Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail Batch11 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:09 PM To:Craig Bronzan Cc:Basden, Adam; Hyfield, Devin Subject:RE: Good morning Attachments:SLO - Emerson Park-City_Updated-9.30.21.docx; SLO - Vista Lago Playground_CITYSLO- edits.docx; SLO - Devaul Ranch Playground_CITYSLO-edits.docx Good evening Craig: Please find attached the filled-out forms for the following park locations:  Emerson Park Grant Revitalization  Vista Lago Park Playground  De Vaul Ranch Park Playground Don’t hesitate to contact us for any clarifications or additional information you may need. Looking forward to these moving forward and working with you and the Management Partners Team. Be well, -Greg Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Craig Bronzan <cbronzan@managementpartners.com> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 8:40 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Cc: abasen@slocity.org Subject: Good morning This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Greg - hope you had a great weekend. Is it possible to have the two playground replacement scope sheets completed and sent to me by end of day Wednesday? I also need the expected on-going operating costs for the Emerson Park project. We have an internal update meeting Thursday morning so I was hoping to have the info so I can let the team know they will be done on my end by Friday. Let me know your thoughts. 2 Craig Craig D. Bronzan, Special Advisor Office: 408-437-5400 | Direct: 925-250-9723 2107 North First Street, Suite 470, San Jose, CA 95131 cbronzan@managementpartners.com 3 From:Hyfield, Devin Sent:Thursday, October 7, 2021 3:13 PM To:Basden, Adam Cc:Avakian, Greg Subject:RE: Emerson Park Revitalization pricing? Attachments:11 - Emerson Park Concept Level Site Plan Updated.pdf Hi Adam – See attached for the draft site map for emerson park. Devin Hyfield Recreation Manager T 805.781.7295 From: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 2:51 PM To: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: Emerson Park Revitalization pricing? Devin- Can you forward the amenity map that you created for the Grant to Adam Basden and have him provide the estimated annual maintenance costs if we had the full build out of the project? I need to send that over to Craig Bronson. Thanks, Greg Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STEXERCISE EQUIPMENT (Exisiting) MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS (Exisiting) Drought Tolerant Landscaping New Recreation Features or Support Amenities Hydration station BOCCE COURT Updated Recreation Features or Support AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES (Exisiting)PARKING LOT SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) Compost stationSHADEFIELD (Exisiting) Safety lights RESTROOM 16’ 8” x 24’ 400 sq ft Lights for extended use Storm water barrel Educational garden • New Recreation Features: Dog Park, Educational Garden, Mosaic Public Art, Mural Public Art on restroom, Multi- purpose court and dog park lighting to allow for extended use, Shade Structures to allow for extended day time use • New Major Support Amenities: Restroom Building, Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Safety foot lighting, Storm water barrel, Compost station • Updated Recreation Features: Update and relocate Bocce Courts, Convert Basketball Court to Multi-purpose Court and expand by half court, Expand Playground • Updated Major Support Amenities: Perimeter fencing, update drinking fountain to hydration station • New and existing building space at the park makes up approximately 4% of the overall area. 4 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 3:11 PM To:cbronzan@managementpartners.com Cc:Hyfield, Devin Subject:RE: Emerson Grant Information Attachments:SLO - Emerson Park-City_Updated-9.30.21.docx Updated Emerson Park Project form from September 30, 2021 meeting is attached. Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 2:54 PM To: cbronzan@managementpartners.com Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: Emerson Grant Information See attached. The actual grant Devin Hyfield pronouns he/him/his Recreation Manager Parks & Recreation Aquatics, Facilities and Golf 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E DHyfield@slocity.org T 805.781.7295 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 5 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 4:46 PM To:Craig Bronzan; Hyfield, Devin Cc:Moore, Shelsie; Jan Perkins; Steven Kahn; Paul McCreary; Fields, Paul Subject:RE: Team meeting on Emerson Park Attachments:SLO - Emerson Park-City_Updated.docx Good afternoon Craig- We have reviewed and added a few items to the document. Looking forward to the discussion tomorrow afternoon. Be well, -Greg Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Craig Bronzan <cbronzan@managementpartners.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:56 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Cc: Moore, Shelsie <smoore@slocity.org>; Jan Perkins <jperkins@managementpartners.com>; Steven Kahn <skahn@managementpartners.com>; Paul McCreary <pmccreary@managementpartners.com>; Fields, Paul <pfields@slocity.org> Subject: Team meeting on Emerson Park This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Devin/Greg: for our Team meeting tomorrow on Emerson Park, I have attached a very rough draft word document of the worksheet I am working on for the project. Please review the document and come prepared to help me fill in the information that is missing that you might know. I went ahead and put in the information I knew or thought I knew, so feel free to let me know if the info I have added needs to be corrected or changed and help me fill in as much of the rest as possible. Thanks and I look forward to talking with you tomorrow. By the way, I will forward you the sheets for the two playground replacements on Friday for our Monday meeting (they are the same sheet for each project). Let me know if you have any questions. 6 Craig Craig D. Bronzan, Special Advisor Office: 408-437-5400 | Direct: 925-250-9723 2107 North First Street, Suite 470, San Jose, CA 95131 cbronzan@managementpartners.com 7 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:50 PM To:Hyfield, Devin Subject:Emerson Park info Attachments:SLO - Emerson Park_City_Updates.docx Devin- I filled in some additional content. Please review and resave then send back to me so I can route back to Craig for our meeting Thursday afternoon. FYI - My content is in light blue. Craig’s is in dark blue and underlined Thanks! Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 8 From:Craig Bronzan <cbronzan@managementpartners.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 8:56 AM To:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin Cc:Moore, Shelsie; Jan Perkins; Steven Kahn; Paul McCreary; Fields, Paul Subject:Team meeting on Emerson Park Attachments:SLO - Emerson Park.docx This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Devin/Greg: for our Team meeting tomorrow on Emerson Park, I have attached a very rough draft word document of the worksheet I am working on for the project. Please review the document and come prepared to help me fill in the information that is missing that you might know. I went ahead and put in the information I knew or thought I knew, so feel free to let me know if the info I have added needs to be corrected or changed and help me fill in as much of the rest as possible. Thanks and I look forward to talking with you tomorrow. By the way, I will forward you the sheets for the two playground replacements on Friday for our Monday meeting (they are the same sheet for each project). Let me know if you have any questions. Craig Craig D. Bronzan, Special Advisor Office: 408-437-5400 | Direct: 925-250-9723 2107 North First Street, Suite 470, San Jose, CA 95131 cbronzan@managementpartners.com 9 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Saturday, July 31, 2021 9:24 AM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:8-4 PRC Meeting - Blueprint for the Future Attachments:PRC - 8-4-21 Meeting letter.