090105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Darlington Dr. Thousand Oar.,,, C4 91360 Phone: 805-241-6734 Fax: 805-241-6813 E -Mail: erimmeli Bob Marchesano Park Superintendent Conejo Recreation & Park District 403 W. Hilicrest Dr. Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Dear Bob: AUG 2 3 2005 net CONEJO RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT In anticipation of the upcoming CRPD Board of Directors meeting and the September 12, 2005 hearing by the Thousand Oaks City Planning Commission on the installation of lights at the Conejo Creek Dog Park, and expecting our vociferous opponents to step up their campaign of lies and fear about the lights, I want to go on record with some of the many reasons to support lighting the dog park. First and foremost, it's a matter of fairness: Dog Park users are overwhelmingly taxpayers and voters in the City of Thousand Oaks (approximately 70% according to two independent surveys). As such, we are entitled to the same attention to our needs as other special-interest segments of our community. In fact, if statistics were the only standard by which resources were allocated, dog owners would arguably be entitled to at least one more dog park in our community. According to the latest population statistics available (1/1/04), the population of Thousand Oaks was approximately 126,000. Even if there has been no population growth in .the last year and a half, and using national averages of approximately 2.67 people per household, the number of households would be approximately 27,370. National averages show that approximately 36% of households own one or more dogs, resulting in an estimated 9,880 households in this city owning dogs. Based on national averages of approximately 1.6 dogs per household, that would be approximately 15,000 dogs residing in the city of Thousand Oaks. According to the City of Thousand Oaks, there are 13,000 - 14,000 licensed dogs in the city at any given time. Given the likelihood that there are a large number of unlicensed dogs in the city as well, the national averages seem about right for our community. If anything, they are too conservative. It seems only fair that a constituency representing 36% of the total households in the community warrants our local government providing them with needed services. Yet we are currently limited to one, 3.75 acre, off leash, park for our dogs, with no lights, an unpaved parking lot, and only a porta-potty for a bathroom. This is in stark contrast to the 42 other parks and playflelds in the Conejo Valley, many of which serve special-interest needs and many of which are lighted with extremely bright, stadium -style lighting until 10PM, have paved parking lots, and provide proper bathrooms for their patrons. Its time the dog owners in this community got fair treatment from our elected representatives. Most of the opponents' arguments against the lights actually reveal their opposition to the very existence of the dog park. Claims that the dog park lights would result in increased noise, reduced air quality, and increased traffic in their "semi -rural" neighborhood, can't possibly stand up to rational scrutiny. The lights will do nothing more than extend access to the dog park year-round, to the same time it already exists naturally in the summer, 8:3013M. Not only will there be no increase in activity over existing summer levels, logic leads to:the conclusion that there will be reduced activity during the winter, even with the lights, because the winter cold and darkness will be a natural deterrent to many people anyway. Any claims about noise pollution pale in comparison to the constant drone of the adjacent 23 freeway. And there simply is no noxious odor emanating from the dog park, any more than there is an odor coming from the adjacent Equestrian Center. As for the claims of ruining the semi -rural environment in Thousand Oaks, the dog park is wedged between the 23 freeway, Avenida de las Flores, and the Equestrian Center and Waverly Park, hardly a residential neighborhood. Rather than blaming the dog park for all the real and anticipated traffic problems, it's logical to attribute most of any increased traffic and traffic accidents on and around Las Flores to the several new housing developments in the last few years, which have added approximately 1,200 residential houses to the east end of Las Flores, along with the new boys and girls club adjacent to Los Cerritos school. If increased traffic is such a concern for these people, where were they when all the additional residential and community development was taking place?