The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/4/2020 Item 3, McKenzie Wilbanks, Megan From:John McKenzie < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:PRC communication - 3-4-20 Item #3 Attachments:Parks & Rec Commissioners 3-4-20.pdf Sent same attachment via my gmail account, so if that made it disregard this email. Otherwise, please forward to the Commissioner's for Wednesday's item. Thank you. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 1 March 1, 2020 RE: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, It is great to see progress being made on the Parks & Recreation Master Plan update. Representing Friends for SLO City Dog Parks (Friends), I have reviewed the documents your Commission is considering on the 4th with a focus on establishing dog parks within the City. First, I want to continue thanking your update team staff for their overall efforts on this challenging undertaking. Proposed Sites - As a dog park advocate, it is encouraging to see that dog parks are finally getting some long overdue recognition they deserve to start addressing the needs of our 12,000+ dogs within the City. In reviewing how the dog park issue is being packaged, if I'm reading it correctly, we see that one dog park is needed now and an additional dog park by 2035. However, if the proposed dog parks from Specific Plans are considered, they would provide for these identified needs with no more dog parks through 2035. The report appropriately recognizes Laguna Lake Park as the first park to receive dog park improvements. The report continues on to identify four more potential parks (Sinshiemer, Santa Rosa, Emerson, Stoneridge) for possible dog park consideration. At one of your meetings late last year two other parks (Laguna Hills and Islay) were identified as potential locations but were not included in the current documents being considered. On dog park sizing, the American Kennel Club suggests dog parks should be an acre or more (https://images.akc.org/pdf/canine_legislation/establishing_dog_park.pdf). Most other jurisdictions identify ½ to ¾ acre as a minimum size for an enclosed dog park. REQUEST #1: Please add Laguna Hills and Islay Parks as potential future areas for enclosed dog parks. REQUEST #2: Please remove Stoneridge Park from the mix. This park is about 1+ acre in size. The main constraints include: a basketball court is located in the middle of the park, there is limited street parking in a residential neighborhood, and there is no restroom. If a ½- to ¾- acre dog park were established, the only recreational uses would be the basketball court and the dog park. There are many other nearby existing public parks that are much larger that could accommodate a dog park without significantly reducing the other existing recreational uses and centrally located within denser residential areas. Methodology - As the document under consideration does not provide any context on how or why it identified two dog parks needed by 2035, the following elements or criteria are proposed to be used to better define the City’s dog park needs: 1. Identify logical concentrations of existing residential populations that consider the greatest residential densities and natural separators (e.g., Highway 101, commercial strips, etc.). Ideally, to follow City policies on walkability and livability, there should be a dog park within 1 mile of a large percentage of each of these residentially grouped areas. 2. Within these residential groupings, identify existing parks adequately-sized to accommodate an enclosed dog park (at least ½ are in size and applying other qualifying criteria [previously submitted to staff]). All such parks should be recognized as potential parks available to establish enclosed dog parks. Ultimately, only one dog park within each of these residential groupings would be needed, unless there was community support for more. If there isn’t an existing park, the Update should encourage future efforts to find adequate areas for a new park in these areas (and include a provision for an enclosed dog park). Based on this approach, the following preliminary graphic (see below) has been generated to try and display what we think could be logical groupings of residential areas along with incorporating some of the above discussion. It appears there are at least four such existing residential areas that contain most of our existing 12,000 dogs. REQUEST #3 – Develop/apply a dog park needs methodology that is in line with City’s policies on promoting more walkable communities, reducing impacts on global climate change and better achieving a zero net energy use environment. Specific Plans - Friends has serious concerns with the approach being considered to use the recently approved dog parks within the new Specific Plans as follows: a. The Avila Ranch dog parks are not within walking distance to ANY residential area except this newly approved development on the very southern edge of the City. Further, one of the two parks is ¼ of an acre in size, which is ½ of the minimum size needed. Anyone outside of the Avila Ranch will need to drive to this location which negates the City’s efforts to create a walkable community, have reduced impacts on global climate change, and have a net zero energy impact on the environment. b. Righetti Ranch – dog park is ¼ of an acre in size, which is ½ of the minimum size needed. Further it is located next to a grove of eucalyptus trees, which is an undesirable species for some dogs. While this dog park’s location is good (due to other nearby residential), it is very unlikely that it could be enlarged to ½ acre or larger, or the eucs removed; c. For both of these projects, construction of 2 of the 3 dog parks is in the developments’ last phase, which may be many years away. REQUEST #4 – Remove from further consideration the use of the approved Specific Plan dog parks to fulfill the City’s current and future unmet dog park needs. Future locations – as recreational development is proposed in the future, the Master Plan update should include a mechanism to make sure dog parks get consideration if certain criteria are met. For example, the Damon Garcia field expansion, may have odd shaped areas that will not accommodate a soccer field but could provide great areas for enclosed dog park use. REQUEST #5 – Add language in the Update that includes the potential for dog parks being considered in any large new recreational developments or park redevelopments. Grants – given that dog parks will likely be given a high priority in this Update as an unmet recreational need, Friends requests that you direct Parks and Recreation staff to re-apply for this year’s grant opportunities from PetSafe (and any other entity that may offer similar grants (see https://barkforyourpark.petsafe.com/2018-apply). The City applied several years ago for this grant but was unsuccessful (there were many hundreds of applications for just 5 grants). However, the City has all of the needed elements to be favorably selected in the future. As this is an annual opportunity, the City should continue applying until we get it. If we are successful, $25,000 will be given to establish an enclosed park – a great start to meet this unmet need. Since the City has already applied, most of the grant application work has already been completed. Further, if it is granted, the City would have 3 years to use the grant, allowing time to work with shareholders to find/design the City’s first enclosed dog park. REQUEST #6: Authorize staff to reapply for the PetSafe grant (applications due in May, 2020) for $25,000 to construct an enclosed new dog park in the City. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Thank you for your support to date on establishing dog parks in our community. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks