Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/20/2024 Item 5e, McKenzie John McKenzie < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:8-20-24 City Council Meeting - Consent Item 5e - Laguna Lake Dog Park Attachments:DP-CC8-20-24 Letter.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Hello, Please see attached response from Friends of SLO City Dog Parks about the above-referenced item. Please forward to the Parks and Recreation Director and Public Works Director. Should you have any questions, please let me know. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 1 Friends of SLO City Dog Parks SLOCITYDOGS.ORG 1 . August 14, 2024 RE: City Council 8-20-2024 Meeting - Laguna Lake Dog Park (Consent Item 5e) Dear City Council Members, When the Parks & Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future was approved a couple of years ago, the City Council recognized establishing enclosed dog parks as a very high priority and called out to staff that establishing such a park needs to be a ‘quick build’ item for our 13,000+ dogs in the City eagerly waiting for an enclosed place to legally and safely run. On one hand, our group (Friends of SLO City Dog Parks) supports staff and the City’s recommendation to approve the Base bid and Alternative A to allow initial construction this year of this very long- awaited and long-overdue improvement. We were glad to see the very over-priced shade sail alternative eliminated (for now). On the other hand, we were very dismayed with the bid’s cost estimate for many of the needed improvements and how the City approaches funding projects that have public benefits supported by the community. As pointed out in the staff report, recent bids are coming in well over projected costs. We ask that you keep in mind the primary purpose and customer for this project are our dogs, and their need for a safe and legal place to run, play and socialize. To meet this objective, the bar can easily be reached with minimal, straightforward improvements. The core dog-centric elements should include: site preparation (grading, scarifying, utility lines), install perimeter and separation fencing, provide water, and install an all-weather ground surface. Except for ADA requirements, the rest of the elements could come later to achieve our ultimate goal of having a signature dog park (which would improve the human part of this equation/experience). Getting to our ultimate goal apparently takes a lot more money than is currently available, which gets us to our second point. Some City projects, like this dog park, can have huge community interest and support. Such support and interest can equate to financial and volunteer support from outside sources. These outside sources could include individuals, various non-profit groups and service groups. The City does not have a developed program to tap into this resource. Friends believes for the dog park, due to its simple construction elements and large community interest, had there been such an outreach program, more than ½ of the elements could have been completed or funded by outside sources. Had such a program been in place, the City could have started with an outreach effort to determine the amount and type of outside support and then create a smaller bid request (which could also bring back the competitive bid process where more than one bid is received). For the remainder of this project, we ask the Council direct staff to explore to the extent practical, what outside sources could be used to fund/ construct as many of the smaller unfunded elements as possible. As mostly identified in the staff report, the bid before the Council does not include many smaller elements that were in the original design considered and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Such excluded elements appear to be: wind breaks, dog rinse station, tables, benches, information kiosk, entry sign, obstacle/ agility equipment, storage shed, and new informational signs or dog waste stations (old ones will be used which will be shared between large and small dog areas). These are elements well suited for outside sources to help with. 2 Should the Council decide not to approve the project as recommended by staff, please refer to the attached cost- saving suggestion list. Friends has a couple of issues that do not appear to be addressed in the proposed plan, as follows: Weed abatement. Based on what information was publicly available, it is unclear how the site will be treated for initial weed abatement. If adequate applications of pre-plant emergent products and/or herbicides are not applied before grass, bark and rock is installed, weed control will become an immediate problem and bigger maintenance issue than it needs to be. Is this included in the bid, or is this something that will be done separately by the City? An additional note, bark/mulch thickness matters. If it is not thick enough, weeds will easily grow through this layer. It is common when bark/mulch is commercially applied, it is spread very thinly and ends up not being thick enough to subdue weed growth. Dog Use during construction. It is unclear how long the construction will take, as well as where will the dogs go during this time. Staff should address this aspect as the dogs will still need a place to legally go during construction (there currently is no other legal place in the City to let dogs off leash). We think that either a temporary location within LLP be identified, or the project could be staged or phased to allow rotating use of a portion within the 3-acre project area. Conclusion As it has been years now since the Council directed staff to make construction of a dog park a ‘quick build’ priority, Friends would very much like to see the City Council make a decision that will allow construction to start this year. Friends is ready to help the City to the extent allowed to finally get the City’s first enclosed (and ultimately Signature!) dog park. We are also looking forward to staff continuing their work to make the dog parks at Righetti and Emerson happen as quickly as possible. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 3 Cost-Saving Measures Eliminating/reducing certain activities Grading – The plan proposes grading the entire 3-acre site. The site’s topography is level to gently sloping, ideal for dogs to run and play, AS IS. There is one shallow swale where high groundwater seeps to the surface during portions of the rainy season. The proposed grading will further flatten the site and create a more pronounced swale. If the ½-acre of grassed area remains, the soil underneath should be scarified. Pea gravel is proposed within the swale, which will reduce the potential of exposed muddy areas (swale) in the winter (however, the proposed 2-inch depth will last only a year or two before needing replenishment; use of river rock would look more natural). It is important to note here the dogs’ run and play experience will be no different whether or not the area is graded as proposed. The proposed grading will not change: the drainage of the site; the winter high groundwater/surface seeping condition; or the soil type (clay). The bid proposes $197,000 to grade the site and then another $63,450 to import fill. The following could be done to reduce these costs: Relocate, if needed, the grassed areas to the flattest portions of the site; scarify only under the areas with proposed grass (1/2 acre); limit all other grading to the pathways, parking lot and main entry; limit imported soil to only base material needed for concrete work, or under grass areas; make all efforts to keep overall graded area to less than one acre (and potentially reduce or eliminate the need for a SWPPP ($11,000), and reduced erosion control measures). On erosion control measures, it should be pointed out that all drainage leads to closed depressions/ponds that are between the site and the lake, which means that it is very likely all normal storm-related sediment would go no further than these closed depressions, and have minimal potential to enter the lake during storm runoff times. Irrigation/Grass – Along with the dog park users/groups support, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of an almost fully grassed dog park (2+ acres). Staff’s final design ultimately landed on the ½-acre of grass. Grass is a wonderful medium for dogs to play on. However, it is costly to maintain, uses a lot of water, and there are greater infrastructure costs. In looking at the bid, it appears about $150,000 will be used for grass irrigation infrastructure. If the grass installation was deferred, substantial upfront savings could be made if no lateral lines were installed over the grass areas now but stub outs or dry lines be ‘roughed in’ with the main irrigation line/control box (to perimeter trees/shrubs) to more easily allow a future grass irrigation system. As this very desirable element would diminish the quality of the dog’s experience, Friends would request this be the last thing to consider if cuts or changes are made. Concrete Entry. Concrete flatwork (sidewalk, common areas and entry) is proposed at $287,000 for 10,250 sf. About 2500 sf of this will be for the main entry. A substantial portion of the entry area costs could be eliminated if this was replaced with a memorial brick/paver program. If such a program were supported by the City, it would be completed after the initial work would be done. In its place, the area would be graded for future brick/paver installation, and as a temporary measure for ADA compliance, compacted decomposed granite or similar product, could be used until the bricks were ready to be installed. This approach would collect money for each brick sold. The brick would include an inscription about a past favorite furry friend. Pricing of each brick/paver would be intended to cover site preparation, material costs and installation costs (possibly a little more to help pay for other elements). There are brick/paver making companies out there that do this all the time. Friends would be happy to help administer such an effort on the City’s behalf. This would be a great way to involve most of the City’s residents who have owned or loved a dog (or two) and want a place to memorialize their furry companion. Wood Bark. The bid proposes the placement of 678 cy of wood bark mulch for $73,902. If this was removed from the contract or modified so a tree service company could just deliver bark to the site and it be spread by volunteers, substantial savings could be realized. Taking a local example, Bunyon Bros. charges $25/cy, or $16,950 4 plus delivery (probably around $1000), for playground-grade chips. Should this change be made the City could save over $40,000. Other. During our research we noted some other items with what appear to be very high costs (shade sails, fence gates (maintenance and pedestrian), etc.). Should another bid application process need to be done, we ask staff to take a closer look at these items to make sure enough detail is provided to potentially get a more reasonable cost estimate. Break Project into several pieces One of the development benefits of dog parks is, once you have the core elements installed, the other elements that add to the quality of the dog park can be installed later and independently. We already have an approved plan to work from, and if it cannot all be done at once, focus first on the core elements. The core elements should include: site preparation (grading, scarifying, utility lines), install perimeter fencing, provide water, and install an all-weather ground surface. The rest of the elements would then be identified and prioritized. To some extent, this was done with the bid before you. On the landscaping Alternative, we think all of the main irrigation lines should go in immediately after the site preparation work has been completed. The planting could be done subsequently in two parts. Determine how much can be covered under the City’s ‘10,000 Trees’ climate action program and then planted by volunteers, which would be one part (bid shows trees and planting is $63,000). The second part would be everything else. With regards to the shade sail Alternative B, the City should be reaching out to outside non-profit/service groups to see if this is a type of project they would take on, with City oversight. Allow outside help While most City projects are complex and require a higher level of expertise to design/build and strict adherence to codes for human safety, many dog park elements require very basic construction expertise and the target audience is dogs, not humans. Further, each element could be considered independent of the other elements. For example, putting up a fence does not rely on installation of the shade sails and vice versa. This independence provides the potential flexibility of the elements to be done in phases, as funding is available. It also could allow non-profit and/or service groups to fund and/or construct some of these elements with minimal oversight. Friends is aware of several such groups that could provide such support including the SLO Rotary Club, Cal Poly and a collaboration of Friends and Pacific Beach High School. Many of the larger elements of the dog park are the type of projects that the three Rotary clubs look for to support and could work on either independently or as a collaborative effort. Cal Poly’s Construction Management Department has a program for Senior Projects where the student is responsible to design and build something (with a budget of about $5000). There are many smaller dog park elements (kiosk, dog wash station, windbreak, etc.) that could be completed using this resource. Also, Friends is currently collaborating with Pacific Beach High School to build agility/obstacle course components. If the City was receptive to such outside groups’ help, as dogs are loved by so many, there are likely many more similar opportunities from other organizations.