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Parks & Recreation Commission, Now that we have an approved Blueprint for the City’s recreational needs it’s time to get to work! As you know, enclosed dog parks ranked high in the document. Further, the City Council directed staff to find some ‘quick build’ recreational elements, specifically including dog parks. In my July letter to your Commission, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) identified three locations that could potentially fulfill the City Council’s ‘quick build’ directive as follows: Option 1 – Righetti Ranch • A small Dog Park (1/4 acre) is already planned for the larger community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); Final planning and design of this park has begun but will likely take several years before it is constructed; also, the proposed ¼-acre size is too small for an enclosed dog park; • Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to apply towards city park elements; • Within the Specific Plan, the City owns several parcels within the Righetti Ranch for park use; one of these is about 1 acre in size and could be considered mostly ‘dog park ready’ and could be constructed within a year; it is relatively flat, has irrigation and potable water nearby, and one side is already fenced. • Design work should be relatively quick and straight-forward. The property is located near the internal roundabout and is bounded by the railroad, the linear detention basin and Righetti Ranch Road; • the main current drawback is that it is the existing staging area for the current home construction effort and would need to relocate (there are other available large areas for staging); the lack of shade currently will be remedied with perimeter planting of trees, and/or a shade structure (another Council ‘quick build’ directive); • the existing driveway on Righetti Ranch Road to this parcel would be used; a small parking lot should be included; • the original recreational use for this parcel included a community garden; this could be included in the new design; • This location could be either permanent (and then delete from Righetti park elements) or interim when a nearby comparably-sized area is identified (either as a part of the larger Righetti Park, or possibly Islay Park, if a comparable ballfield is built nearby (and then convert the Islay ballfield to a dog park)). Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) • Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); • Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate for an enclosed park; • LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; a larger size would allow for a higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); • Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; • Existing parking and bathroom; • Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; • Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; • San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park • The City has submitted a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; • Should this grant be awarded construction could begin as early as next year; • This would serve existing downtown residential communities; • Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. One of our ideas we hope to develop with the City is holding a monthly ‘Yappy Hour’, maybe at Laguna Lake Park, hopefully showcasing our local breweries and wineries . SLOCITYDOGS is also willing to assist the pursuit of grants (e.g., PetSafe) to help supplement costs. We are so excited that the City has taken a well-deserved interest in seeing dog parks become a part of the City of SLO experience. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging in anticipation, John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 10 From:Adrienne Harris <adrienne@adrienne-harris.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:52 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:Materials continued Attachments:Emerson Park Budget Example.pdf; EMERSON 2021 site map example.pdf; DWR Mid-higuera budget example.pdf; Urban Green Site Map.pdf; Urban Green Budget Example.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Here are the example budgets and site maps. -a Adrienne Harris (she/her/hers) Principal Adrienne Harris Consulting www.adrienne-harris.com 805-316-0746 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STExercise Equipment MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS Drought Tolerant Landscaping New Recreation Features or Support Amenities Hydration station BOCCE COURT Updated Recreation Features or Support AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES PARKING LOT SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) Compost stationSHADEFIELD Safety lights RESTROOM 16’ 8” x 24’ 400 sq ft Lights for extended use Storm water barrel Educational garden • New Recreation Features: Dog Park, Educational Garden, Mosaic Public Art, Mural Public Art on restroom, Multi- purpose court and dog park lighting to allow for extended use, Shade Structures to allow for extended day time use • New Major Support Amenities: Restroom Building, Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Safety foot lighting, Storm water barrel, Compost station • Updated Recreation Features: Update and relocate Bocce Courts, Convert Basketball Court to Multi-purpose Court and expand by half court, Expand Playground • Updated Major Support Amenities: Perimeter fencing, update drinking fountain to hydration station • New and existing building space at the park makes up approximately 4% of the overall area. GRANT SCOPE/COST ESTIMATE FORM EMERSON NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT Follow the directions starting on page 37. GRANT SCOPE ITEMS ACQUISITIONS: List each parcel number, acreage, estimated date of purchase, and cost DEVELOPMENT: List each RECREATION FEATURE and MAJOR SUPPORT AMENITY ESTIMATED COST Construct a New Restroom, Hydration Stations (2) & Water Service $690,000 Resurface Black Top $150,000 Construct New Educational Garden $120,000 Playground Expansion (addition of 5-12 yr) $400,000 Relocation of (2) Bocce Courts $60,000 Construct New Landscaping, Improve Irrigation, and Conduct Site Work (On-Site ADA improvements, bio-swales, permeable pavers, drainage, hardscape, grading, etc.) $370,000 ½ Acre Large/Small Dog Park w/ fencing & lighting $200,000 Construct (3) New Shade Structures $60,000 Court Program Lighting $60,000 Safety Lighting $80,000 Removal of Chain-link Fencing; Installation of Decorative Fencing (where applicable) $60,000 Construction Management and Inspection $300,000 Public Art Mural and Tile Material $10,000 Total Estimated Cost for the RECREATION FEATURES and MAJOR SUPPORT AMENITIES (A) $2,560,000 DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BA676E2-A18A-4FD7-996D-4025A4F2A1DA Total Estimated PRE-CONSTRUCTION COST (B) $250,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST (A+B) $2,810,000 Requested GRANT Amount $2,810,000 Estimated amount of the GRANT to be charged to PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS (cannot exceed 25% of the GRANT) $250,000 The APPLICANT understands that this form will be used to establish the expected GRANT deliverables; all of the RECREATION FEATURES and MAJOR SUPPORT AMENITIES listed on this form must be completed and open to the public before the final GRANT payment will be made. The APPLICANT also understands that no more than 25% of the GRANT