beach clean. All that is possible. Please do not take this special beach away from our dogs who need a place to expend their energy and be happy. A well exercised dog is a happier, more well behaved dog for everyone. I might suggest placing a visible sign at the beginning of the trail to the beach stating the rules for the dogs and dog owners. Perhaps also install a stand with poop bags (which I have seen in parks) to encourage dog owners to be responsible. Please keep this beach available for dogs and we will do our part keeping our dogs on leash off the beach and keep the beach and trails clean. Sincerely, Karin Petersen lapdogdesigns@cox.net Tracy Bonano From: Rhea Winkler [pvbegonia@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:21 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: dog beach Dear members of RPV City Council, I am in favor of allowing dogs at Donald Trump beach. I having been taking my dogs there for the past 15 years and have enjoyed many hours of play time. I have never seen any dog fights and the great majority of us pick up after our dogs. It is a great place not only for dogs but for people to interact with other dog owners. We are not talking about a beautiful, easy access sandy beach. We are talking about an area which is full of rocks and if you are fortunate to be there during low tide, you will find a few short areas with sand. The water is too dangerous for children not to mention that there is no life guard on site. Please consider allowing dogs to play in the area. Thank you..Rhea Winkler Rancho Palos Verdes resident 4/2/2012 '5 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hoolool957@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:06 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Keep the dog beach open Dear sirs. Do whatever it takes to keep the dog beach open. I'm here on sunday morning at 11 am andthere is only like 30 or 40 people. Thank you IRA 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:05 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Keep the dog beach open!!! 4/2/2012 `'� Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:15 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: So many people really enjoy the dog beach keep it open 13. 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: greg ewanizky [hooloo1957@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:59 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Please keep the dog beaches open 4/2/2012' Tracy Bonano From: J J [calvettech@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:13 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: RPV Dog Beach Hello, I'm interested in the off leash dog beach as I own 2 Labradors who love the water and are dog friendly. I always bring plently of dog bags to pick up after my dogs and the last time I went there, I even handed out an extra bag to a fmaily going to the Trump Park who had their dog in tow, but did not have a bag in hand. Our group is willing to educate and help keep the beach and local area clean. JeanJunyszek local San Pedro resident 4/2/2012 0. Tracy Bonano From: john.sattler.1@juno.com Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:18 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rev.com Subject: Keep the Dog Beach! , Please keep the Dog Beach! I attended the Feb. 21 meeting, but did not speak. This time I plan to. Key points I will make: - the beach is cleaner now than`before Feb meeting - any refuse found down there was washed in by the ocean - I support position of LOLA for responsible use and access - I have not seen traffic or parking problems - no one has stated the dog/people capacity of this area - I propose.establishment of a limited number of access tags, valid for 1 year, fee based that: a. Off -sets RPV expenses related to the park b. Must be visibly worn by the dog at all times c. Limits the number of dogs with access d. Curtails traffic & parking issues Respectfully submitted, John Sattler 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f789c0lad7a728c8b94st03vuc 1 Tracy Bonano From: Brill [ebrill@me.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:42 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Comment Dear Parks Department: My sons and I take our dog to the beach at Trump every day, and we have never seen a problem there. Despite the coverage it got on the TV news a few months ago, the dog beach continues to be quite uncrowded, with under 5 dogs typically at a time there on weekdays, and under 20 typically on weekends (the case today). I have only seen one kite boarder there who clearly doesn't like dogs. I have heard that some people from the private beach that belongs to the Portuguese Bend Club complained about dogs on their property; this could be easily remedied by the town of RPV putting up a sign or two say 100 or 150 feet east of the PBC boundary which would say "Private Beach Ahead; No Dogs Beyond This Point" or something like that. (I personally have never been near the private beach, as it seems a long way to walk). I urge you to continue to allow dogs at the beach, and to make the beach (and only the beach; not the upper part near the Trump clubhouse) an off -leash area. I think that the dog beach makes RPV a more progressive, interesting, and enriching place to live. Sincerely, Eric Brill 3137 Barkentine Road Rancho Palos Verdes 4/2/2012 ,-5 Tracy Bonano From: Lia Oprea [loprea@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:02 PM To: Lia Oprea Subject: Links to Public Emails and Staff Reports regarding RPV City Council Meeting April 3 Attachments: RPV Staff Report Feb for April meeting.doc; Links to Reports and Emails RPV Dog Beach.doc Links to Staff Reports and Public Emails regarding RPV City Council Meeting April 3 From: Lia Oprea — Leash Off L.A. (LOLA) www.LeashOffLA.com 310-770-3288 loprea earthlink.net Hello All, I have listed several links below regarding the upcoming April 3, RPV City Council meeting. If you have trouble viewing any of these and would like them in word form or PDF feel free to contact me at loprea@earthlink.net Thank you for your support and your continued efforts to help clean up RPV beach and educate local and visiting dog -owners. Although there has been quite a bit of local support for an off -leash beach at RPV, there are almost an equal number of those who oppose such a plan who also live in RPV. Both sides have intelligent and emotional points to make. If you would like more information to decide how you feel about such a plan you will find an opposing view at http://www.saverpvshores.com/ Or see the link below for Public Correspondence. Before our RPV City Council Meeting LOLA would like to thank all who wrote in and especially thank those who live in RPV who support an off - leash beach. We feel however, we need to clarify Leash Off L.A. 's Role in all of this. The LOLA group was started by local Redondo Beach, RPV, Torrance, San Pedro and PV members who support Unleash the Beach and Dog Beach Now in Santa Monica, groups trying to get approval for an off - leash beach in their area or at Dockweiler Beach in EI Segundo. Leash Off L.A. (LOLA) was formed quickly when the RPV City Council voted 4 to 1 in favor of a 6 -month study toward a possible 1 -year Off - Leash Pilot program at RPV beach. LOLA was formed to help local communities set up their own off -leash 4/2/2012 spaces all over L.A. County. Right now our project is helping Rancho Palos Verdes residents who would like to keep enjoying a wonderful off -leash beach as they have for decades. When LOLA saw that the RPV City council had decided on the 6 month study and had notified the media but had not planned to put any signage with rules or boundaries for an off -leash beach, we saw that this could lead to trouble for such a beautiful area. We quickly organized groups of local LOLA volunteers to meet at the beach and help clean up the trash and to educate beach -goers about their responsibilities. We feel we have been very successful and local residents tell us the beach is cleaner than ever. We do believe that this cannot be sustained without & proper plan put in place. Our concern is not only for RPV residents who would like to enjoy this beach with their families and dogs but also for those RPV residents who want to enjoy this beach for other pursuits. We feel there is a way to let RPV residents with or without dogs all enjoy and save their beach. Please know that LOLA supports a well-managed off -leash beach. We would not be opposed to closing the beach on weekends, limiting the hours, allowing dog owner parking at La Rotunda only or imposing a dog license fee to use the beach. Anything that will cut down on crowds and make the RPV beach a safe and enjoyable place for all. LOLA represents responsible dog guardianship and is keenly aware of extreme environmental concerns. LOLA also supports Maureen and Bruce Megowan and other PV Peninsula Residents in their proposal that the RPV City Council plan to construct a fenced Off -leash area in another location on the Palos Verdes peninsula. We have seen successful off -leash beaches and spaces (fenced and unfenced) up and down the California coast and are impressed by another model, the Boulder Colorado Off - Leash Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Voice and Sight Dog Tag Program which allows responsible dog -owners and their pets to use over 100 miles of open space trails in that city. Thank you and I look forward to meeting many of you on Tuesday, April 3! Cheers, Lia Oprea — www.LeashOffLA.com Please see below for Links regarding the RPV Dog Beach City Council Item. All of these links can be found on the RPV City Council April 3 agenda. On the Agenda the RPV Dog Beach item is: Item #3 (90 mins) Dog Beach Pilot Program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach (Howe) 4/2/2012 UA Above is the link to the RPV City Council Staff Report (By Katie Howe), Administrative Analyst 11 We have also attached the report in case you are unable to view the link. Recommendation: Rescind the February 21, 2012 action to establish a one-year off -leash dog beach pilot program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach. ATTACHMENTS: (Be aware that the Public Correspondence PDF takes a while to download, as it has many photos. Well worth reading however!) • Public Correspondence received since February 21,2012 • February 21,2012 Staff Report 4/2/2012 D Website Link: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2012 Agendas/MeetingDate-2012-04- 03/RPVCCA CC SR 2012 04 03 03 Dog Beach Pilot Program At RPV Beach-STAFF-REPORT.pdf CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CAROLYNN PETRU, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/INTERIM RECREATION AND PARKS DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 3, 2012 SUBJECT: DOG BEACH PILOT PROGRAM AT RANCHO PALOS VERDES BEACH REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Staff Coordinator: Katie Howe, Administrative Analyst II RECOMMENDATION Rescind the February 21, 2012 action to establish a one-year off -leash dog beach pilot program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach. BACKGROUND On February 21,2012, City Council directed staff to initiate a 12 -month pilot program allowing off -leash dogs at RPV Beach. Due to the widespread media attention received and the general lack of dog beaches in Los Angeles County (only two currently exist), activity at RPV Beach has increased significantly over the last two months. Further, the City has continued to receive public feedback, primarily from residents concerned with large crowds parking at the site and accessing the beach, as well as safety, sanitation and environmental concerns resulting from dogs on the beach and in the tide pools. Several Council Members have also individually raised the issue of dogs on the beach with staff and requested that the item be brought back for further consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last decade, the City has experienced a steady increase in visitors and activity along its coastline, which can be directly traced to new development, preservation of public open space and new public amenities, including the parks, trails and the recreational opportunities these all provide. More public amenities are on the horizon, including the California Coastal Trail and improvements 3-1 v Dog Beach Pilot Program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach April 3, 2012 Page 2 slated for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. The aggregate result has made the City's coastal area more accessible and inviting to residents and visitors alike. With each change, the City must balance the desire to provide improved public access and recreational amenities with the carrying capacity and impacts on the natural environment, adjacent properties, public infrastructure and the overall ambience and character of the community. Given the physical configuration of the subject property and the current level of activity at Trump National Golf Course and the Ocean Trails Preserve, the addition of an off - leash dog beach at RPV Beach, even on a trial basis, appears to be beyond what is appropriate and sustainable for the site, especially given the apparent pent up demand for this type of facility in the greater Los Angeles area. Staff is concerned that the regulations and improvements to the beach that would be needed to address all of the concerns that have been raised through the public outreach process would overtax the CITY'S RESOURCES and would benefit a specific user group to the detriment of the environment and the greater public use and enjoyment of the beach. Therefore, rather than proceeding with the environmental studies, Planning Commission review, development permits, and Code changes necessary to implement such a change in use, staff recommends that the City Council revisit its prior decision and rescind the one-year off -leash dog beach pilot program at RPV Beach. DISCUSSION Activity Level MRCA Rangers have patrolled the public parks and trails at the Ocean Trails Reserve and Shoreline Park since their contract was initiated in 2009. However, since February 21 st, Rangers have provided an average of 6-10 hours of directed patrol per week at the public parking areas, Founders Park, and walking trails adjacent to the beach. Their observations are that off -leash activity is rare in these areas, and occurs primarily on the beach. Since the Council's action, Rangers have issued a total of 2 citations for off - leash dogs in the area, and gave 3 warnings to hikers with dogs attempting to access the beach below Shoreline Park, to the south of RPV Beach. Based on the Rangers' observations, more popular times and days when the beach is used include weekend late mornings and early afternoons (approximately 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.). Use also takes place weekdays, more often 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. No dogfights, injuries, or major incidents have been observed by or reported to the MRCA Rangers. Likewise, since February 21,2012, no dog -related incidents have been reported to the Lomita Sheriff's Station, and one incident of an aggressive pit bull was reported. 