CC_12052023_Public_Comments_8d — Glendale City Council, December 5, 2023

From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: Dog Park at Brand Park - Bad idea
Date: Monday, November 27, 2023 1:21:10 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png

From: Lisa Yesko <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 12:47 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Dog Park at Brand Park - Bad idea

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members,

I understand that a Dog Park in Glendale is on the agenda for the 12/5 meeting and wish to reiterate that Brand Park should not be considered for a location.

Parks and Recreation and the City Council have had their meetings and feedback from Glendale residents, and particularly the residents near Brand Park, that overwhelmingly agree to not recommend Brand Park as a viable location for many reasons.

The proposed area to be fenced in for a dog park - the only open, grassy field - south of the Japanese Tea House – will exclude the many park-goers that use the space for their varied activities and will wreck the beauty and serenity of the park as a whole.

I am a dog owner and I bring my dogs to Brand Park on a daily basis but sincerely note that the neighborhood will suffer with the added noise, smells, traffic and congested parking. Events and wedding venues at the Tea House and Brand Park will be compromised with this unnecessary and costly distraction. It would be a huge loss to park-goers overall because the open space is what makes Brand Park special to everyone, and their dogs.

The park and the trails are open use and should continue to be shared by All!

Thank you.

Best regards,
--
Lisa

Mobile: 818 388-7841
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Bulanikian, Onnig; Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: Dog Park Site
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 12:25:51 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png

From: Carol Brusha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Dog Park Site

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To: Mayor Dan Brotman
Councilmembers Elen Asatryan. Paula Devine, Ardy Kassakhian, Ara Najarian.

From: Carol Brusha.

Northwest Glendale Homeowners Association Board Member
Re: Dog Park at Brand Park

Dear Mayor Brotman and Council,
I ask you to not consider Brand Park for the proposed dog park. You've all heard the negative reasons:

1) Inadequate parking. The lot has to accommodate library patrons, hikers, people taking classes at Brand Studios, guests and visitors to the Japanese Tea Garden and Doctors' House. Park users will end up parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods and this is not fair to homeowners.

2) The park is too small. The east side has children's play equipment while the middle has two youth ballfields. The west side is the only truly vacant space left and is widely used.

Before 2020, a company presented free Shakespeare plays in the evening where we sat on the lawn. Perhaps it will return. It is a perfect spot.

3) Noise factors. Weddings and other events at the Tea House will be impacted by barking dogs. Homeowners on Vista will also be at the mercy of barking dogs.

4) Destruction of grass. The overuse by the dogs will result in dust that will be swept around the neighboring houses during wind events. There is no way the city can maintain a grassy area.

Thank you for reading this and your consideration that this is not an appropriate area.

Carol

From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: Opposition to Dog Park at Brand Park
Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:48:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png

From: Susan Dasso <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 4:26 PM
To: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Dog Park at Brand Park

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Brotman and Members of the City Council,

I would like to register my opposition to the formation of a dog park at Brand Park.

I didn't know much about dog parks until this issue surfaced and decided to do some research. I read many articles, including one from the New York Times, and many from professional dog trainers. After thoughtful consideration here is what I concluded.

1. Dog parks must not take over green space that is used by people.

2. Dog parks must not be adjacent to areas where people congregate for recreational activities, i.e., ball diamonds, soccer fields, volleyball/basketball/tennis/pickle ball courts, museums, libraries, picnicking areas, concerts, etc.

3. Dog parks should not be located next to residences.

4. Dog parks should exist in parts of the city where walking your dog on leash is not safe for the dog, other pedestrians, and/or cars.

5. Dog owners should be aware of the risks involved when bringing their dog(s) to a dog park.

6. There must be dog park rules that are well displayed and enforced.

7. Small dogs should not mix with large dogs.

8. There must be regular maintenance of the dog park to ensure that fences are mended, feces picked up and water is clean and readily available.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Dasso

From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Bulanikian, Onnig; Cortes, Karen
Subject: FW: DOG PARK
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 5:46:47 PM

From: Patty Silversher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 2:51 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: DOG PARK

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

DEAR MAYOR BROTMAN AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS,

Having attended the dog park feasibility meetings, I must say that I was extremely disappointed
in the outcome.

At the first meeting, no one could discuss their vision of a dog park in Palmer Park.

The City's vision was not at all what residents had envisioned.

And what is interesting, is that none of the Parks commissioners own a dog!!!

The vegetable garden, which is already completely fenced in, could be shared with a small dog park.

I walk my dog at Palmer park all the time as do many other residents, and that space has everything amenable:
shade, fencing, restrooms etc.

Also, I hardly see any residents in the garden.

With so many dogs here in Adams Hill, Palmer park is easily walkable so folks don't have to drive.

There are now so many coyotes here in Adams Hill which have never in all my years of living here been seen until this past year. They are out all times of the day and night.

Adams Hill needs a dog park desparately...we should not have to drive far away to let our
pups run around ij a safe environment.

Thank you for your consideration,
Patty Silversher
Adams Hill since 1985

Glendale City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Glendale City Council
December 5, 2023