HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/2023 Item 2, McKenzie
Wilbanks, Megan
From:John McKenzie <johnnimac@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, May 1, 2023 10:08 AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:PRC Communication - 5-3-23 Meeting Item #2 Righetti
Attachments:PRC 5-3-23 letter.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Please forward our attached response for the upcoming 5-3-23 PRC Meeting. Let me know if you have any questions.
John McKenzie
Friends of SLO City Dog Parks
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
RE: Righetti Park
Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
At your upcoming meeting, staff will be providing an update on the Righetti Park. As you consider this
information and the final design, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (Friends) hope you will consider the
following as it relates to the ‘Railroad Park’ and the ‘Pocket Park’.
Railroad Park. The current proposal for the 1.1 acre Railroad Park includes a dog park, community
garden, picnic area, public art area and parking. Friends hopes you will consider expanding the dog park
size considerably for the following reasons:
1. The American Kennel Club suggests the minimum dog park size should be one acre wherever
possible;
2. This centrally located dog park will be serving not only the Righetti Ranch develop ment, but the
neighboring Sinshimer and French Development areas. If you go a mile in each direction ( a good
distance for owners to walk their dogs before getting to the park), there are over 2500
residential units (which equals about 1500 dogs) OUTSIDE the Righetti Ranch development that
will be using this dog park;
3. The Blueprint includes up to six areas within the City for dog parks, but also indicates that not
more than 3 are needed for the City in the near term (even though Friends would disagree and
thinks all six are needed). With Laguna Lake, Emerson and Righetti now planning for dog parks,
the City will not be compelled to do more as far as dog parks go. Therefore, it would appear no
additional dog parks will be proposed by the City in the foreseeable future;
4. The larger 11 acre park is only one block away, which will have numerous picnic areas and public
art opportunities. Therefore, given the space limitations at the Railroad Park, these activities
should be reduced or eliminated to allow for more useable dog park area.
5. The community garden is potentially a wonderful concept, given the small or no yard residences
within the Righetti development. However, Friends believe this could be moved to the Pocket
Park (see discussion below).
On parking, because of item #2 above and that not all dog owners are able to easily walk from their
residence to the dog park, more parking should be provided. It should be increased two- or three-fold
from what is currently proposed.
Therefore, Friends would encourage the Commission to make Railroad Park exclusively for a dog park.
Pocket Park. The current proposal suggests this sloped area be landscaped with benches and a couple of
pathways to parallel the existing promenade and provide access from the promenade to the
neighborhood to the south. Friends believe this would be an ideal location for the community garden,
assuming the survey shows the Righetti community has such interest. This is based on the following:
A. The current design proposes a walkway parallel to an existing walkway. This is unnecessary as
the existing promenade provides a wonderful pedestrian experience already. A couple of pop-
out benches along the promenade with a windrow or grouping of small shade trees around the
benches would achieve the same effect.
B. As the promenade intersects with Righetti Ranch Road about 100 feet from the pocket park
there is little functional value of providing additional promenade access to this part of the
neighborhood.
C. While the site is sloped, see the following pictures showing successful community gardens built
on slopes. It would be easy to bench this area in a manner that would allow flat areas for either
in ground or raised bed gardening.
D. This would be a passive use that is only used during daylight hours, which would have the least
impact on the immediate neighbors.
E. There are no existing trees on the south side of this pocket park, which will maximize sunlight to
the area. The bioswale along Twin Creeks Road will prevent any future tree planting in this area.
A windrow of medium shrubs could be planted along this edge of the park to screen it from the
neighbors and still allow full sunlight to the gardens.
F. This is a mostly north-facing slope which naturally retain more moisture in the soils due to less
direct sunlight during the day (plants requiring a little less water).
Thank you for considering the above. We can’t wait to have an enclosed dog park in this part of town!
John McKenzie
Friends of SLO City Dog Parks