3-2 CJ 3-2 Dog Beach Pilot Program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach April 3, 2012 Page 3 to Los Angeles County Animal Control. However, the Animal Control Officer was not able to locate the animal when he arrived at the site. Rangers observed an average of 35 people and 15 dogs on the beach on the cooler weekends, with the exception of the very warm weekend of March 3rd- 4th • During their patrol on that particular weekend, they observed approximately 60 people and 35 dogs on the beach. They also observed an average of 15 people and 15 dogs on the beach on weekdays. The lower attendance figures may be reflective of the cooler weather experienced for most weekends in March. Rangers have also observed an increase in off -leash dogs on the beach south of RPV Beach, below Shoreline Park. Parking Concerns regarding parking have continued since the February 21 St Council meeting. Parking for public access to Rancho Palos Verdes Beach, Founders Park, and the public walking trails, as designated in the Public Amenities Plan for Trump National Golf Course, is available at four locations on the site: 1) the 45 -space dedicated (day -use) public parking lot located to the east side of the clubhouse; 2) the 150 -space parking lot on the west side of the clubhouse; 3) the 50 -space public parking lot at the terminus of La Rotonda Drive, which is approximately 3/4 mile walk from the beach and Founders Park; and, 4) approximately 95 on -street parking spaces along Ocean Trails Drive. There is ho short-term opportunity to increase parking on the west side of the site, unless and until the public streets in Vesting Tentative Tract No. 50666 are developed. The City is scheduled to accept the remaining streets in Tract No. 50667 in May, which will increase the available public on -street parking on the east side of the property.This, in turn, could increase public use at Shoreline Park and its adjacent beach. On busier days, more of the existing public parking is being used. Contributing factors include warm weather, INCREASED publicity regarding the beach, and increased use of the public amenities (trails and parks) in the area. Cyclists using Palos Verdes Drive South have also been observed parking towards the top of Ocean Trails Drive,- often on weekends. There are also increases in organized events on and near the beach; for example, on Sunday, March 4th Leash Of f L.A. invited dog owners to the beach for a "Meet and Greet;" which, combined with the fine weather, contributed to one of the busiest days at the beach seen so far; on Saturday, March 17th, Cabrillo Marine Aquarium organized a tide pool survey with approximately twenty participants on the beach; and, on consecutive Saturdays this winter, a fitness group parked along the top of Ocean Trails Drive and met at Marilyn Ryan Sunset Point Park for a run and yoga afterwards. Drop-in, organized recreation is an emerging issue in City parks and beaches and the Recreation and Parks Department is currently reviewing its policy. 3-3 60 Dog Beach Pilot Program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach April 3, 2012 Page 4 Enforcement City staff and MRCA Rangers had previously determined that approximately fifteen hours of patrol per week would be sufficient to enforce the City's existing ordinance prohibiting dogs on the beach. After further consideration of their staffing levels, MRCA has reported that they are able to provide the City a maximum additional ten hours of patrol time per week. In March, MRCA has been able to effectively patrol the public parking lots, Founders Park, and trails adjacent to RPV Beach without a contract increase, because these areas are either within or immediately adjacent to the Ocean Trails Reserve, which is part of their existing patrol area. MRCA's method of patrol allows for flexibility to patrol the entire Preserve, and to focus their time on "hot spots" or areas requiring heavier enforcement as they arise. Examples of such "hot spots" include nudity and lewd behavior at Sacred Cove, paragliding and misuse of trails by mountain bikers in the Portuguese Bend Reserve and off -leash dogs in the Ocean Trails Reserve. Prior to the MRCA Rangers contract, the City used the Lomita Sheriff Station's CORE Deputy Team to patrol the open space areas on the south side of the City. The CORE Team is currently available on a limited basis, approximately three to five hours per week, to provide additional patrols in the Ocean Trails Reserve to augment the Ranger patrols. In addition, the CORE Team has small off-road vehicles that can be used to access the beach. Regardless of the Council's decision on this item, enforcement will still be necessary at the Ocean Trails Preserve and should be extended to include off -leash dogs on the beach. Therefore, staff recommends continuing the MRCA Rangers existing level of patrol at the Ocean Trails Preserve under the current contract (6 to 10 hours per week) and augmenting their activities with the Sheriffs CORE Team (3 to 5 hours per week). The effectiveness of this strategy at RPV Beach and on the enforcement needs for the entire Preserve should be monitored and reassessed periodically to determine if an increase in the MRCA Ranger contract is necessary. Process and Timeline If the City Council decides to rescind the pilot dog beach program, staff proposes to implement a public education and enforcement program based on current regulations prohibiting dogs on RPV Beach using the following process and timeline: • 30 -day public information period using MRCA Rangers and CORE Team to inform the public that dogs are prohibited on the beach and in the ocean. (April -early May). 3-4 Dog Beach Pilot Program at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach April 3, 2012 Page 5 - Modification of the Sign Plan for Trump National Gol f Course to provide: additional signage to facilitate enforcement. (April). - Enforcement at RPV Beach using MRCA Rangers, and augmented by the CORE Team, as available. (Ongoing) ALTERNATIVES In addition to the staff recommendation, the following alternative has been identified for the Council's consideration: 1. Direct staff to continue to proceed with the steps necessary to establish an offleash dog use on RPV Beach. Similar to Alternative No. 1, staf f will implement a public education and enforcement program of existing regulations until a final decision is made whether to initiate the pilot program. If the pilot program is initiated, the type and level of enforcement would be adjusted based on the final design of the pilot program. Examples of final parameters could include whether dogs are required to be on -leash; if a specific area of the beach is fenced for offl-eash use; whether off -leash use is restricted to certain seasons, days and/or hours, etc. FISCAL IMPACT Currently, the MRCA Rangers are providing six to ten hours a week of directed patrol at the Ocean Trails Reserve. Regardless of which alternative the Council selects, MRCA has indicated that it is able to continue to deploy the Rangers at this same level and under the terms of the existing contract. Ranger patrols during the initial enforcement phase will be augmented by three to five hours of support from the Sheriffs CORE Team. The cost of this additional support is already included in the City's existing annual contract with the Sheriff's Department. Enforcement needs for either alternative will be re-evaluated periodically and may diminish over time. However, should the City determine a contract increase is necessary with MRCA, the cost to add up to ten hours of additional patrol time would be $31,200 per year, assuming the current hourly rates. Attachments Public Correspondence received since February 21,2012 February 21,2012 Staff Report 3-5 Tra6y` Bonano From: jon bucci Uonbucci1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 6:50 PM To: parks@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council: My name is Jon Bucci and I am the Vice President of Advanced Technology at Toyota Motor Sales USA (Torrance) and a 30 year South Bay resident. I have also become an avid beach lover at Trump National and applauded their support of the initial ability to provide beautiful access to one of America's finest beaches. With the recent passage of the pilot program to allow dogs the opportunity to enjoy the beach, I was thrilled that responsible people in government and in business came together for a great purpose. It was great to see the recognition that this beach is frequented by responsible pet owners who control their pets and most importantly know their pet's demeanor. Unlike a fenced dog park, which can create some anxiety in dogs', the beach environment is open and free, creating a happy, playful environment. By the Way, I have been taking my pet Lab Rozzie to Trump for almost 2 years. When I heard that the Trump National folks said they lost business in the 2 weeks since the pilot program launched, I was surprised. Heck, I have on several occasions, after a nice beach romp, walked up to the outdoor cafe, with Rozzie (after ensuring from Trump staffers that it was absolutely ok to do so) and ordered a hamburger, furthering the total enjoyment of the day and 'creating' business for Trump. As a business man, my goal is to help provide automotive transportation that exceeds our customer's expectations. As a resident of the South Bay, I have been involved in the local youth Sports world, specifically Soccer for decades. My kids now are grown and out of our home, but during their youth, I ran the Coastal Quest Soccer Club (now merged with FRAM). I developed a strong working relationship with the representatives at the PVUSD and it was clear that both the goals of a local soccer club and that of the School District could easily be merged. In return for keeping the fields at 2 local schools in pristine shape, (the Soccer Club's responsibility) the School District would grant permission for the Club to practice and 4/2/2012 0 play on the fields year-round. It is that kind of partnership and cooperation that's needed at Trump Beach to create an environment where responsible dog owners, the City and Trump can co -exist. It can be done. With only around 2 weeks of the pilot program under our belts, to pull that now and rescind the permission really doesn't give the program a chance - a pilot program should be able to have the opportunity to demonstrate the merits and if so, the demerits of this activity. At the very least, let it run 6 months, let the advocates who go there (like me, once a week) self police the area to ensure others are using the facility responsibly. The City could very easily create a membership where members could pay say $100 a year for access. Proceeds can go to help defray any costs the City undertakes. Membership can be a simple form, filled out online and mailed in for a signature to verify a City representative acknowledged. Members would be required to keep their membership form with them when visiting the beach. Part of this membership could include a Hold Harmless / Indemnification clause freeing Trump & City of liability should some highly unlikely event occur, involving someone's pet. A volunteer group could be set up where important items like poop bags could be purchased and kept in stock at the facility. I realize that the City wishes to avoid costs and liabilities, but all these can be managed - plus what a wonderful position this puts the City in vs. playing hardball and simply closing this fantastic opportunity for locals and their dogs. I have heard the outcries from the handful of short-sighted neighbors and seen them on TV... honestly speaking, I wonder if they even go down to the beach - it is quite a hike to get there... In closing, please keep an open mind, please keep the pilot alive at least for an extended period. Provide a forum to regularly seek feedback from people. Help empower your constituency and those more than willing to volunteer to help police this activity and keep the promise from the dog owner's side. Please allow us to demonstrate that this CAN be done and the City of RVP can then relish in being forward -thinking, and forward -doing! Sincerely Jon Bucci 310.489.0098 (mobile) 4/2/2012 0-;Z Tracy Bonano From: James Dibbo Dames.dibbo@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:33 PM To: Katie Howe Cc: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Subject: Re: Palos Verdes Beach Consultation Dear Sirs We would like to re -affirm my support as RPV residents for the continued use of RPV Beach for dog owners off leash. We ar not able to attend the meeting in person as we are on vacation this week. I won't repeat my points from last time but I am very disappointed that the Council appears to be heading towards the cowardly decision to ban dogs from this beach. The beach has been quietly enjoyed by local dog owners for decades and now the Council is on the verge of destroying this great pleasure for the sake of a group of mean spirited people who never used that beach and never will. There are plenty of beaches for people to use free from dogs. PV is supposed to be a place that still holds true to the old fashioned values of small government and individual freedom and responsibility. When Donald Trump owned that beach it was used by people who appreciated it for what it was. Who would have believed that by ownership passing to the City, those who used and loved it for so long would find themselves banned. It would be a disgrace if that were to happen. I call upon the City Council members to have some backbone and stick by their decision and commitment to try and find a way of preserving this amenity for the people who use it and trialling ways of allowing local people to continue to exercise their dogs off leash on that beach just like they always have. It is the Council's job to preserve and enhance amenities not take them away. Local dog owners are looking to you for protection. We hope you won't let them down. Yours faithfully James Dibbo Joanne