amount may be spent on PRE-CONSTRUCTION costs. See the ELIGIBLE COSTS charts starting on page Error! Bookmark not defined. before creating a cost estimate. ________________________________ ________ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BA676E2-A18A-4FD7-996D-4025A4F2A1DA 3/8/2021 | 5:59 PM PST Project Element Unit of  Measure Unit Price Quantity Total Amount UG Grant City Funds Project Administration Hour 56.31$              300 16,893.00$              16,893.00$          Permits Hour 56.31$              20 1,126.20$                1,126.20$            Civil Design ‐ curb ramps, stormwater treatments LS 50,000.00$     1 50,000.00$              50,000.00$          Subtotal Task 1 (not to exceed 25% of grant) 68,019.20$              50,000.00$         18,019.20$          Mobilization LS 50,000.00$     1 50,000.00$              50,000.00$         ‐$                      Grading LS 50,000.00$     1 50,000.00$              50,000.00$         ‐$                      Street Reconstruction LS 70,000.00$     1 70,000.00$              70,000.00$          Traffic Control LS 40,000.00$     1 40,000.00$              40,000.00$         ‐$                      Subtotal Task 2 210,000.00$            210,000.00$      ‐$                      Trees ‐ Supply and Install (5‐Gallon Pistacia Chinesis) EA 400.00$          60 24,000.00$              24,000.00$         ‐$                      Bioretention SQFT 27.00$              2250 60,750.00$              60,750.00$         ‐$                      Landscaping LS 85,000.00$     1 85,000.00$              85,000.00$         ‐$                      Planter boxes with plants EA 500.00$          400 200,000.00$            200,000.00$      ‐$                      Pervious Curb and Gutter LF 80.00$              150 12,000.00$              12,000.00$         ‐$                      Filtrex Storm Drain Filter EA 1,500.00$       27 40,500.00$              40,500.00$          Subtotal Task 3 422,250.00$            381,750.00$      40,500.00$          Class 4 Bicycle Lane LF 50.00$              5250 262,500.00$            262,500.00$      ‐$                      Class 1 Bicycle Path LF 900.00$          550 495,000.00$            495,000.00$      ‐$                      Class 3 Bicycle Boulevard/Shared Street LF 12.00$              3000 36,000.00$              36,000.00$         ‐$                      Subtotal Task 4 793,500.00$            793,500.00$      ‐$                      Curb Ramp and Bulbouts LS 400,000.00$  1 400,000.00$            400,000.00$       Hi‐Visibility Crosswalk EA 3,000.00$       20 60,000.00$              60,000.00$          Path Lighting EA 10,000.00$     7 70,000.00$              70,000.00$         ‐$                      Subtotal Task 5 530,000.00$            70,000.00$         460,000.00$       Public Art LS 50,000.00$     1 50,000.00$              50,000.00$          Hwy 101 Underpass Lighting and Decorative Fencing LS 150,000.00$  1 150,000.00$            150,000.00$       Subtotal Task 6 200,000.00$            ‐$                      200,000.00$       Funding Signage EA 500.00$          8 4,000.00$                4,000.00$           ‐$                      Subtotal Task 7 4,000.00$                4,000.00$           ‐$                      10% of Construction Costs LS 195,975.00$  1 195,975.00$            195,975.00$      ‐$                      Subtotal Task 8 195,975.00$            195,975.00$      ‐$                      TOTAL:2,423,744.20$        1,705,225.00$   718,519.20$       8. Contingencies 7. Other 1. Project Management 2. Site Preparation 3. Green Elements 4. Bicycle Lanes 5. Pedestrian Improvements 6. Public Art Elements 15 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:08 AM To:Scott, Shawna Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin Subject:RE: CEQA NOE - Need to File updated NOE Theoretically as soon as possible to increase our chances of receiving the grant – but I’m sure if we get it in by the end of the month, that would be fine too. They seem to still be reviewing applications and doing site visits. If tomorrow works, since we need to file the NOD for the P&R IS/ND, that would be awesome! From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:04 AM To: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: RE: CEQA NOE - Need to File updated NOE No problem, when do you need it? We also need to file the NOD for the P&R IS/ND, maybe we can take care of both filings at the same time tomorrow? From: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 8:59 AM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: CEQA NOE - Need to File updated NOE Importance: High Hi Shawna, We had a site visit yesterday with State Parks regarding our Emerson Park Revitalization Project. At the site visit, our grant contact said we can’t use the NOE already filed with the previous project description (attached), but will need to re-file the NOE with the county to specify the lighting, and the other changes to the site plan. Is there anyway you can work on this? I know you have a lot going on, so if we can in any way do any portion of this, please let me know. I know we needed Shelly’s signature – does a DocuSign signature work for these forms or should it be a wet signature? Here is the updated project description: The Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project includes activation and enhancement of Emerson Park, based on public input through targeted public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Key project amenities includes the construction of restrooms, resurfacing of the black top, expansion of the current basketball court to a multi-purpose court and adding a half court, expand and revitalize the current playground, creation of a fenced dog park, installation of an educational garden featuring drought tolerant landscaping, installation of compost bins and storm water barrel, additional drought tolerant landscaping, update and relocate the bocce court, updated perimeter fencing, the installation of safety lighting along walking paths and extended use lighting on the multi-purpose court and dog park, installation of additional hydration stations and shade structures, and installation of solar panels on the restrooms. Thank you so much for your help! 16 Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 17 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Wednesday, July 7, 2021 8:59 AM To:Scott, Shawna Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin Subject:CEQA NOE - Need to File updated NOE Attachments:Emerson Park NOE.pdf Importance:High Hi Shawna, We had a site visit yesterday with State Parks regarding our Emerson Park Revitalization Project. At the site visit, our grant contact said we can’t use the NOE already filed with the previous project description (attached), but will need to re-file the NOE with the county to specify the lighting, and the other changes to the site plan. Is there anyway you can work on this? I know you have a lot going on, so if we can in any way do any portion of this, please let me know. I know we needed Shelly’s signature – does a DocuSign signature work for these forms or should it be a wet signature? Here is the updated project description: The Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project includes activation and enhancement of Emerson Park, based on public input through targeted public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Key project amenities includes the construction of restrooms, resurfacing of the black top, expansion of the current basketball court to a multi-purpose court and adding a half court, expand and revitalize the current playground, creation of a fenced dog park, installation of an educational garden featuring drought tolerant landscaping, installation of compost bins and storm water barrel, additional drought tolerant landscaping, update and relocate the bocce court, updated perimeter fencing, the installation of safety lighting along walking paths and extended use lighting on the multi-purpose court and dog park, installation of additional hydration stations and shade structures, and installation of solar panels on the restrooms. Thank you so much for your help! