HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/16/2023 Item 2, McKenzie
John McKenzie <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:PRC 8/16/23 Meeting - Emerson Park
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear PRC Commissioners,
At your 8/16 meeting, Staff will be discussing the survey results for the upcoming Emerson Park revitalization. The
revitalization plan includes an enclosed dog park, something long overdue for downtown residents. As there are many
thousands of residences within a reasonable walking distance of a ½ mile, such an improvement will be serving over 1/3
of these residences (national surveys show 1/3 of all households have one or more dogs).
The nationally recognized American Kennel Club suggests enclosed dog parks should be at least one acre in size. While
that size would fit within the 3-acre park area, our group Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (Friends), recognizes such a
request would be unreasonable. However, we strongly feel that any enclosed dog park should not be less than ½-acre.
We request that the Commission recommend to staff the overall design be adjusted so at least ½-acre be set aside for
this use. The larger the dog park the fewer conflicts between dogs will occur.
Given that dog parks require a larger area, and reviewing potentially available locations in the downtown area, this will
be the ONLY opportunity in the foreseeable future for the downtown residences to have a dog park. It should be noted
that there are other nearby City areas (e.g., Mitchell Park, Meadow Park, San Luis Creek) that have ALL of the other
recreational uses proposed for Emerson Park. Therefore, a small reduction of some of these other recreational uses to
allow for a small increase in the dog park size should not be considered significant. Further, these other nearby city
areas cannot or will not be proposing a dog park in the future.
Having a successful downtown enclosed dog park will have a side benefit for downtown tourism. 50% of dog owners
travel with their dogs. Having a fun, safe place to bring their dogs, will encourage such travelers to bring their furry
friends downtown.
Design Features
The proposed conceptual designs appear to be lacking in some details as follows:
1
Shade – shade is an important element of a successful dog park. One of the conceptual plans shows no perimeter tree
planting and the other shows palm trees on the north side, which will provide no shade to the dog park (palms should be
eliminated and replaced with shade trees). Larger shade trees should be planted along the southern sides of both the
small and big dog areas, as well as the eastern and western sides where possible. Large shade structures should be
proposed to provide immediate shade for both dogs and humans. However, any such structures should be placed in a
manner to not interfere with ball throwing areas. On a side note, shade trees around the proposed grassy area should
also be planted to make this area more inviting.
Social Element – benches should be installed along the perimeters of the small and large dog areas. A focus should be
made to centralize some of the benches to encourage human social interaction, such as placing small and big dog area
benches close together so people with different sized dogs can easily socialize ‘across the fence’. Further, such benches
should be placed in the areas to be shaded.
Bioswale – the bioswale should be integrated into the adjacent grassy area. As the bioswale will retain water
only during the very wet periods during the rainy season it would seem to make sense to add to the grassy area. This
may require swapping the location of the grassy area to where the dog park is currently proposed if the bioswale area is
to be the low point of the project.
Separation – Given the small size of this dog park, it is important that the separation fence between small and big dogs
have a solid appearance to reduce conflict between big and small dogs. This could be a great opportunity to apply an
artistic element to create this barrier such as making a series of dog silhouettes using different breeds in fun dog
positions (e.g. sitting, running, etc.).
Groundcover – there is no discussion of groundcover to be used. It would be ideal if the ground cover could be grass. It
would be helpful if staff would clarify this aspect.
Obstacle/agility elements – having such elements is great. However, for the big dog area, we would recommend it be
located along one of the longer sides. For the small dog park, such elements may not work well with the longer, narrow
design.
We hope the Commission agrees with the above discussion and directs staff to make the suggested changes to make for
a more inviting and successful dog park. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
John McKenzie
Friends of SLO City Dog Parks
2