Dibbo Amelia Dibbo Alice Dibbo 30379 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes On Feb 15, 2012, at 8:23 PM, "Katie Howe" <katiehp >rj v.com> wrote: Thank you for your comments regarding uses at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council will consider this matter, including a potential off -leash dog beach, during its regularly scheduled Council Meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park located at 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The comments you have provided will be included with the staff report prepared for this item and provided to the City Council. The public is also welcome to attend the meeting and provide 4/2/2012 D 3 testimony or provide written comments by email at parks@rpv.com or by mail at 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. For more information, please call the Recreation and Parks Department at 310-544-5260 or view the City's website at www.palosverdes.com/rpv. To be sent future updates on this issue, please join the project listsery using the link below: http://rpvalert.com/ Thank You, Recreation and Parks Department From: James Dibbo [mailto:james.dibbo@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:44 PM To: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Subject: Palos Verdes Beach Consultation Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to express a view in response to requests for comments on future uses of the RPV beach at the Trump. I am a resident of RPV and my family and I have used the beach for a number of years to walk our dog, Charlie. For me it is one of the great pleasures of living on the Peninsula to be able to take him to the beach and have him run around off the leash. There is nowhere else I know like it. I have never been quite sure whether it was allowed but have always operated on the basis that so long as we behaved responsibly then it seemed to be ok — plus I think the ambiguity has meant that only those who really trust their dogs to behave have used it. I have visited at all times of day and months of the year and always been impressed by the behavior of owners'and their pets — apart from a few irresponsible owners who do not clean up after their pets. I have also seen great example of peer pressure and self-regulation when dogs do not behave. I have never seen any person or dog bitten or frightened. I was therefore most concerned to see posters implying that dogs may no longer be able to use the beach in this way. If the change of ownership from Trump to the City of RPV results in restrictions on the use of the beach then this would be a huge loss. I for one do not see why the use of the beach has to change. I am a strong believer in 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The fact that it is an unofficial dog beach is what makes it work so well. If it was well known that dogs were allowed on the beach without leashes this would attract people from outside the area to use it and potentially lead to more irresponsible owners and out of control pets being present. It is perfect how it is. Please please do not change it. There are many miles of dog free, raked and manicured beach in the South Bay and there is also Abalone Cove for those who like the beach a bit more rustic but still dog free. Trump Beach (as my family refer to it) is a unique well loved asset for RPV. Please do not allow the modern obsession for regulation and health and safety to spoil it for those of us who love it so much. Recognizing the reality that the City will almost inevitably feel the need to impose rules, then I would like the beach to allow dogs off leash but try not to let it become known more widely as an official dog beach. Perhaps a system of permits available only to City/Peninsula residents could work? Please keep me informed of the ideas and comments. Please don't allow the beach to be ruined. Yours faithfully 4/2/2012 James Dibbo Joanne Dibbo Amelia Dibbo Alice Dibbo Charlie (the dog) Dibbo 30379 Camino Porvenir Rancho Palos Verdes 4/2/2012 0 Tracy Bonano From: jeanlongacre@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:08 PM To: parks@rpv.com Dear City Council, Please support the dog beach. We did not have a problem for many years. You created one by over advertising a local asset. Now you are considering taking it away to solve the problem. Let it calm down and give it a chance. All you are doing is seeing that it remains on the front page of the newspaper. Can you blame people. There is such a need for places to take dogs. Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 544-0105 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: PVBRISTOL@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:55 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: dog beach Do we have to litigate everything to death? What happened to personal freedom, one of the founding principles of America? As long as people are responsible for their pets excrement and there are no problems of dogs biting people or engaging negatively with other dogs, what in heck is the harm in allowing dogs to have fun at the beach. As I have stated previously, I take great pleasure in observing the dogs having a great time frolicking in the waters, chasing balls and sticks into and around the,waves. What has happened to personal freedom in America? What is the harm in allowing dogs to enjoy the beach along with their owners? it is a different matter if the dogs are harming individuals by attacking them but if the dogs are enjoying the beach with responsible owners picking up there excrement, what is the harm? Do we have to curtail people's and dog's enjoyment of Nature -given pleasures? Good grief, Charlie Brown!!! Please give this a second thought and consideration for the dog's enjoyment. I really don't understand why this has become such a "bone of contention" (pardon the pun). Again, I have no personal stake in this matter as I leave my dog at home as she weighs less than 5 pounds, is blind and is not a water dog, but for those whose dogs enjoy frolicking at the beach, I'm afraid I don't see the harm. What is the matter with you? Sincerely, Kathy Pappo 4/2/2012 3 Vacy Bonano From: Debra Dykstra [h20wizel@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:38 AM To: parks@rpv.com; 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Dog Beach From: Barb Lancaster [mailto:barb.lancaster@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:50 PM To: PC@RPV.COM Subject: Dog Beach There have been some pretty damning, isolated pictures floating around this topic recently, so every day when I went to the beach, I took a picture of it for you all. I went mid day, saw 3 dogs on the beach on the sunniest day, and found little to no garbage patrolling the beach. Every dog was on leash on the trails leading to the beach and some were leashed on the beach. There were 3 fishermen the first day, some picnickers but mostly dog owners. None of the dog owners were out of towners — the furthest person was from Redondo. This activity level is pretty typical mid week, mid day based on my experience. I am there weekly. I can continue to document what goes on there if this is helpful to anyone. I have added dates and times to each picture for your reference. Looking forward to the hearing next week. Thanks for your time, Barb Lancaster 310-995-7068 PS if these pictures don't come through on your computer, let me know and I'll send them as attachments. March 30 10:00 2 dogs 4/2/2012 CD 3 3/29 11:35 3 dogs 4/2/2012 3/28 1 dog 4/2/2012 3/27 12:16 2 dogs 4/2/2012 3/26 1:24 no dogs 4/2/2012 Dff) 3 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 7:55 AM To: 'Tracy Bonano' Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Dog beach From: Robin [mailto:robingooddogs@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 4:42 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog beach Dear Council member, I would like to make my voice heard as you prepare to consider ending the dog beach experiment. As a local resident, I have had the opportunity to take my beloved dog to the beach multiple times recently. I have been there in the earlier part of the day on weekends and also in the late afternoon on weekdays. Without exception, it has been a lovely experience. I have seen nice, friendly, well socialized dogs and plenty of grateful, responsible people. The problem of overcrowding has not been apparent to me - generally, I see between 2-5 dogs on the beach. Most people seem to come down, spend an hour or so and then leave. The issue of messes being left happens anywhere you have a few irresponsible people (ie everywhere), whether it is trash, dirty diapers, cig butts or poop. Most of us who do visit the beach bring extra bags and pick up after the occassional scoflaw. In conclusion, I hope you understand how important this is to those of us who use this beach and how badly we want it to work. Please let us keep this little spot and we will continue do everything in our power to make it work. Sincerely Robin Field 1332 Granvia Altamira PVE 90720 310 375-7601 1-0 4/2/2012 s.: Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 7:58 AM To: 'Tracy Bonand Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Please don't takeaway the dog beach -----Original Message ----- From: Donna Baranowski [mailto:donnabarano@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 5:41 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Please don't take away the dog beach To the council members of RPV, Please don't take away the dog beach without even trying the pilot program because of a few loud people who want to control everything. Since the last vote, we have been down there picking up trash and talking to other dog owners and there has been so much respect and now we are being disrespected by the quick turnaround of a vote to start a pilot program and come up with ideas. We have met so many people who don't have dogs that have said they came there to check out the controversy and were impressed with because they believed the exaggerated stories and lies told by those who oppose this. Even if more people do show up in the beginning, like anything it will die down ... it's much like a gym at New Year's - everyone goes in the beginning and then they get tired.... between gas and the hike down it will lose it's appeal after awhile and go back to the smaller group that loves and appreciates this group. The group is also self policing and tend to watch everyone much closer. How many people that are complaining can actually make it down that hill and back up to have even checked out this beach. They just don't want us in their "backyard or neighborhood" but truth be told, this is a public beach which can actually bring money to your town through permitting and through bringing people to local businesses. This isn't a beach that is easily accessible and it really is an asset to many of those that live in this area. Please don't fall prey to a bunch of bullies who would do anything to keep outsiders off beach, what next... children?? Fishermen?? People from other cities?? I'm not sure how you arrived at killing a pilot program before it's even started or without reaching out to the group that formed Off Leash LA to brainstorm and/or mediate with those against. It almost seems like money and/or power is buying those votes to revoke a promise/vote. Please find it in your hearts and morals to keep the promise of a trial before basing it on a month of random embellished statistics and bitter, unhappy people who will just find something else to be mad about after the dogs are gone. I have picked up trash at your beach with others of the Off Leash Group and have done nothing but try to make this a place that all can enjoy! Why can't a compromise be worked out with both sides or are they simply not willing to accept any ideas other than NO! Sincerely, Donna Baranowski Torrance, CA 0 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:03 AM To: 'Tracy Bonand Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Keep the RPV Beach Dog Friendly -----Original Message ----- From: Cindy Blindbury [mailto:cblindbury@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:14 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Keep the RPV Beach Dog Friendly Dear City Council Members, Please do not be hasty in changing the status of the beach to off limits to dogs after only two months into the pilot program. Give it some time to work out problems. Perhaps there could be day or hours limitations for dogs, or a permit to use the beach for peninsula/south bay residents only. The numbers of dogs and people referenced in the Daily Breeze article today doesn't seen extreme considering the long stretch of beach there. Have you ever been to The Cone Zone in Long Beach? Many more people and their canine companions are there on any given day, and it is a more restricted length of beach. If you make the beach off limits to dogs, I think you will be surprised at how few people will visit the site. Cindy ans Bob Blindbury 310-541-7514 cblindbury@cox 1 3 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:25 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: Get down to real business PLEASE! From: gerritru@aol.com [mailto:gerritru@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 9:36 AM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Get down to real business PLEASE! Dear Honorable Council Members, I cannot believe you are wasting you time backtracking and second guessing on past decisions. LEAVE the dog leash law as is and please get down to more critical /safety Issues For example: #1 --> CRIME PREVENTION. 1) Get the word out "Publicly" to get homeowners to actively participate in neighborhood watch programs. 2) Get the Sheriffs Department to actively get involved as well with these neighborhood Captains. a) research and determine increased phone complaints (from homeowners) of trespassers/loiterers in certain neighborhoods. b) increase late night/early morning patrols in hard hit areas. c) individuals who are suspicious (ones who have no business being in these areas) PUSH/PRESSURE THEM -just by patrolling/observing/officers. Most times the mere presence of police makes them leave. As for the leash law.... Generate a sound PLAN! Get local animal support groups to get involved. Ask for volunteers to patrol the beaches on weekdays and allocate one officer on weekends. Post leash law (rules) If anyone breaks the rules Cite them and FINE THEM big time! Who knows ...The City of RPV just may generate a surplus $$$. Sincerely, Gerri T. 