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 18 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Tuesday, July 6, 2021 10:27 AM To:Pease, Andy Subject:Re: RE: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future Hi Andy, Thanks for your support! I look forward to any direction you and the other Council members can provide to staff on the issue this evening, as well as in the future. The more they hear the more likely it will stay near the top of the recreation improvement list! In the coming months I hope that we can make some real progress to building an enclosed fence at some location. If it turns out that additional funds are needed, I'll be gearing up the fundraising efforts in hopes that any momentum is not dashed as w ell as to make our dog park(s) the best in the county! Thanks again! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Great work, John! I think the pieces are in place, and I appreciate your ongoing constructive advocacy and ideas. Count me in for a contribution when the fundraising begins! Andy Andy Pease pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E apease@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 -----Original Message----- From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ 19 Dear City Council, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). Further, it was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and the suggestion of finding recreational items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements initially needed are not too costly (install fence, water lines, and groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As additional funds become available more amenities would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, the City has 11 existing City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and still provide existing recreational uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s existing parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, options have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. Option 1 – Righetti Ranch · A small Dog Park is already planned for community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); · Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to construct essential park elements; · Enough residences (with a third of these households having dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construction of the City park portion of the Specific Plan; · The City owns several parcels within Righetti for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that are almost ‘dog park ready’, and would require minimal design efforts and be built quickly; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righetti Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed dog park; - Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences occupied (yet); would serve Righetti development and nearby existing French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; would be at least ½-acre in size; - Cons – existing staging area for home construction effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however portion near driveway could be left open for interim informal parking until final recreational use determined); no bathroom; - Could be permanent location or interim until larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) · Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); · Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; · LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); · Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; · Existing parking and bathroom; · Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; · Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; · San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park · The City has submitted a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; · Should this grant be awarded construction could begin as early as next year; · This would serve existing downtown residential communities; · Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreational needs. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 20 Tails wagging (with just a little drool), John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 21 From:Pease, Andy Sent:Tuesday, July 6, 2021 8:44 AM To:John McKenzie Subject:RE: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future Great work, John! I think the pieces are in place, and I appreciate your ongoing constructive advocacy and ideas. Count me in for a contribution when the fundraising begins! Andy Andy Pease pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E apease@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 -----Original Message----- From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Dear City Council, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). Further, it was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and the suggestion of finding recreational items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements initially needed are not too costly (install fence, water lines, and groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As additional funds become available more amenities would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, 22 the City has 11 existing City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and still provide existing recreational uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s existing parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, options have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. Option 1 – Righetti Ranch · A small Dog Park is already planned for community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); · Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to construct essential park elements; · Enough residences (with a third of these households having dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construction of the City park portion of the Specific Plan; · The City owns several parcels within Righetti for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that are almost ‘dog park ready’, and would require minimal design efforts and be built quickly; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righetti Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed do g park; - Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences occupied (yet); would serve Righetti development and nearby existing French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; would be at least ½-acre in size; - Cons – existing staging area for home construction effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however portion near driveway could be left open for interim informal parking until final recreational use determined); no bathroom; - Could be permanent location or interim until larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) · Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); · Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; · LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); · Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; · Existing parking and bathroom; · Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; · Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; · San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park · The City has submitted a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; · Should this grant be awarded construction could begin as early as next year; · This would serve existing downtown residential communities; · Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreational needs. