Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/4/2023 Item 3, McKenzie From:John McKenzie < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:1-4-23 PRC Meeting - Conceptual Plan for LLP Dog Park Attachments:Conceptual -RRM-City2.pdf; 1-4-23 PRC Mtg-Friends Comments on Conceptual Dog Park Plan.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Please forward the attached correspondence and graphic from Friends of SLO City Dog Parks to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their 1/4/23 meeting. Thank you! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 1 Friends of SLO City Dog Parks SLOCITYDOGS.ORG 1 January 2, 2023 Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Our group is excited to see the progress being made towards the City’s first enclosed dog park! In addition to the general safety for all dogs, having such parks will benefit owners with the following types of dogs: • Small dogs that need separation from big dogs • Large dogs that need separation from small dogs • Dogs that do not always stay close to their owner because they: want to explore everything (including beyond existing unfenced dog boundaries), are water do gs drawn to the nearby water/mud ponds, are puppies, are recent rescue dogs, are bird/squirrel/gopher dogs, are dogs visiting the area that may want to wander. We are glad for the current group of dog users at the park whose dogs do not have any of the above issues and can bring their dogs to the existing unfenced area without concern. It will be wonderful once the proposed changes are made so many more of our 13,000 City dogs will be able to enjoy the dog park! We have looked at the proposed conceptual plans. They both have included the same general features while one is rectangular and the other is curvilinear. We strongly prefer the curvilinear design (Option 1). As there is no detailed text with the conceptual plans, we are assuming ‘good practice design’ standards will be used for all proposed elements. We have the following comments about the proposed design of Option 1 (see also the attached graphic): PROS 1. Overall Size – the overall size of the park will provide a wonderful experience for our dog community. The size allows for numerous amenities while not compromising the basic intent of providing large areas for our furry friends to run safely and freely. We would support any additional efforts to push the park further towards the swale bottoms on the west and north sides. There is no evidence of sensitive habitat in the swales, nor defined bottoms indicative of larger erosive flows. These swales drain into closed depressions or ponds below with no outlet to the lake. As the side slopes of these swales do not appear useable for anything else, why not add these to the enclosed park boundaries? 2. Groundcover – we like the proposed mix of groundcover with the ‘large island’ of grass in the middle of each area, with rings of other all-weather cover extending beyond these islands. While grass is the most desirable cover, it does require substantial water and maintenance (unless artificial turf is being considered). The proposed design concept is a great compromise, especially if treated water is used. Any wood chips used should have minimal potential for paw ‘splinter’ impacts. 2 3. Landscaping/Shade – We agree shade sails are needed throughout the park at least until the proposed trees are large enough to provide helpful shade (in about 15 to 20 years). 4. Entry/Staging Area – We like the inclusion of a staging/greeting area at the ‘main’ entrance/ parking area before entering into one of the fenced areas. 5. Parking – As the bathroom parking lot is full most of the time with many vehicles spilling onto the road frequently, we are very supportive of the proposed additional parking along the southern edge of the park. See below for additional comments on parking. 6. Landscaping – we agree with the planting of trees along fence lines. In 15 -20 years, these trees will provide for cooler shady areas for our active dogs. See additional comments below on social environment. 7. Separation/Internal Fences – we agree with the general approach of providing for separation between small and big dogs. See below for more specific comments. 8. Permanent Agility Equipment – we support the installation of permanent agility equipment for fun and challenging activities for the dogs to enjoy. If the mixed -use area remains, only one set of agility stations would be needed for both small and big dogs. We would suggest that the agility stations be concentrated to a smaller area on one side to allow a larger unencumbered area to be used for ball/frisbee play. CONS A. Small/Large dog areas – the proposed design shows 3 fairly equally-sized areas: one for small, one for big and one for mixed use. We believe the small dog area should be reduced. Small dogs will likely range from 10 to 25 lbs. Large dogs will typically range from 50 to 100 lbs. Within the large dog group are the working dogs, which require lots of exercise and lots of room to run. The proposed mixed-use area would provide a large area for those small dogs that also like to run and/or appreciate longer areas to play fetch. The current small dog area is the size of most large dog areas of other dog parks in the county. We would strongly encourage the large dog/small dog area ratio be changed to about a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. Also, keep in mind that there are some large dogs that may only be able to use the large dog area if they have issues with smaller dogs making the mixed-use area unavailable for these dogs. B. Puppy Zone – we were disappointed to not see a separated puppy area. As puppy energy is very different from adult dogs, we felt having such a separation would provide for an initially positive dog park experience for the pups before they transition to the adult areas. It would need to be made clear that any non- or partially-vaccinated puppies are not allowed to avoid the potential transmission of Parvo. One idea might be to call this the VIP (Vaccinated In -full Puppy) Only Zone. Given the size of the overall park, adding such a small area would not diminish the quality of the other areas. C. Agility Training Area – If the large or mixed-use area were sized and designed to allow for periodic use as a competitive or training agility event, this would greatly enhance the dog park as a whole. As the equipment used at such an event is portable and setup/removed after each use, once the event was over it would return to its regular dog park use. Requirements of such an area would include: it is relatively level, at least a 100’ by 100’ area is available and clear of any obstructions, and that there be only one ground cover type (preferably grass). By designing in this potential intermittent use, having such events would attract people from out of the area 3 to participate in or watch such events and bring in revenue for the City. Having local agility training events is a very fulfilling option for many dogs, especially working dogs. D. Social Environment – for current users with small and big dogs, it is a very social affair for many. The current designs make no effort to retain this important element and spreads out focal areas (shad structures/benches) based on dog size. We believe greater efforts need to be applied to improving human social interaction. See attached graphic which locates a key focal area on the fence line between the small and big dog areas. Such an area should include the following: a shade structure straddles large/small dog fence and large enough to provide shade to both sides, wind wall(s) that reduces northwest wind effects while minimizing blocking of view into small dog area, tables/chairs/benches on each side within close proximity of ea ch other to be able to easily socialize across fence, and provide single gate to allow easy human passage to other section. Given the wonderful distant Emerald Hills views, maintaining these distant views for all key focal areas should drive type and placement of new landscaping to retain these views. All focal areas should be designed to encourage human social interaction. E. Individual Benches/Tables – to further improve upon a more social setting, we recommend that for most bench placement they be paired and placed in an ‘L’ formation to allow easier conversation of different dog owners. Including some tables would make it easier/safer for those needing a place to set something down and not be immediately available for the dogs to think they are play toys. F. Memorial/ADA walkways – it is unclear why the long concrete(?) connecting walkways are proposed. If it is because there is very limited parking at the existing lot and main entrance, why not just increase the size of the existing lot? We believe walkways should focus on taking you to shaded areas or other areas wher e it is planned for humans to congregate. Our group would like to eventually see a ‘memorial circle’ and memorial walkways installed. We hope this initial design should at least plan for such a concept now to minimize costs later of having to remove costly things later. If our group would be designing such features they would be ADA compliant and installation would be funded through donations obtained by our organizatio n. Our vision of the Circle would include benches on the outside perimeter combined with showcasing several inspiring pieces of dog art and/or dog poetry/short stories. The circle itself would likely be made up of pavers that have individual inscriptions about a past loved one of the canine variety. Some shrubs could be planted around the circle to provide some privacy as owners may wish to reflect upon their past loved ones. We would be happy to work with the City during final design to find a good place in the park to eventually install this. The attached graphic suggests a location in the mixed-use area. G. Parking – While the newly proposed south parking area is a good start, more should be shown/ planned for. We suggest that 3 more rows of parking be proposed by the existing bathroom. This work could also improve drainage for the existing parking lot and divert the current surface runoff from the eastern hills into the existing swale to the north. Unless this additional bathroom parking is proposed and built relatively soon, we also think the existing eastern dog fence along the road should be pulled away from the road to at least allow enough width for cars to park parallel and be off the road. Installing a windrow of shade trees in this area is also recommended. Currently, it is common to see cars parked on both sides of the road allowing only for one-way travel on a two-way road. 4 H. Wind Protection – as is evident from the group of existing chairs along the southern wall of the bathroom, there is a lot of wind here, every day. People would like a place to go to get out of the strong Los Osos Valley coastal wind that is common almost every afternoon. Durable windbreaks should be included in each of the three sections, probably connected to the main focal areas, such as the shade sails. To minimize graffiti, some form of dog artwork/mural should eventually be planned for each of these walls. If much grading is proposed, any excess could be placed on the northwest side of any walls to create a more natural look. I. Drainage – one of the existing water stations sees substantially more runoff than other water stations. A drainage pipe was installed with an outlet about 50 feet downslope. This outlet area is wet most of the time creating unnecessary muddy conditions. This pipe should be extended (if existing water station remains at its current location) to just out side the new perimeter fence. This is an example that all water stations need careful analysis to make sure that drainage is factored into design and that there will be no standing water or muddy areas created near the water station. Lots of gravel and/or pavers/concrete should go well beyond each station and all drainage calcs factor in lots of water loss from many spilled/emptied water bowls each day. Until a dog rinsing station is installed, dogs will be rinsed off at these locations as well. If water tubs are being considered near water stations, factor in that these will be dumped regularly throughout the day. Any piping should extend downslope to just outside of the fenced area. We are also very interested in the type of fencing to be used. As one conceptual plan intends to retain portions of the existing fence, will this be the type of fencing to be used? What will be the fence height? Please see attached graphic which has taken the curvilinear option, placed it on an aerial of the area and includes some of the changes our group would like to see. As is evident, there are many pieces to make a signature park. As future funding is unknown, it would also be good to prioritize these improvements with essential elements being installed first. As there is at least one volunteer group willing to help towards completing this and other enclosed dog parks, we would encourage further discussion with such groups to maximize outside resources and funding to get this and other dog parks built. Thank you for your consideration of the above items. We would be happy to discuss further any of the above with more information or clarification. This is going to be an amazing dog park! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Dog Park Location Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Site Plan –Laguna Lake Park Small Dog Memorial Circle Area Footprint Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Suggested Changes/Additions to City’s Conceptual Dog Park Design –Laguna Lake Park 100’ x 100’ Agility Course Footprint/Grass New ParkingPuppy Area Permanent Agility Equipment Large Dog Mixed Use New Parking, Walkway and/or Trees Footprint Windwall Shadesail Tables/ChairsSingle gate Small Dog Large Dog