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:26 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: Dog Beach From: peter myers [mailto:pjmyerzz@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:24 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Dear Sirs, The popularity of the dog beach is reason to continue, not to end the program. Please don't be influenced by the complaints of a few people. The many of us dog lovers who use the beach, with or without dogs, would be saddened by the loss of this lovely beach. peter and kay myers 1537 espinosa cir palos verdes estates 310-378-2823 3 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: AJ Poulin [AJ@absnetwork.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:56 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Beach Topic Dear RPV City Council Members, I'm not a "dog person" but I do have a dog and have been to this beach with my young family a couple of times in the past three years. Here are my observations: 1. Southern California has its share of gorgeous, swim -friendly beaches. This beach is not one of them. Between the strong undertow, seaweed, and rocks, it's not a great place to swim or even bathe in the sun. Believe me, I've tried. There is also a kept forest just off shore. This makes the fish happy, but it deposits an endless supply of seaweed onto the sand. Without the dogs and their owners, very few people would even use this beach. 2. RPV staff seems completely surprised by an increase in popularity of the beach (after the Council's February decision to implement a 12 month pilot program). Is this really so shocking? Given the amount of press (and how many warm and sunny days we had in February), I'm surprised it wasn't more popular. I even saw a news clip on TV this past weekend about this issue. As with anything, once the press dies down (and this item stops being put on the agenda), then it will be out of people's minds and the volume will go back to more normal levels. 3. For out-of-towners, there is no quick way to get this location in the first place. But once you do, there is a very long a trek down a narrow, windy, and steep set of switchbacks just to get down to the sand. If you could judge the curious out-of-towners by how surprised they were at the incline (and how heavily they panted and rested as they made their way up), my hunch is that a lot of these lookie-loo's won't be coming back soon. They may have also not thought about the wet, sandy car on the ride home. It was a novelty on their bucket list. 4. It's ironic that for many, many years people brought their dogs to this location and there were almost no issues at all. But as soon as the City took over the land and inadvertently began the de facto advertising for this location, attendance went up. Now the City Staff says the site is too popular and is recommending that it should be closed. Huh? You bring the issue to the forefront, and then say it's too popular? While you are at it, throw out the baby with the bathwater. And if popularity is the curse, then the City will really be in a pickle once they hear about the popularity of those pesky little league games (for example). Heck, maybe we should close all the beaches in Southern California in the summer.. they can get so darned crowded! 5. The City Council made a promise to its citizens that it would do a 12 month pilot program. Abandoning this would give the impression that the City Council bucks under the slightest pressure, and that it doesn't truly lead but simply waivers and floats depending on which way the breeze is blowing. One only needs to look at the PVPUSD and how they handled the Friday Night Lights issue to see how to not handle a situation like this. They promised and environmental impact report once the backers of the lights had done a certain amount of fundraising. But the PVPUSD board didn't hold up their end of the bargain, did a 180, and killed the project because it was "too divisive." In short, they broke their promise and copped to some complaints. Sound familiar? The City Council doesn't want to be in that camp, trust me. 6. 1 would like to remind the RPV City Council that they were elected to serve the Citizens of RPV, not just Donald Trump and couple of complainers who were looking for an excuse to close this isolated beach to dogs and their owners. Looking back at Trump / RPV relations over the years, Trump's letter could be answered could be answered very quickly and succinctly: 4/2/2012 "Mr. Trump, thanks for the letter. It has been taken under advisement. We'll present your letter in 10 months after the pilot program is complete. By the way, how are those Ficus trees doing, and that big American flag?" Cowering under pressure at this point will only compound the problem, I assure you. The smartest and easiest decision now would be to finish the 10 months of review, and then make an informed decision at that time. The City of RPV has been given a gift - a valuable resource that many families enjoy. The RPV City Council has the duty not just to keep it open, but to preserve this special spot for many years to come. It will not be without its critics, but then again, what is? Not everyone at the party is going to like your cooking. Focus on the majority. Respectively, A.J. Poulin Rolling Hills Estates A.J. Poulin Vice President of Sales * THE 01 . or.?age ONx Applied Business Software, Inc. Creators of The Mortgage Office'"' — Powerful Lending Solutions 2847 GundryAve • Long; Beach • California 90755 • USA 800.833.3343 x 118 • direct 562.279.7418 ai(o)absnetwork.corn IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to compliance with requirements of the Internal Revenue Service, you are hereby informed that, to the extent any advice relating to a Federal tax issue is contained in this communication, or in any other communications from Applied Business Software, Inc. not explicitly identified as a "covered opinion," including in any attachments to such cornmunication/s, such advices was riot written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose: of: (a) avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person tinder the Internal Revenue Code, or (b) promoting, rnarketin{i or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in this communication. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This email message is intended only for the exclusive use: of the person or entity to whom it is addressed, If you are: riot the intended recipient. (or someone responsible for delivering this email message to the intended recipient), please be. aware that any use, distribution or copying elf this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email or by telephone and delete or destroy this email rnen"age and any attachments to it. 4/2/2012 0 Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 March 26, 2012 Dear Mayor and City Council: Please keep the Rancho Palos Verdes beach open to dogs as an off -leash area. I was delighted to hear at the February 21 meeting that several Council members visited the RPV beach and some took their dogs. I have been to that beach many times and have always had a pleasant experience without incident Below are my comments about points raised at the February 21 meeting. • Parking and Trails o I support the status quo - do not make changes to parking or trails. Increasing parking and enhancing trails could lead to higher usage, which is not the objective. o Emergency access to the beach is irrelevant to the issue of dog access, since surfers, hikers, resort visitors, and any beachgoer could require emergency services any time. Signage & Trash Cans o Improve signs at RPV beach, trails, and in parking areas. Inform visitors to keep dogs leashed in certain areas and of responsible conduct for all beachgoers. Some people could be unaware. of proper conduct and may comply if notified. o Putting a few additional trash cans along the trails and down at the beach (with covers that the birds cannot get into) could: 1) make it easier for dog owners to quickly dispose of dog waste (and reinforce the "pick it up" message), and 2) encourage all beach goers to dispose of their trash in trash cans. Perhaps these two actions could eliminate any need for drastic restrictions. • Time Restrictions o Time restrictions during the busier summer months seem a reasonable option, as in other cities. For example, allowing dogs 7 days a week from 6.00 am to 10:30 am and 4:00 pm - dark, June 1 through August 31; and full day access during the rest of the year. This would allow dog owners flexibility to work within their schedules and around the weather. There would, however, be higher dog presence during those time windows vs. allowing dog owners to spread out their visits throughout the day. • Area Restrictions o I am not in favor of a fenced area on the beach if it creates a small space. I do not like dog parks because the smaller enclosure can encourage pack behavior and territoriality in some dogs. When there is a large open space and dogs are moving o along on their walks or busy fetching a ball in the surf, both owner and dog are more focused on each other and there is reduced risk of bad behavior. o A fenced area on the beach would entail more permits, environmental review, and long-term maintenance. It could also be a large eye sore. • On Leash vs Off Leash o I prefer that dogs are able to be off leash, if their owner can control them. (Signs could explain that.) I prefer on leash if the;alternative was no aceess. This is the only nearby beach where I can,enjoyy the ocean with. my dog vs. seeing it from a distant hilltoptrail. • Fees o I do not support fees for dog access. Some dog owners, fearful of losing all access, suggested an access fee. A fee for only'dog owners would be unfair (e.g., swimmers and surfers are not charged for lifeguards). Also, only dog owners who can afford to pay would have access. I would be more willing to pay for a special license to have my dog off leash, however (similar to the Boulder, CO, off leash tag program). Possible Spill -Over Effects o. I am concerned that if off leash dog access at RPV beach is restricted, more dog owners may use the trails in RPV and surrounding cities. So their dogs can run, some owners may let dogs off leash, despite rules. This could create more interactions and safety risks for other trail users, particularly horse riders and mountain bikers. As an equestrian, this concerns me. I completely agree that dog owners should be responsible to keep their dogs away from other people and to clean. up their waste. Please first focus management efforts on adequately informing and encouraging responsible visitor behaviors for those with and without dogs. This beach has had dogs on it for years with a safe track record and responsible behavior. I bought a home here because of all the outdoor opportunities thatI can enjoy with my dog, including visits to the beach. Please ensure these opportunities continue. Thank you. Sincerely, J. L. Ise Rancho Palos Verdes Em Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Padilla, Virginia [VPADILLA@TorranceCA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:00 PM To: 'parks@rpv.com' Subject: opposed to dog beach I am strongly opposed to making the beach at Trumps into a dog beach as it poses health and safety issues due to feces and animal aggression to un familiar dogs as well as humans. Seaview resident 4/2/2012 3 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Padilla, Virginia [VPADILLA@TorranceCA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 6:22 PM To: 'parks@rpv.com' Subject: OPPOSE RPV DOG BEACH To the City Council: please re -affirm and enforce current City Ordinance 6.04.050, which prohibits dogs from all RPV city beaches. Concerned Seaview resident 3 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:58 AM To: 'Tracy Bonano' Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Strongly opose dog beach From: Padilla, Virginia[mailto:VPADILLA@TorranceCA.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:13 PM To: 'cc@rpv.com' Subject: Strongly opose dog beach I am strongly in favor of enforcing the no dog on the beach law which already exists. In the past years I made numerous calls to Animal control regarding violations at the RPV beach. In spite of my calls, I have never seen an animal control person on the beach. Dogs pose health and safety issues and will bring great liability to the City of RPV. The law is in place please start enforcing it. Seaview resident. 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: CVFERRARO@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:35 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Keep Dogs Off All RPV Beaches Parks and Recreation Department and City Council Members, Rancho Palos Verdes, despite its long coastline does not have many accessible beaches which are open to the public. I respect that dogs do not have a beach to run at but with so little open beach space for humans why should our city turn one or more prime beach areas over to dogs. I have lived on the East side of RPV near Marymount College for 23 years and have enjoyed many walks down to Trump Beach with my grandson ever since it opened. Currently my grandson is 8 years old and he loves to climb the rocks and build sand castles at Trump beach whenever he goes. We have gone many times, usually with no problem. However, there have been two times that dogs have ruined our beach trip. The first time, my grandson was at the waterline building a sand castle when two dogs chasing each other at a fast running speed along the waterline bowled my grandson over. He did not see the dogs, who were not on leashes, coming until it was too late and then he couldn't get out of the way in the loose sand. They knocked him flat off his feet and could have seriously injured him for one of the dogs weighted more than him (45 lbs.) He was very shaken up and we had to go home. The second time was when a smaller dog, also not on a leash, got excited when my grandson started to run from the dog because he was scared of the dogs loud barking. The dog then took a bite at him but my grandson backed away enough that the dog bit only his loose sweat pant leg and did not bite his leg. The dog then ran off when I started yelling at him as I tried to run over the soft sand and protect my grandson. This could have been a serious incident if the dog had bitten my grandson and then not backed off when I came over. Please enforce the current City Ordinance 6.04.050 that prohibits dogs on our beaches. Please enforce this at Trump Beach. Thank you for considering my request. Charles V. Ferraro 3530 Seaglen Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-1592 3 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Kendra Ard [kendraard@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:13 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: parks@rpv.com Subject: Opposition to the RPV Dog Beach Dear City Council Members: As an RPV resident living in one of the adjacent neighborhoods, I am writing to convey my opposition to the proposed dog beach. I am glad this issue has been brought back up for reconsideration. I am very concerned about the negative impact that a high volume of off leash dogs will have on our small beach environment. The increased traffic the dog beach will bring into the area is of grave concern. The area has inadequate facilities to serve the large number of visitors the dog beach is anticipated to bring each week. In estimating how many visitors the RPV dog beach will bring, we can look at the volume of visitors that come to a nearby dog beach in Long Beach. Long Beach's dog beach is estimated to have over 40,000 dog visitors each year according to Long Beach city officials, per an October 2011 article in the Santa Monica Daily Press. The RPV dog beach has yet to even become a formal reality and the number of canine and human visitors has already increased significantly as word has spread about this the proposal. I can only imagine how congested the beach, parking area and neighboring streets will become when there are thousands of weekend visitors. Given that we have such limited sandy beach in our city, I think it is very unwise to turn over a large percentage of it to create a dog beach. I would like to see our city take steps to protect our natural environment. Please rescind the approval for a dog beach and preserve our coastline instead. K. Ard 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Bruno Vied [bvieri@ieee.