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging (with just a little drool), John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 23 From:Wilbanks, Megan Sent:Tuesday, July 6, 2021 8:28 AM To:John McKenzie Subject:RE: Parks & Rec Commission 7/7/21 Meeting - Blueprint for the Future Good Morning, Thank you for taking the Ɵme to contact the Parks & RecreaƟon Commission on this topic; your message has been provided directly to them. Your remarks have been added to the Agenda Correspondence record for the July 7, 2021 Parks & RecreaƟon Commission meeƟng. Sincerely, City Clerk's Office City AdministraƟon 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cityclerk@slocity.org T (805) 781-7100 -----Original Message----- From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 5:04 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: Parks & Rec Commission 7/7/21 MeeƟng - Blueprint for the Future This message is from an External Source. Use cauƟon when deciding to open aƩachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Dear Commission, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and RecreaƟon’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). It was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and their suggesƟon of finding recreaƟonal items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements iniƟally needed are not too costly (install fence, water lines, and groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As addiƟonal funds become available more ameniƟes would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, the City has 11 exisƟng City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and sƟll provide exisƟng recreaƟonal uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s exisƟng parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, opƟons have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. OpƟon 1 – Righeƫ Ranch · A small Dog Park is already planned for community park within OrcuƩ Area Specific Plan (Righeƫ Ranch); · Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construcƟon, funding is currently available to construct essenƟal park elements; · Enough residences (with a third of these households having 24 dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construcƟon of the City park porƟon of the Specific Plan; · The City owns several parcels within Righeƫ for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that are almost ‘dog park ready’, and would require minimal design efforts and be built quickly; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righeƫ Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed dog park; - Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences occupied (yet); would serve Righeƫ development and nearby exisƟng French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; would be at least ½-acre in size; - Cons – exisƟng staging area for home construcƟon effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however porƟon near driveway could be leŌ open for interim informal parking unƟl final recreaƟonal use determined); no bathroom; - Could be permanent locaƟon or interim unƟl larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. OpƟon 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) · Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separaƟon); · Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; · LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with addiƟonal elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); · ParƟal ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; · ExisƟng parking and bathroom; · ExisƟng water source with a couple of exisƟng dog water staƟons; · ExisƟng benches, dog waste staƟons (bags, trash) and signage; · San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreaƟonal fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. OpƟon 3 – Emerson Park · The City has submiƩed a grant applicaƟon with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; · Should this grant be awarded construcƟon could begin as early as next year; · This would serve exisƟng downtown residenƟal communiƟes; · Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of ameniƟes not included in any iniƟally constructed dog park that has limited ameniƟes to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreaƟonal needs. Should you have any quesƟons, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging (with just a liƩle drool), John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 25 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Saturday, July 3, 2021 10:52 AM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:Re: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future Hi Erica, Thanks for your support. Always interested in new potential locations. Are you referring to Johnson or Sinshiemer Parks? Both of these do have enough area (1/2 acre minimum) to be considered for dog parks but I do not think would be on the 'quick build' track. Also, there certainly is enough surrounding residential to support a dog park at one of these locations. Or maybe you are thinking of other available areas? If there are any other 'quick build' opportunities besides the three I've listed, I would be happy to add them to the list! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Dear John, Thanks for you support of the Parks & Rec Blueprint and for your dog park suggestions. I support additional enclosed park(s). Would love to see one in my neighborhood by Orcutt. There are a couple of great locations from Broad to Johnson on Orcutt through to Tank Farm. Best wishes! Erica Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Council Member To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.City of San Luis Obispo Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org slocity.org To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Dear City Council, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). Further, it was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and the 26 suggestion of finding recreational items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements initially needed are not too costly (install fence, water lines, and groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As additional funds become available more amenities would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, the City has 11 existing City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and still provide existing recreational uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s existing parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, options have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. Option 1 – Righetti Ranch · A small Dog Park is already planned for community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); · Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to construct essential park elements; · Enough residences (with a third of these households having dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construction of the City park portion of the Specific Plan; · The City owns several parcels within Righetti for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that are almost ‘dog park ready’, and would require minimal design efforts and be built quickly; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righetti Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed dog park; - Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences occupied (yet); would serve Righetti development and nearby existing French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; would be at least ½- acre in size; - Cons – existing staging area for home construction effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however portion near driveway could be left open for interim informal parking until final recreational use determined); no bathroom; - Could be permanent location or interim until larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) · Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); · Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; · LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); · Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; · Existing parking and bathroom; · Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; · Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; · San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park · The City has submitted a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; · Should this grant be awarded construction could begin as early as next year; · This would serve existing downtown residential communities; · Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to 27 play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreational needs. