Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/1/2023 Item 2, McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks SLOCITYDOGS.ORG January 30, 2023 RE: 2-1-23 PRC Meeting Latest Conceptual Dog Park Design Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, The latest conceptual plan has made mostly positive improvements from the initial design. However, as now presented, it will exclude a sizable portion of the dog community. Most dog parks have at least two areas to separate the large and small dogs. This is for good reason as some large dogs do not do well with small dogs. The current design has a place for small dogs only which is important. The other larger dog area is identified as mixed use which allows both large and small dogs. There is no place for large dogs that have issues with small dogs. All large dogs need a place to go. We see there are two options to fix this deficiency. The first would be to return to the original concept of having three areas small dog, large dog and mixed dog areas. The second option would be to rename the mixed use area to a large dog area. However,this second option would not be popular with the existing small group of users that have dogs of all sizes that get along. Keep in mind that this dog park is almost 3 acres in size and there is ample area to have 3 separated and nicely-sized dog areas. For comparison, El Chorro Dog Park is about 1-3/4 acres (includes small and big dog areas). This park is 50% larger. When the latest design was presented to our group, several members quickly pointed out that they know of or own large dogs that are not very friendly with small dogs. Why would we want to create a large signature park that only can accommodate all small dogs and only a select group of large dogs? Let us follow the Citys policy of inclusivity for all dogs are like beloved children to those that own them and should be treated as such in the Commissions deliberations. If the Commission does decide on splitting the mixed-use area in two, do not forget to put an emphasis on the human social experience (e.g. put the separation fence through the middle of the shade sail area, or put a separate shade area in each dog area but right next to each other, etc.). Other than the above deficiency, our group is in general support of the proposed design with the following additional comments. The devil is always in the details. The following comments, if supported by the Commission, could be staff-directed modifications that should not require another meeting to discuss: 1. Move Fence away from Dalidio. While new parking is not included with this effort, it is important to locate the dog fence (and/or amenities) correctly now to allow for future parking. This has been done for the south side of the park. However the east side could use some fine-tuning. Once the dog fence is in, we expect a large increase in use. At times, parallel parking is done on both sides of Dalidio allowing only a single narrow lane for traffic to pass in both directions. This will only get worse until the parking aspect is addressed, which could be many years down the road. It would appear logical to anticipate for future parallel parking along Dalidio. The existing fence along the road proposed to remain should be moved at least 10 feet back from its current location to allow for this future parking. If current funding would not easily allow for this replacement now, at least reconsider everything being proposed within or near this 10-foot strip (hardscape, trees, etc.) so if the fence is moved later, removal/restoration costs internal to the small dog park area would be minimal. 2. Agility area should be better defined . The new plan shows about 100 foot by 100 foot area in the small dog park area to be temporarily fenced off for agility activities. This area of the Plan proposes different 1 types of groundcovers, trees and hardscape elements. It is our understanding an agility area needs to be free of permanent obstacles(trees and benches) and the ground surface should be consistent. To accomplish a more agility-friendly area and maintain the overall continuity of multiple ground covers, we would recommend the following for the 100 by 100 agility area: a. shows grass for the 100 by 100 area; b. Reduce the decomposed granite width to about 5 feet on each side of perimeter fence; c. Do not show hardscape, shrubs or trees within this area. With the above, the width of the small dog area for this section should be at least 110 feet. With the previous suggestions to move the fence 10 feet further from Dalidio, that would put the concrete path separating the two dog areas at least 120 feet from Dalidio for the first 100+ feet. 3. Water feature(s) needs better definition. The plan has combined the concept of a dry creek and dog water feature. We believe these are two concepts that should be separated. We do not disagree with the dry creek and its location if it is needed or intended to drain runoff, as long as it does not include standing water or significant mud opportunities. Dog water features should be looked at differently. Such features could range from big water tubs on raised platforms to fountains orconcrete platforms with holes that shoot water out randomly. Any such feature needs to be controllable by humans. Tubs can be emptied and turned over and valves can be turned off with the more elaborate water features. A pond at the bottom of a dry creek cannot. Not all owners want their dogs to get wet, especially during colder months. For now, it might be best to limit discussion of such features to text in an accompanying document to the graphic and not show it on the plan. You could also identify potential general area(s) for future water feature(s). Additionally, you might mention it should be located near a water source and that adequate drainage be considered in any design/location. 4. Built Wind Protection Measures needed. Wind is an afternoon constant at LLP. All of the regulars gather next to the bathroom - not to be close to a bathroom, but rather to get out of the cold, biting and strong winds. To encourage use of the proposed plans more central gathering area in the mixed dog area, there should be an earlyfocus to install wind protection devices here. The proposed windrows of trees to the north are too far away to provide much benefit. Studies show that at 100 feet from a planted tree/shrub windbreak (assumes fully-matured after 30 years, planted at a high density with multiple windrows, trees have grown vigorously with minimal attrition), the windbreak benefits are reduced by 50%, with greater benefit reduction as the distance increases. The proposed windbreak is about 140 feet away from the mixed-use area central shade sails. At least one area within the small dog area should also receive a similar artificial windbreak treatment. While a planted windbreak could provide some benefits in 30 years, a built windbreakwill provide immediate and greater benefits. 5. No Puppy area we were disappointed not to see an area set aside for puppies. One or more Commission members had indicated support for such a component. 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. We look forward to your Commission approving this dog park so bids can be obtained to complete the first step of installingthe perimeter fence. We are still hopeful this will be an amazing dog park for the City! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 2