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:52 PM To: parks@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: We Oppose the RPV Dog Beach Importance: High Dear RPV Council Members, Please do not allow dogs on the Rancho Palos Verdes beach next to the Trump National Golf Club. We often take walks on the beach and on the paths above it. We do not like the presence of dogs there and we are very concerned that any change that increases the popularity of the beach and paths for dogs will also increase the dangers to public health and public safety, and to our health and safety in particular. We ask you not to ignore these dangers and, in effect, deny the use of the beach and paths to citizens such as ourselves, which becomes a certainty if dogs are permitted off -leash. We ask you to continue to affirm and enforce current City Ordinance 6.04.050, which prohibits dogs from all RPV city beaches. Yours sincerely, Betty and Bruno Vied 26520 Mazur Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 310.373.5497 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: Dennis Richardson [denmike1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:18 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: pc@rpv.com Subject: Re: Strongly Opposed to RPV Dog Beach Our family has lived in the Ladera Linda community in RPV since 1968 and we are strongly opposed to the creation of RVP dog beach below Trump National Golf Club. We feel if this plan is implemented it will create unnecessary, additional traffic from visitors, mostly from outside RPV (with PV Dr. South already being heavily congested and dangerous when turning onto said street from Forrestal Drive), create the potential for physical danger to others visiting Trump National and the beach areas and potentially be an ecological disaster (endangering sensitive tide pools and pristine beaches with humans and dogs trampling this area with dog urine and feces seeping into the ground and ocean). Based on feces we routinely find on the walking paths along the cliffs above said proposed dog beach (despite plastic bags provided at Trump National for people to clean up after their pets) we can only imagine what kind of a free-for-all and damage would take place at the beach if pets were actually permitted unrestrained access to this area. It would seem logical that no one from the city would continually be present to consistently enforce the activities of people and their pets at said beach and the idea that people will self - police themselves and others and their pets activities is sure folly. It is my understanding that city ordinance 6.04.050 already prohibits dogs on RPV beaches and we don't see a reason this ordinance should be changed. It is was an ordinance created for good reason-- to protect the beauty of our pristine beach assets and the physical safety of others. I'm sure there is a very good reason why there are only two other dog beaches permitted in all of LA County. Let's not create a third dog beach in our own backyard and invite problems which are inevitable. We strongly urge you to reconsider your Feb. 21 council decision relative to a trial period for the dog beach. We appreciate your consideration of our comments. Thank you, Patricia Richardson Dennis Richardson H: 310-377-8128 4/2/2012 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From: T. Randall [pvrandy@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:43 PM To: cc@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Subject: APPOSED to Dogs on RPV Beach Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear City Council and Parks Department, Again I would like to state my position opposing the,proposed dog beach at RPV Beach. I have been a long time resident of RPV. Since February 21 st I have noticed an increase in traffic in the area during the week, but more so on the weekends ... not to mention the increase in time it takes me to pull out of my neighborhood. In addition to the traffic I am concerned with the sensitive tide pools and the habitat wild life that live within the area. I was very disappointed when the City Council passed the motion to move forward with a pilot dog beach program at R.P.V. Beach. Thank you for revisiting this issue. Sincerely, Teresa Randall Ladera Linda resident 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Yvetta Williams [protect4ever@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:24 AM To: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: RPV beach a "secret" World wide publicity coming up. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red http://www.in-and-around-los-angeles.com/los-anelf es -dog beach-rancho-palos-verdes.html http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci 20285920/show-looking-dog-havens-starts-road-trip-from Please try to undo the damage that has already been done. No dog beach! Already getting out of hand From March 30th front page Daily Breeze........... But he'll kick off the journey with a morning film shoot close to home - at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach on April 8. City officials recently approved a pilot program to allow off -leash dogs on the beach just below Trump National Golf Club. While it might sound crazy to most people, a coast -to- coast road trip filming his and other people's dogs, Martinez said, makes all the sense in the world to him. "My dogs have always been my inspiration," he said. donna, littlej ohna,dailybreeze.com Follow Donna Littlejohn on Twitter at http:HTwitter.com/donnal.ittleiohn Find out more What: "Off Leash in America," a road trip/reality show by music producer Adrian Martinez showcasing dog -friendly locations and events across the country. Where: Martinez and his four dogs will highlight a city each week. When: First film shoot set for the morning of April 8 at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach. Information: The first show should post on or around April 13 at www.DogCat. TV and at www.DoRCatRadio.com/. Information about the upcoming shows and times will be posted on the websites early next week. 4/2/2012 3 ,.4 Tracy Bonano From: Julie Uselite@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:00 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Fw: OPPOSED TO Beach at Trump Golf Course Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: 2012-03-22 18.25.09. jpg Here is a photo of the dogs and owners after they took control of the lab. Note - the older owner is still laughing. ----- Original Message ----- From: Julie To: parksrpv.com ; cc rpv.com Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:51 AM Subject: Fw: OPPOSED TO Beach at Trump Golf Course I understand that another vote is taking place on this issue next week and I thought I would share my personal reason for not wanting this to be a dog beach. I mentioned previously that I bought my house in San Pedro specifically because it was close to this beach. I also own a house in Oregon that is in a resort and I lose a lot of money on that house so when I purchased this home, I was unable to acquire a conventional loan, but had to settle for an adjustable. I just found out last Thursday that my re-fi was denied because my townhouse has lost $100,000 in value in two years. I went to the beach to remind myself as to why I bought here. On my way back up the beach, a large Labrador puppy ran up to me with its owners right behind. They also had a husky. The lab jumped on me about ten times and would not stop. The owners stood there laughing as I screamed for them to get their dog. Then the husky started to advance because he wanted to "play". Another couple ran down the beach at that point as they were afraid the husky would attack and the owners finally got their dog. Going back to the Saturday after the initial vote. Animal Control stood at the top of the hill for about a half hour at 8:00 a.m. on a Saturday. I heard her reprimand someone for having their dog off of a leash. She also mentioned that she could not walk down the hill because it was just too hard. This spot was pristine because it was hard to get to. Not only are these dogs going to ruin the tide pools and the other life on this beach, the owners KNOW they can get away with anything because it is not regulated in any way shape or form. They KNOW this is a place where their dog can do whatever they wouldn't do in their own back yard and nothing will be done. Since the articles in various papers have appeared, visitor ship to the beach has increased by at least ten fold. I can't imagine what would happen if this were to become an official dog beach listed as one of the only 10 dog beach in Los Angeles. I will not be at the City Council meeting because I have no doubt the opposition will be targeted by owners. This issue has brought out the worst and I don't want to be further attacked knowing that no one would be there to protect me. Very truly yours, Julie Sanchez ----- Original Message ----- From: Julie To: parksta�rpv.com ; cc rpv.com Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:33 PM Subject: Fw: Beach at Trump Golf Course� 4/2/2012 �,j As a follow up to last week's email. Yesterday, I saw the signs for the city council meeting this week and was considering whether or not I should attend. The pros (or so I thought) was that my voice would be heard. The cons, could be that if the city decided to patrol this beach and issue tickets, I could be targeted by disgruntled dog owners. The question on the sign should not be "Should dogs be allowed on the beach?" The question should be: "Should dogs be allowed on the beach off -leash" since this indeed is the decision that is being made by the City. That is what's happening now and it's discouraging to leave the City has know about this situation for some time and has been conducting a study while letting dogs on the beach under no control of their owners. I thought I would take this opportunity to relay several incidents in addition to the issue of the dog jumping on me last weekend: The following day, last Sunday, a Doberman almost attacked me. I was walking down the beach and the dog was sitting by its owner with a Frisbee in its mouth. As I approached, the dog ran at me, dropped the Frisbee, started barking, picked up the Frisbee and ran at me again with the owner saying nothing at all. At that point I picked up a rock in fear that the dog would attack me and the owner finally stood and called his dog back. ` Three weeks ago, a dog ran up to me and shook the water off after being in the ocean. I said "no" and the owner took a picture while the dog jumped on me. In January, a father was sitting on the beach with his two young children. A large dog ran over and jumped all around them and the father shooed off the dog while his young daughter was screaming and crying. A minute later the dog came back. The father stood and shooed off the dog and asked who was the owner. No one ever controlled the dog or said it was theirs. Last year a woman was sitting on a log while her small dog was at her feet. A pit bull saw the dog from across the beach and ran over growling and snarling. The woman picked up her dog and stood up while the pit bull jumped and bit at her dog. No one ever controlled the dog or said it was theirs. I love dogs and would not mind if dogs were on this beach on their leash and their feces were being picked up. The situation instead is that dogs are not under voice control of their owners and are threatening people and leaving their feces all over the beach. I feel that it will be very unfortunate if this beach is zoned as a dog park. I feel just as strongly that if that is the case, signs need to be very clear that this is an unpatrolled and unsafe dog park. My name is Julie Sanchez and I live in San Pedro. I bought my home in order to be close to this particular beach. Julie ----- Original Message ----- From; Julie To: ccC)rpv.com Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 4:53 PM Subject: Beach at Trump Golf Course After being jumped on by a large dog yet again while at the beach at Trump Golf Course, I called animal control to see if someone could come down and ticket the 50 people that had their dogs off of their leashes. The woman at animal control acted like they had never heard before this is a problem and said they would start to have people patrol the area. I have been jumped on by dogs on numerous occasions, have seen other people get jumped on, seen children and other dogs being attacked and I don't understand how this continues to happen. I knew I couldn't be the only person that has happened to, and so I looked online and on Yelp alone I see numerous people that have reported the same significant problem. There are no signs at the trail entrances nor on the beach itself and the dog owners assume it is a dog beach because everyone has their dogs without leases. In fact, the woman who sat and watched her dog jump on me today insisted that it was a dog park. Of course, even if this was a dog park, the owners should be responsible enough to not let their dogs jump on people, but in all of the times I've been jumped on, not one owner has told their dog not to. This is unacceptable and I very concerned that one day a child or another dog is going to be attacked and maimed or killed. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, but it will be a sad day, and one that could easily have been avoided if anyone cared to address the situation. Can you please let me know the status of this beach and whether or not anyone ever plans on enforcing the lease law. I really think that if signs were posted, at least some owners would understand that they cannot leave their dogs off of their leash and unattended. Tickets need to be written and dog owners need to be put on notice. 4/2/2012 e I 0 Y'� Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Julie 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Herb Stark [herbertstark@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:01 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Park Dear City Council, This is a follow up e-mail to the one that I sent you on March 11, 2012 concerning the consideration of the City establishing dog park beach below Trump. Once again I am speaking against the issue. In the March 11 e-mail I discussed the problems with parking, off leash dogs on the trump property, and feces littering the area and trails leading to the beach. I also provided you with supporting pictures. Today I would like to address the issue of habitat destruction and its impact on the animals living in the tide pools and surrounding cliffs. Today March 31, about 10:OOam we walked the beach. As usual there were off leach dogs on the beach and cliff trails. Dogs were seen digging at the water's edge, wading in the tide pools and running on the cliff trails. Protecting the natural habitat and its animals is extremely important to all our residents contributing to the quality of life of our City. Anything that jeopardies the fragile ecosystem of the tide pools should be rejected and for that reason I am urging you to reject establishing the dog beach. Herb Stark 32306 Phantom Dr. RPV 4/2/2012 PrIll" R 1121' RISE A 4/2/2012 Tracy°Bonano From: Eric Johnson [Ericj@Victory-Group.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:36 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: parks@rpv.com Subject: RPV Beach Dog Beach Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: RPV Dog Park Letter (3-30-12).pdf Dear City Council Members: Please find attached my letter in opposition to the proposed dog beach at RPV Beach. I live in the Portuguese Bend community and am very disturbed by what has recently happened at RPV Beach and more so by how it has come pass. Thank you for considering my thoughts as you review this important matter. Eric Johnson c� 4/2/2012 _3 March 30, 2012 Dear Members of the R.P.V City Council: I am a 30+ year resident of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPV") and I live in the Portuguese Bend Club ("PBC"). I am also a member of the board of directors of the PBC homeowners association. I am writing to follow up on my February 17, 2012 letter to the City Council to again express my deep concerns regarding the attractive nuisance the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("RPV") has created at the beach below Trump National and the adverse impacts it has had on those of us who live adjacent to this City property. I spoke against the Dog Park at the public hearing February 21St. Please find below my thoughts on the matter which, given the time at the public hearing I would have expressed. Please take action at your meeting next Tuesday to mitigate the unintended consequences of the City's prior actions regarding this property. There was an article in the Daily Breese today indicating that the site was to be featured on an upcoming television show and internet blog about where to travel with your pets. While I am sure that the City Council had the best of intensions when it started advertising PRV Beach as a potential off leash dog park, things have clearly gotten out of control. You all have a duty to stop the ongoing harm to the environment and residents if RPV who live adjacent to RPV Beach. You also have a duty to enforce applicable local ordinances and to follow the state laws and regulations your city staff has identified as being applicable to the contemplated dog beach use of RPV Breach. The comments below in "quotes" are taken directly from prior City staff reports. Prior Use Argument Staff reports repeatedly refer to the prior use of the stretch of beach as an "nonofficial off -leash dog beach" when it was under private ownership. The city staff report fails to mention that the vast majority of those using this beach were trespassing. Prior use of a City land by trespassers is not a good precedent upon which to consider this specific use. Necessary City Review City staff rightly points out that there are "circumstances particular to RPV Beach that require attention if the City chooses to allow dogs on the beach". The fact is that the City has already made the choice to allow off leash dogs on RPV Beach since it took over ownership in May 2011. On what basis does the City chose to allow prohibited uses of City property, before obtaining full community input and in violation of the currently applicable laws and regulations? Trial Dog Beach Decision? Before Environmental Investigation (CEQA findings) Before Completion of the Community Input/Outreach The staff report's timeline has the "trial dog beach" starting in September 2012, but in fact the trial started last summer. Since then the people and dog usage of RPV Beach has increased dramatically. In fact the City has been conducting an unregulated, unsupervised trial dog beach at this location for over 6 months. How is it that the City has found the site compatible with the Dog Park criteria it has established ? Was a finding made? Why are these criteria part of the current staff report? Ask that the Council ask staff to prepare a report rating the proposed Dog Beach site regarding their compliance with the recommended criteria Factual Errors in Staff Report The staff report indicates that "Allowing dogs on the beach would not displace a large number of recreational water users, as the area is not generally used as a swimming beach, because the near shore water contains rocks and prolific kelp growth". In fact this beach has for a long while been perhaps the best location for sandy beach water access, particularly at low tide. The staff report acknowledges the public's perception that the RPV Beach location is "the City's sandiest beach" and objects to dedicating it to "dog recreation". The City staff report indicates that RPV Beach "is contained to a degree by Half Way Point and the coastal bluffs, which act as natural barriers to buffer the uses on the beach from the immediately adjacent properties". This assertion is just plainly factually wrong. Whereas the costal bluffs do provide a vertical barrier outside the existing vertical beach trails, this location does not provide any lateral physical barriers to prevent dogs and their owners from accessing the adjacent coastal properties either up or down the coastline. No alternative "Dog Beach" locations are being considered by the City. The staff report only discusses the merits and challenges of locating a dog beach at the RPV Beach location. Whereas in fact there are other locations, such as the completely physically contained beach below the parking lot and restrooms located between the Terranea Resort and Point Vincente, which could be used and is more suitable as a dog beach location within the City. Not considering alternative locations is a material omission on the part of the City and its staff. This omission focuses the discussion on if there is going to be a dog beach at RPV Beach, rather than if there is going to be a dog beach in RPV, where it should be. The City should first address the threshold question of if there should be a dog beach in RPV and if the answer to that question is yes, second where such a dog beach should be located. The City staff's recommendation that a trial dog beach be conducted at RPV beach before considering alternative locations, just adds insult to the injury those of us who currently frequent RPV Brach and are currently experiencing with the negative impacts of the de facto dog beach the City has created at this location. The City staff should be directed to consider alternative locations for an RPV dog beach. On what authority does the City rely in allowing the City to not enforcing at RPV Beach the existing applicable laws and regulations prohibiting dogs on public beaches and parks? The staff report acknowledges some of the existing statutory and regulatory prohibitions against allowing dogs on City parks and beaches. The staff report sites that various approval from other regulatory agencies would be required to implement a dog beach at RPV Beach. Why has the City allowed such illegal use since last summer and why is the City considering continuing to allow and sanctioning a trial dog beach at this location prior to obtaining the required approvals? The City of RPV City Council Planning Commission The California Coastal Commission The California Superintendent of State Parks The Los Angeles County Department of Health What allows the City the leeway to knowing not enforce currently applicable City, County and State codes and regulations, much less conduct a trial dog beach on RPV Beach, prior to obtaining the approvals the City acknowledges are required? Any continued use of this City property as an unofficial dog beach is inconsistent with the intent of the statutes and regulations which currently apply to RPV Beach. Allowing such use prior to obtaining the required waivers and approvals is an abrogation of the City's legal responsibilities. Such use, even on a trial basis, should occur only after such waivers and approvals are obtained. Fiscal Impact The staff report's analysis of the fiscal impacts of establishing a dog beach at RPV Beach ignores the City's existing responsibilities' to enforce current laws and regulations applicable to RPV Beach. These costs are not new additional costs to the City, but rather costs which should have been reasonably expected as part of the City's approval of the Trump National development and not as new costs associated with the establishment of a dog beach at this location. The Fiscal Impact analysis in the staff report is therefore flawed in its presentation as it does not distinguish between the costs of implementing the current plan for RPV Beach verses the incremental costs of establishing a dog beach at this location and therefore overstates the costs associated with Alternative 3 "Make no changes to the City's Municipal Code and direct staff to enforce current regulations prohibiting dogs on RPV Beach". These costs should have been incorporated into the City's fiscal planning when it approved the Trump National project and the dedication of RPV Beach to the City. In closing I would like the City Council to reconsider the its decision to conduct a "trial Dog Brach" and to refer this issue to the planning commission As far as I am concerned we have already had a trial period and it has been a disaster. I would be happy to discuss the issue in more depth with any Council member who is interested. As a voter, taxpayer and one of the residents of RPV most adversely impacted, I am counting on you all to do the right thing and reverse your prior decision. Eric Johnson #3 Yacht Harbor Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA (310) 508-4179 0 Tracy Bonano From: R. Gene Dewey [rgdewey@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:38 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Dog Park below Trump National Dear Sirs: Re: Trump National Dog Park While we love animals we do not think it is befitting the beautiful RPV park setting and beach below Trump National to turn it into a off leash dog park. We like to fish on the beach and have done so for the thirty plus years we have lived here and now that not an easy thing to do with dogs running over the poles and lines. We also don't like walking around the dog dirt left on the trai-Is to the beach. The parking at Trump National is always full on weekends and a dog park will make parking there nearly impossible. I walk the beach nearly every Sunday on my way to The PBBC. Until a couple of years ago I might see one or two people on the beach with a dog. In the last two to three years it has increased dramatically. It would be a shame to turn this beautiful stretch of beach into an uncontrolled dog park. We hope the city council reconsiders this action. Gene & Lynne Dewey 4/2/2012 .� Tracy Bonano From: Oliver Hazard [perryhappy@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:52 PM To: cc@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com Subject: drain issue at RPV beach. no way to have fence. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: IMG_2686.jpg; IMG_2687.JPG Here is the drain that runs right through the middle of the dog beach. this was just from a quick rain that only lasted a day. there is no way of fencing the dogs off from people who use the beach 4/2/2012 x S � F fy F t �- ---------- ------- .>._-..