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging (with just a little drool), John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 28 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Saturday, July 3, 2021 10:13 AM To:John McKenzie Subject:Re: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future Dear John, Thanks for you support of the Parks & Rec Blueprint and for your dog park suggestions. I support additional enclosed park(s). Would love to see one in my neighborhood by Orcutt. There are a couple of great locations from Broad to Johnson on Orcutt through to Tank Farm. Best wishes! Erica Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:57 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 7/6/21 Council Meeting - Item 6a - Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Dear City Council, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). Further, it was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and the suggestion of finding recreational items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements initially needed are not too costly (install fence, water lines, and groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As additional funds become available 29 more amenities would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, the City has 11 existing City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and still provide existing recreational uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s existing parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, options have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. Option 1 – Righetti Ranch · A small Dog Park is already planned for community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); · Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to construct essential park elements; · Enough residences (with a third of these households having dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construction of the City park portion of the Specific Plan; · The City owns several parcels within Righetti for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that are almost ‘dog park ready’, and would require minimal design efforts and be built quickly; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righetti Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed dog park; - Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences occupied (yet); would serve Righetti development and nearby existing French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; would be at least ½- acre in size; - Cons – existing staging area for home construction effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however portion near driveway could be left open for interim informal parking until final recreational use determined); no bathroom; - Could be permanent location or interim until larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) · Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); · Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; · LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.)); · Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; · Existing parking and bathroom; · Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; · Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; · San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park · The City has submitted a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; · Should this grant be awarded construction could begin as early as next year; · This would serve existing downtown residential communities; · Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreational needs. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging (with just a little drool), 30 John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 31 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Friday, July 2, 2021 11:00 AM To:Avakian, Greg Subject:Draft Dog Park letter to Council Attachments:Quick Build Dog Park - July 6-2021 City Council letter.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use cauƟon when deciding to open aƩachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Hi Greg, Please see aƩached draŌ leƩer to the City Council - let me know if you have any thoughts before I send. Talk to you at 1pm. John McKenzie Dear City Council, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLOCITYDOGS) fully endorses Parks and Recreation’s Blueprint for the Future 2020-2040 (Blueprint). Further, it was very encouraging to hear the City Council’s support of dog parks at their Study Session, and the suggestion of finding recreational items that would fall into the ‘quick build’ category, including dog parks. As the merits and need for enclosed dog parks have been previously discussed (and recognized in the Blueprint as a high priority), we would like to focus on what we think could be quick build dog parks for the City’s 13,000 dogs. The beauty of establishing an enclosed dog park, assuming at least ½ acre of useable land is available, is that the improvements initially needed are not too costly (fence, water, groundcover) and the shape of the park can be variable, as long as there is good drainage and the slope is not too steep. As additional funds become available more amenities would be added to make for a signature park (if needed). Further, there is a non-profit group ready to help make the dog park a success. Lastly, the City has 11 existing City parks that could accommodate dog parks (1/2 acre or larger) and still provide existing recreational uses with minimal impacts. In reviewing the City’s existing parks and other new development, SLOCITYDOGS thinks that the following two, maybe three, options have the best chance to provide the quickest path to an enclosed dog park. Option 1 – Righetti Ranch • Small Dog Park already planned for community park within Orcutt Area Specific Plan (Righetti Ranch); • Each home sale has included monies earmarked for park development. As a few phases have already been built, and more are under construction, funding is currently available to construct essential park elements; • Enough residences (with dogs) are now occupied to trigger final design and construction of the City park portion of the Specific Plan; • The City owns several parcels within Righetti for park use; while the larger community park area will require a couple of years to design and build, there are other smaller pieces that could be considered for an enclosed dog park; one of these parcels, a one acre lot between the railroad and Righetti Ranch Road, would be perfect for an enclosed dog park; o Pros for this site: nearly level, near water source; no nearby residences (yet); would serve Righetti development and nearby existing French development (for now); fence already exists along one side; o Cons – existing staging