--...._. r. x S � F fy F t �- Tracy Bonano From: gbandrews@cox.net Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:04 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: OPPOSED to RPV Dog Beach Hi, I've been walking down at trump for many years now. Im very disheartened with what has transpired over the last few months. The tidepools and beach are a serene and scenic place that families are entitled to enjoy. But All I have seen down there is negligent dog owners ruin the place. I Nearly every time I walk down there, I see owners leave poop bags full of dog poop, They are left right there on the trail and even on the beach. What kind of respect is this for any place? These same people are leaving more trash than I've ever seen. I also see dogs peeing in the tidepools. i have also seen them digging up some of the supposively protected plant areas. Ever since the news got involved, this place has gone downhill. The worst is when I go down to the beach and dogs jump on me and ruin my shirt. My girlfriend has had several dogs growl at her and even try to bite. None of these dogs are being kept on leashes. I have also seen several pit bulls down on the beach where owners sun themselves and leave their dog running around aimlessly. There could be a serious problem here when someones kid gets bit or killed by a dog. There were supposed to be some patrols to cite owners not having their dogs on a leash. I go to Trump at least twice a week and seen ZERO enforcement. I am very concerned with the future of this beach. It will no longer be a serene environment for us to share with our family if this keeps up. Please take your dog to a park and try to be a responsible dog owner there. I'm sorry, but the irresponsible dog owners clearly outweigh the ones who know better. Best Regards, George 3 Tracy Bonano From: keeneenee@verizon.net Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:42 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: against dog beach Please do not allow this to happen. I love dogs, but I love our. coastline too. It is my strong belief that the dogs would damage our beautiful RPV coastline and that is UNACCEPTABLE. Thank you for allowing me not voice the opinion or our family. Kathy Frazier RPV resident and home owner 4/2/2012 IN Tracy Bonano From: Bob Marohn [rkmarohn@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:09 PM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: No Dog Beach To: City Council One of the last things RPV needs is a dog beach. The city will never put the supervision on the beach to make sure owners follow the rules. That will be too expensive because it will be a dawn to duskjob. If I were Donald Trump I would file another suit against RPV for the damage this will do to the wonderful asset his golf course is to our community. We just got rid of a City Council majority that felt it was their duty to make RPV a playground for people living off the'peninsula. Now here we go again. Let's stop this nonsense now. Bob Marohn Ladera Linda Area 3567 Heroic Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 a 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Manuel G. Reyna [mannyreyna@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 8:57 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE DOG BEACH Dogs can become a big liability to the city if allowed to frolic around without a leash amongst people who are not used to them. I had a couple of experiences since dogs have been illegally cavorting in the beach in question, I am not a dog person and I get very nervous when dogs are present and, for some reason dogs seam to detect that, and they in turn get hostile. I do not want this beautiful and tranquil retreat to be lost to us who like to enjoy a moment communing with nature which is so rare now days, must you ruin it ? Seaview home owner since 1986 4/2/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: Bob Brink [bbrink@brinkfinancial.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:30 AM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: Rancho Palos Verdes Dog Park As a resident of Ladera Linda in Rancho Palos Verdes, directly above Trump National and the proposed dog park, all I can say is..............you have to be kidding. There is absolutely nothing about making this beach a dog park that is good for Rancho Palos Verdes or its' residents. Have you ever actually visited the proposed location? The beach where the dog park is proposed has difficult (at best) access. The trails to the beach are narrow and steep, and more people with dogs going up and down these paths to the beach will insure, if it hasn't happened already, that someone is going to fall and get hurt. Since there is inadequate protection for those using these trails (no handrails, no proper steps etc.) the city will inevitably be financially responsible for someone's injuries or death. There are no facilities far dogs on this beach. No water, no poop bag dispensers, no poop disposal facilities. Many people will not bother picking up the poop..............."it's biodegradable". We don't need more congestion, more traffic, and the inevitable rise in crime that will come with inviting the people to use this beach for their dogs and the inevitable family picnics that will accompany them. There isn't enough parking now for proper public beach access, and unless dog park users want to valet park at Trump, we'll have parked cars in the neighborhood, and nobody is going to tolerate that. You MUST stop this insane idea now before you have to deal with the countless management problems and expenses that will accompany it; and it WILL be the city's problem. We live here because of the open space, the lack of congestion, and the natural beauty of the coastline and the beaches. Please keep it that way. Regards, :.• Robert F. Brink CFP 32236 Searaven Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Telephone: 310.265.2231 Fax: 310.265.2241 Mobile: 310.428.4244 VISIT US ON THE WEB http://www.brinkfinancial.com B R I FINANCIAL GROUP INC. Securities and Advisory offered through Western International Securities, Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Brink Financial Group and Western International Securities are separate and unaffiliated entities. 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: carboat65@sbcglobal,net Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 1:25 PM To: parks@rpv.com Subject: RPV Dog Park Dear RPV Mayor & Council Members: Since attending the dedication, years ago, of Founders Park, my wife & I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting the park. Lately, there is inadequate parking in the Public Parking lot, & the area is inundated with dogs. It appears the RPV dog beach has become an attractive nuisance, & we believe it should be curtailed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectively, Dick Brunner, President Peninsula Verde HOA, RPV 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Catherine Coddington [codding@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:24 AM To: parks@rpv.com; cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Park Beach Pilot Hi All, My name is Catherine Coddington and I live in the Ladera Linda neighborhood in PV. I am extremely concerned about the safety of our neighborhood and beaches as we consider having a dog beach at the Trump Beach across from my home. If you look at crimereports.com, there has been a lot of crime in our neighborhood over the last year and having a dog beach across the street from our home will increase the crime in our area. Also, we've hiked down to the beach a couple of times w/ our 1 yr old son and did not feel safe as there were "scary" dogs off leash with owners that were not watch-ing them. Please take into consideration our concern and not have one of the only public beaches in PV turn into a public dog beach for LA as it's not safe for our neighborhood, city or dogs/kids. Thank you, Catherine Coddington 3 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:40 AM To: 'Tracy Bonano' Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Dog Parks From: Don [mailto:dreeves895@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 9:03 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Dog Parks Good Morning Just a quick note about dog parks. As a dog owne, I support 1 or more dog parks in RPV and/or the Peninsula in general. As I have mentioned to a couple of you, "Trump Beach" does not appear to be the right answer for several reasons: 1. It is not easily accessible and cannot be separated from other uses unlike the beach in Long Beach 2. It was quickly turning into another bureaucratic nightmare like the Preserve where costs now are about 5 times higher than promised. It would end up with a resident dog ranger, facilities, rules/regulations, etc. that would cost $ and make every one displeased. 3. Trump has a legitimate complaint because many dogs cannot be controlled - I would not bring my 11 month old labradation to that beach because he is too friendly and energetic and not voice controlled. 4. Unfortunately, like the Preserve people, there is no tolerance by others to accommodate anyone else. 5. We have space for fenced in areas - 1 small, 1 large - but I realize the NIMBYs hate dogs more than Marymount College students and/or there would be reasons why areas such as the flats could not be used. My guess is that when Trump Beach is eliminated all of the other excuses will kick in and the dogs will lose while other cities continue to accommodate them as well as skate boarders. Don dreeves895@aol.com 4/2/2012 .3 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:41 AM To: 'Tracy Bonano' Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: Thanks for (hopefully) stopping the RPV Dog Beach project From: Mike Nitz [mailto:mmmmnitz@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:31 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Thanks for (hopefully) stopping the RPV Dog Beach project We were pleasantly surprised to read today's Daily Breeze article "Dog beach may be brought to heel". It seems that the City Council has exactly the same concerns as we do regarding this dog beach: 1. This dog beach will soon become a "destination" for dog owners from miles around. It will gain popularity like the "Sand Dune Park" in Manhattan Beach. 2. The parking lot will be overwhelmed; people will find creative ways to park illegally in the Trump area and other places. 3. The beach and hiking trails should be considered OFF LIMITS for anyone with children. An agressive dog (or a pack of dogs) could injure or kill a child, as we often see in the news. 4. Some people currently let their dogs off leash as soon as they enter the hiking trail. The dogs then run up and down the trail, and often off the trail. Since the trails are quite narrow, a large running dog could easily knock a child or older person down. Last week, on a Thursday (not a busy day), there were four large dogs off -leash running up and down the hiking trail. 5. Even though doggy poop bags are provided, a lot of dog poop is not picked up. You have to watch your step, particularly on the hiking trail. And finally, if this becomes a "dog beach", it will no longer be a "people beach". We have enjoyed this area for many years, long before the Trump golf course existed. When it was a largely unknown dog beach, it was acceptable for people with and without dogs. However, with its recent publicity, it is no longer suitable or enjoyable for non -dog people. We sincerely hope that the City Council decides against making this area an off -leash dog beach. Mike and Marilyn Nitz 26129 Birchfield Ave. RPV mmnitz(awahoo.com 310-373-2696 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 8:43 AM To: 'Tracy Bonano' Cc: 'Katie Howe' Subject: FW: April 3rd RPV CC Agenda From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:31 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr' Subject: April 3rd RPV CC Agenda Mayor Misetich and RPV Council Members This concerns item 3 on Tuesday's RPV Council Agenda, the dog beach below Trump National. There is 90 minutes allotted for what would seem to be an extended public comment period. There was extensive discussion on this matter some 4 weeks ago on February 21 st, why the perceived need for another extended public comment period? The Council is to be commended for their efforts to continue public use during a trial period. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, the trial period program is not working with many dog owners having descended on the Peninsula and the trial program is totally out of control. The Staff report recommends that the trial program be immediately terminated and we endorse that recommendation. Therefore, in view of the many important issues confronting the RPV Council, we urge that the public hearing be very limited and that Council immediately move to terminate the trial program and remand the subject to the Planning Commission for further analysis and recommendations. Ken DeLong 4/2/2012 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:26 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: Dog Beach From: NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:32 AM To: cc@rpv.com; 'Carolyn Lehr' Subject: Dog Beach Just FWIW, I was opposed to it before, and I'm opposed to it now. So I totally agree with your decision to take another look at it. Noel Park 6715 EI Rodeo Road RPV 90275 (310) 377-4035 home (562) 413-5147 cell 4/2/2012 3 Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 Attachments: 8832432_orig.j pg From: Erika Barber [mailto:nbarber310@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:36 PM To: RPV City Council Cc: Stevens Subject: RE: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 Dear City Council members. My husband and I are in total agreement with the letter below. In fact we just read that an independant documentary producer will shoot a film featuring the "leash -free" dog beach available below Trump on April 8th. This is totally unacceptable. Erika and Neil Barber 4004 Stalwart Drive RPV 90275 310-377-7291 TO: MAYOR MISITICH, MAYOR PRO TEM CAMPBELL, COUNCIL MEMBERS BROOKS, DUHOVIC, & KNIGHT. RE: STRONG OPPOSITION TO CC'S PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF MOVING FORWARD ON IMPLEMENTATION OF A PILOT PROGRAM ON DOG BEACH. Council Members: We wish to thank all of you for your scheduled reconsideration of moving forward on implementation of a pilot program. At the time you initially approved a path forward, we understood that the council was attempting to satisfy the wants of the parties, both Pro & Con, on this contentious issue. This happens to be one of those issues which appears tough in reaching a compromise ....the primary reason is that THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE... THERE IS NO WAY TO RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS STATUS DUE TO THE WIDE MEDIA BLITZ NOTIFYING MILLIONS OF RESIDENTS THAT RPV'S DOG BEACH IS OPEN TO DOGS WITHOUT LEASHES. Note: Also, a member of the council mentioned that recently, horse owners have stated their interest in riding horses along the beach if/when dogs are permitted to run loose. As long time residents in RPV we want you to understand that we have always had 1-2 dogs... that our opposition has nothing to do with not appreciating dogs..and we even have friends with retrievers who have enjoyed running their dogs unleashed on the beach....for many years. Ah, if we could only return to the days when a few residents with a few dogs enjoyed their freedom running dogs loose. KEY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE USE OF THIS CITY BEACH FOR DOGS/HORSES, ETC... WHETHER LEASHED OR NOT... - As mentioned, the genie is out of the bottle... usage of the beach has been dramatically increasing... no way to effectively, efficiently, affordably to control it now. - Effective enforcement... one of the council majority's key requirements ... would not only be extremely difficult but highly expensive. 5 4/2/2012 0/ Insufficient parking... recently on prime weather days... parking at Trump has overflowed... parking cars all the way up to PVD South. Lack of any bathroom facilities on the beach. Even if created they would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. Lack of any effective/practical means to prevent dogs, etc. from defecating on both the beach and in the tide pools. Trump has continued to experience problems with dogs and owners lapping over on their property... particularly the driving range and the park. - Extremely difficult and expensive to prevent dogs and owners from straying onto the fragile cliff slopes and protected foliage. Very poor, limited, access points down to the beach. One approach is doable but fragile... the other is most dangerous... would require upgrading. The Portuguese Bend Club/Community is privately owned as is their main entrance road. This Club has already protested the expanded use of their property and it is uncertain whether it would be even legal/possible to obtain their permission as an entry point... even with emergencies. - At present, quick response to attacks, accidents, injuries, etc. is non-existent... Helicopters could possibly be used but again, at a high cost. - Tide pools are along that beach and state laws, etc. have strict requirements to interfere with them... Permission from the Coastal Commission most likely would not be obtained. Note: It appears that other agencies involved with the use of beaches and tide pools have announced their opposition. Potential solutions that have been identified by the council, have experienced strong opposition.. i.e. fencing on the beach, special hours for special groups, etc. do not seem practical or affordable. Our city has serious financial requirements facing it..i.e. San Ramone Canyon, PVD East upgrading, etc. Our city cannot afford spending sufficient monies to adequately manage this beach area. OF KEY NEED IS TO NOT SPEND INVALUABLE TIME & RESOURCES ON PROJECTS BASED ON "DESIRES"... NEED CC FOCUS ON KEY 10 GOALS. FINALLY, WE REGRET THAT THE AREA -WIDE MEDIA ATTENTION HAS CREATED A WORSENING SITUATION, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CC NOT ONLY PREVENTING LOOSE RUNNING DOGS BUT TO REVERT BACK TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH SPEAKS MOST CLEARLY ABOUT THE INTENT OF THIS PROPERTY BUT, WE WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY IMMEDIATELY BEGIN ENFORCING CITY ORDINANCE 6.04.050 WHICH PROHIBITS DOGS ON ANY RPV CITY BEACH. Sincerely submitted. Tom and Marty Redfield, 31273 Ganado Dr., RPV 90275, Phone: 310-377-8180. 4/2/2012 U Tracy Bonano From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:47 AM To: 'Katie Howe' Cc: 'Tracy Bonano' Subject: FW: RE: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 From: Tom Redfield [mailto:tmredfield@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 4:29 PM To: 'EZStevens' Cc: cc@rpv.com; clerh@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com; tomo@rpv.com Subject: RE: RE: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 Dear Ed ... or should I address you as "EZ" ?: Just kidding... I really appreciate your thoughtful response to me... and, I again wish to salute you and your group for taking such a comprehensive stance against the planned Dog Beach... well balanced and not inflammatory like occurs so often, I hope to meet you in person... assuming you may be attending Tues.'s CC Meeting... I'm a big old grey haired guy... usually sitting in the front row close to the public podium...I wish to thank you in person. While you did not mention it in your email, I hope that you and your members carefully read the front page article... complete with a color photo of Torrance resident Adrian Martinez... announcing that, "he's hitting the road with his four dogs to film 'Off Leash in America' to showcase the best pet -friendly destinations." It goes on to state that his first film shoot is set for the morning of April 8 at Rancho Palos Verdes Beach." Talk about our beach getting further exposure, he and his dogs coast-to-coast to showcase the nation's best pet -friendly events, hotels, resorts, parks, and restaurants. This is a 3 month journey is coast-to-coast and back again journey lasting three months. Finally, Martinez said, "Ultimately, my goal is to have 'Off Leash in America' reach the GLOBAL PET COMMUNITY!" Maybe, just maybe, our small beach might really become overrun by dogs and pets. See you. Tom R. From: EZStevens [mailto:erstevens@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:20 PM To: 'Tom Redfield' Subject: RE: RE: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 Thanks for your support. You wrote an excellent letter in opposition to this sad situation that the City Council really opened up a can of worms that will haunt us for a few years. The City will now have to waste valuable funds in correcting this situation. Ed Stevens From: Tom Redfield [mailto:tmredfield@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:29 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: clehr@rpv.com; tomo@rpv.com Subject: FW: RE: CC COUNCIL MEETING'S AGENDA ITEM ON REVISITING THE DOG BEACH ISSUE ... APRIL 3, 2012 TO: MAYOR MISITICH, MAYOR PRO TEM CAMPBELL, COUNCIL MEMBERS BROOKS, DUHOVIC, & KNIGHT. RE: STRONG OPPOSITION TO CC'S PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF MOVING FORWARD ON 4/2/2012 IMPLEMENTATION OF A PILOT PROGRAM ON DOG BEACH. Council Members: We wish to thank all of you for your scheduled reconsideration of moving forward on implementation of a pilot program. At the time you initially approved a path forward, we understood that the council was attempting to satisfy the wants of the parties, both Pro & Con, on this contentious issue. This happens to be one of those issues which appears tough in reaching a compromise ....the primary reason is that THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE... THERE IS NO WAY TO RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS STATUS DUE TO THE WIDE MEDIA BLITZ NOTIFYING MILLIONS OF RESIDENTS THAT RPV'S DOG BEACH IS OPEN TO DOGS WITHOUT LEASHES. Note: Also, a member of the council mentioned that recently, horse owners have stated their interest in riding horses along the beach if/when dogs are permitted to run loose. As long time residents in RPV we want you to understand that we have always had 1-2 dogs... that our opposition has nothing to do with not appreciating dogs..and we even have friends with retrievers who have enjoyed running their dogs unleashed on the beach .... for many years. Ah, if we could only return to the days when a few residents with a few dogs enjoyed their freedom running dogs loose. KEY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE USE OF THIS CITY BEACH FOR DOGS/HORSES, ETC... WHETHER LEASHED OR NOT... - As mentioned, the genie is out of the bottle... usage of the beach has been dramatically increasing... no way to effectively, efficiently, affordably to control it now. - Effective enforcement... one of the council majority's key requirements ... would not only be extremely difficult but highly expensive. - Insufficient parking... recently on prime weather days... parking at Trump has overflowed... parking cars all the way up to PVD South. - Lack of any bathroom facilities on the beach. Even if created they would be extremely difficult and expensive to maintain. - Lack of any effective/practical means to prevent dogs, etc. from defecating on both the beach and in the tide pools. - Trump has continued to experience problems with dogs and owners lapping over on their property... particularly the driving range and the park. - Extremely difficult and expensive to prevent dogs and owners from straying onto the fragile cliff slopes and protected foliage. - Very poor, limited, access points down to the beach. One approach is doable but fragile... the other is most dangerous... would require upgrading. - The Portuguese Bend Club/Community is privately owned as is their main entrance road. This Club has already protested the expanded use of their property and it is uncertain whether it would be even legal/possible to obtain their permission as an entry point... even with emergencies. - At present, quick response to attacks, accidents, injuries, etc. is non-existent... Helicopters could possibly be used but again, at a high cost. - Tide pools are along that beach and state laws, etc. have strict requirements to interfere with them... Permission from the Coastal Commission most likely would not be obtained. Note: It appears that other agencies involved with the use of beaches and tide pools have announced their opposition. - Potential solutions that have been identified by the council, have experienced strong opposition.. i.e. fencing on the beach, special hours for special groups, etc. do not seem practical or affordable. - Our city has serious financial requirements facing it..i.e. San Ramone Canyon, PVD East upgrading, etc. Our city cannot afford spending sufficient monies to adequately manage this beach area. - OF KEY NEED IS TO NOT SPEND INVALUABLE TIME & RESOURCES ON PROJECTS BASED ON "DESIRES"... NEED CC FOCUS ON KEY 10 GOALS. - FINALLY, WE REGRET THAT THE AREA -WIDE MEDIA ATTENTION HAS CREATED A WORSENING SITUATION, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CC NOT ONLY PREVENTING LOOSE RUNNING DOGS BUT TO REVERT BACK TO THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH SPEAKS MOST CLEARLY ABOUT THE INTENT OF THIS PROPERTY BUT, WE WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY IMMEDIATELY BEGIN ENFORCING CITY ORDINANCE 6.04.050 WHICH PROHIBITS DOGS ON ANY RPV CITY BEACH. Sincerely submitted. Tom and Marty Redfield, 31273 Ganado Dr., RPV 90275, Phone: 310-377-8180. 4/2/2012 From: Madeline Ryan [pvpasofino@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:30 AM To: nicole jules Cc: City Council Subject: CC Agenda Item 4 Regular Business Hello Nicole, Mayor and Council Members: In December of 2011 several of the neighbors on the East Side of Rancho Palos Verdes, aka Q Zone, attended the Traffic Commission Meeting regarding this very subject of increasing speeds along this stretch of the arterial highway. There were several speakers against this increase, including the Officer (Cox?) representing the Sheriffs Department, a bicyclist and a homeowner not living in the immediate area. i City Staff stated that there are traffic calming improvements planned for this area beginning in July of 2012. Also, Traffic Commissioner Chair Kramer stated that the Traffic Commission would review the matter at a later date; therefore, not recommending any increase to the speed limit at that time. Now, without any further public input the City Staff is recommending these increases? As many of us said the evening of the Traffic Commission meeting, if speed limit is 30, drivers will do 35; if 35, drivers will do 40, etc. In addition, please consider that we are a neighborhood, as unique and unconventional as we are, and neighborhood speeds do not exceed 25 mph. The speed limit of 30 is not what most drivers abide by, but it is a reasonable speed limit given all of the challenges of PUDE. Almost all accidents along PVDE are caused by excessive speed. This can be verified through the sheriffs accident reports. There was just another major accident on Wednesday, March 28, between the two Headlands on PVDE. Sheriffs rerouted traffic, one traffic lane at a time, around Headland (a narrow, private street), creating congestion and major wait times for vehicle traffic. Doesn't it make sense to get the improvements in place first, see how these improvements are working, and then consider a speed increase? Thank you. Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV "May the Trails be with you"... Madeline 4/2/2012 From: ray van dinther [raymadelin@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:17 PM To: City Council; Traffic@rpv.com; citymanager@rpv.com; nicole jules Cc: Anna McDougall; David Lukac; Jessica Zaccaro; pvpasofino@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Fw: Agendas for the April 3, 2012 City Council Meeting Is the City of RPV out of their minds .......... to recommend speed increases on Palos Verdes Drive East? The traffic commission voted overwhelmingly NOT to increase speeds and yet the City of RPV is recommending this at the next meeting ! ! ! ! ! ! There was a head on collision on PVDE by Headland this past Wednesday with serious injuries. Every month there is a serious accident in this vicinity caused by excessive speed. The Lomita Sheriffs are against any increase also. How many people do -the City of RPV want to maim and kill?????? I have had enough. From now on I am going to send all correspondence regarding the madness of our City to national newspapers and television. I firmly believe that the agendas of a few are being pushed to the majority. Something is seriously wrong. I advise you take a close look at whose agenda is being pushed and why .... before you are all accountable. Ray Van Dinther 28180 PVDE On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Madeline Ryan <pvpasofmo@@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi All Please open the CC agenda and look at 'Regular Business" Item #4. The City Staff is recommending speed limit increases along PVDE, yep, right in our area! Outrageous. I might want to attend this Tuesday nite meeting, but will get an e-mail in. "May the Trails be with you"... Madeline ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Carla Morreale <carlam _rpv.com> To: Carla Morreale <carlam _rpv.com> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:14 AM Subject: Agendas for the April 3, 2012 City Council Meeting Please see the attached agendas for the April 3, 2012 City Council Meeting. 4/2/2012 4 From: RK Smith [rksm1th@webtv.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:26 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: City Council, SA & IA Agendas for Tuesday, April 3, 2012 Attachments: City Council, SA & IA Agendas for Tuesday, April 3, 2012 (20.0 KB) City Council, SA & IA Agendas ... Dear City Council members, The subject City email (attached) does not -state what position(s) the City Council Traffic Safety Commission presented in agendized item 4 on PUDE speed limits. Respectfully, Richard Smith 1