area for home construction effort – would need to relocate; no shade; limited/no nearby parking (however portion near driveway could be left open for interim informal parking) until final recreational use determined; no bathroom; o Could be permanent location or interim until larger park details are finalized and an adequately sized dog park is located within the larger planned park. Option 2 - Laguna Lake Park (LLP) • Dog use already established (but only for dogs that do well without needing a fence, or small/big dog separation); • Blueprint recognizes this park as a good candidate; • LLP is an underdeveloped park that could easily accommodate an amply-sized enclosed dog park; larger size allows for higher quality park with additional elements to make for a signature dog park experience (e.g., include a memorial walkway and circle with dog-inspired art/poetry; larger area could accommodate limited dog-related events (e.g., trainings, agility course, fundraisers, etc.) • Partial ‘safety’ fence is already in place and could be used as a part of the fully enclosed dog park; • Existing parking and bathroom; • Existing water source with a couple of existing dog water stations; • Existing benches, dog waste stations (bags, trash) and signage; • San Luis Ranch’s development agreement directs some recreational fees towards Laguna Lake Park of which some could be used for a dog park. Option 3 – Emerson Park • The City has a grant application with the state to renovate Emerson Park, which includes an enclosed dog park; • Should this grant be awarded (announcement expected in August), construction could begin next year; • This would serve existing downtown residential communities; • Could also serve downtown hotels that are dog-friendly, and other downtown visitors with dogs. SLOCITYDOGS is prepared to conduct fundraising efforts to supplement the cost of amenities not included in any initially constructed dog park that has limited amenities to help make each new dog park a desirable place to take one’s dog to play. We are so excited that the City has interest in including dog parks as a part of the ‘quick build’ concept as a part of our most immediate recreational needs. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tails wagging (with a little drool), John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 32 From:Hix, Kathleen Sent:Thursday, June 24, 2021 11:22 AM To:Nelson, Brian Subject:CIP projects check status? Attachments:List.xlsx Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Kathleen Hix pronouns she/her/hers Engineering Technician II Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E khix@slocity.org T 805.781.7161 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 33 From:Ettestad, Sahvanna Sent:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:25 PM To:Bergam, Aleah Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:RE: Emerson Park Concept Plan - Update Attachments:EMERSON 2021.pdf Updated! Sahvanna Ettestad Communications Coordinator Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E settesta@slocity.org T 805.781.7282 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Ettestad, Sahvanna Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 3:47 PM To: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Emerson Park Concept Plan - Update Can do! Sahvanna Ettestad Communications Coordinator Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E settesta@slocity.org T 805.781.7282 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 34 From: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:45 PM To: Ettestad, Sahvanna <settesta@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org> Subject: Emerson Park Concept Plan - Update Importance: High Hi Sahvanna, Can you make a few changes to the attached Emerson Park Concept Plan? We received some feedback from state parks and they are confused on which amenities will be renovated and created vs which are existing amenities. Can you add (existing) after the Community Gardens, Picnic Tables, Exercise Equipment and Field text? Ex: Community Gardens (existing) Thank you! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STEXERCISE EQUIPMENT (Exisiting) MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS (Exisiting) Drought Tolerant Landscaping New Recreation Features or Support Amenities Hydration station BOCCE COURT Updated Recreation Features or Support AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES (Exisiting)PARKING LOT SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) Compost stationSHADEFIELD (Exisiting) Safety lights RESTROOM 16’ 8” x 24’ 400 sq ft Lights for extended use Storm water barrel Educational garden • New Recreation Features: Dog Park, Educational Garden, Mosaic Public Art, Mural Public Art on restroom, Multi- purpose court and dog park lighting to allow for extended use, Shade Structures to allow for extended day time use • New Major Support Amenities: Restroom Building, Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Safety foot lighting, Storm water barrel, Compost station • Updated Recreation Features: Update and relocate Bocce Courts, Convert Basketball Court to Multi-purpose Court and expand by half court, Expand Playground • Updated Major Support Amenities: Perimeter fencing, update drinking fountain to hydration station • New and existing building space at the park makes up approximately 4% of the overall area. 35 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:45 PM To:Ettestad, Sahvanna Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:Emerson Park Concept Plan - Update Attachments:11 - Emerson Park Concept Level Site Plan (002).pdf Importance:High Hi Sahvanna, Can you make a few changes to the attached Emerson Park Concept Plan? We received some feedback from state parks and they are confused on which amenities will be renovated and created vs which are existing amenities. Can you add (existing) after the Community Gardens, Picnic Tables, Exercise Equipment and Field text? Ex: Community Gardens (existing) Thank you! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STExercise Equipment MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS Drought Tolerant Landscaping New Recreation Features or Support Amenities Hydration station BOCCE COURT Updated Recreation Features or Support AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES PARKING LOT SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) Compost stationSHADEFIELD Safety lights RESTROOM 16’ 8” x 24’ 400 sq ft Lights for extended use Storm water barrel Educational garden • New Recreation Features: Dog Park, Educational Garden, Mosaic Public Art, Mural Public Art on restroom, Multi- purpose court and dog park lighting to allow for extended use, Shade Structures to allow for extended day time use • New Major Support Amenities: Restroom Building, Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Safety foot lighting, Storm water barrel, Compost station • Updated Recreation Features: Update and relocate Bocce Courts, Convert Basketball Court to Multi-purpose Court and expand by half court, Expand Playground • Updated Major Support Amenities: Perimeter fencing, update drinking fountain to hydration station • New and existing building space at the park makes up approximately 4% of the overall area. 36 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:34 AM To:Pease, Andy Subject:RE: 5/5/21 City Council Hearing – Item 19 – Parks & Rec Blueprint Hi Andy, I did listen in and I was planning on thanking you and all of the other Council members on your mention of and support for dog parks. Thank you! I think your collective comments may help in the Emerson Park redo, if the state grant is awarded, and the greater chance of a dog park included in the redesign. Any further efforts would be so helpful to either earmark $$ for dog parks and/or direct staff to seriously start identifying which park would be the first for an enclosed dog park. If the City does not go after the PetSafe Grant ($25,000), Friends of SLO City Dog Parks will. Anything the grant application can point to that shows the C ity is supportive of building a dog park at a specific location will go a long way towards being selected. Thanks again for your support! John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks -----Original Message----- From: "Pease, Andy" Sent: May 5, 2021 9:17 AM To: John McKenzie Subject: RE: 5/5/21 City Council Hearing – Item 19 – Parks & Rec Blueprint Thanks for your comments, John. I don’t know if you listened in, but I think we made some progress on speeding up dog parks. We’ll see what revisions staff and PRC make in the next round of review, prior to council adoption on July 6. Plus, we may see some shifts in our capital projects at the next budget hearing June 1. Andy Andy Pease pronouns she/her/hers Council Member The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E apease@slocity.org slocity.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and l Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: John McKenzie < Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:45 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: 5/5/21 City Council Hearing – Item 19 – Parks & Rec Blueprint 37 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Council, First and foremost we would like to commend the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff for their efforts on the draft Plan before you today. There are many different recreational needs, and this document did an excellent job in evaluating and prioritizing all of them. Excellent work! Furthermore, we were impressed with the efforts on taking a portion of one of the City’s major goals (making our City a more walkable community) to heart. Creating six residential sub-areas and looking at each for basic recreational needs is an excellent approach to this end. It is hoped that other City Departments give this concept serious consideration as they update long range plans and give deference to approving key elements that encourage walking in these neighborhoods instead of always needing to jump into a car. Now that the draft Plan makes it clear that enclosed dog parks should receive a high and immediate priority, we would like to speak to the urgency of approving enclosed dog parks. While the pandemic seems to be coming to a close, it has added to our unmet need of more than 20 years for our 13,000 canine companions needing a place to safely run and play without a leash. As we have no place to legally go, we try to find what we can within walking distances from our homes, which includes parks, ball fields and school yards to name a few places. New development does not include back yards and many of us have to take our dog somewhere to get exercise. And to add to our stress, while the City has not provided for this recreational need, owners of dogs found off leash will be issued a $500-$600 ticket. We would ask that your Council take the following steps: 1)  Until safe and secure dog parks are established within the City, reduce the tickets to something more reasonable ($100?);  Direct staff to locate and approve a design (not necessarily build) for one or more locations with an adequately sized enclosed dog park; this would improve grant funding opportunities as well as allow outside (non-profit) groups or individuals to assist in fundraising for and/or building the approved elements;  Direct staff to look for other opportunities within adequately sized parks to locate (and fund) enclosed dog parks. Dogs usually live between 8 and 15 years with only a portion of this considered ‘active’ and dog park worthy. The longer we delay any action to get enclosed dog parks established, the more dogs will be left out of the chance to be more socially friendly with other dogs, and their satisfaction of getting regular tiring workouts with their human companions. Our canine companions thank you in advance for any action you take to further their quality of life in our beautiful City. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks 38 39 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 7:01 PM To:Scott, Shawna; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey; Bergam, Aleah Cc:Andrews, Jeff Subject:FW: Open City Hall download -P&R Plan Attachments:parks-recreation-plan-and-element-update (2).pdf Here is the most up to date Open City Hall responses both Registered (17) and Unregistered (11). Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 4:18 PM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Cc: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open City Hall download -P&R Plan Hi Greg, Attached please find the updated PDF. I hope you had a great weekend too!! VT From: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:48 PM To: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Cc: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: Open City Hall download -P&R Plan Good afternoon VT, I hope you enjoyed a wonderful weekend. When you have a chance, can you download the most up to date Open City Hall comments for the Park & Rec Blueprint Plan. I saw some additional Registered and Unregistered Open City Hall comments that I’d like our committee to review prior to Wednesday morning. Thank you! -GA 40 Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM Contents i. Summary of statements 2 ii. Individual statements 3 Summary Of Statements As of April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM, this forum had: Topic Start Attendees:51 March 1, 2021, 3:13 PM Statements:28 Hours of Public Comment:1.4 2 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Individual Statements Name not available March 3, 2021, 3:57 PM Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Representing Friends of SLO City Dogs and our existing 13,000 canine companions within the City, we would first like to thank you, staff and the consultant for recognizing the immediate need for dog parks. Many of us are so looking forward to the day we will have places we can walk to safely take our dogs to be off leash for exercising and socializing. We fully support the concept of looking at the City from a walkability standpoint and breaking the City out into six subareas. We are also very supportive of the City including an enclosed dog park within each of these subareas. We concur that establishing an enclosed dog park is a high priority, and that efforts should begin immediately to finalize a location and design so construction of the first enclosed dog park can happen in the very near future. The following are suggestions to amend the Update to address this ‘unmet’ need that was identified in the existing Parks and Recreation Plan that was prepared 20 years ago: 1. Emerson Park is one of the two public places downtown (Sub-area 2 – the other area is Mitchell Park) that is large enough to support an enclosed dog park. There are many hundreds of homes within one mile that have dogs. We strongly encourage pursuit now, as a part of the Emerson Park’s Revitalization Plan (and not just a future use considered at a later date), that an enclosed dog park be included as one of the amenities to increase park usage and ‘walkability’; having a downtown dog park could also increase tourist traffic that travel with their dogs; Pg. 124 shows conflicting information with an enclosed dog park in both the short and long-term sections (suggest deleting reference in long-term section); 2. As there is overwhelming evidence currently in many of our parks that dogs are regularly seen off-leash, we would strongly support language that could be added to the Master Plan to allow completion of the outreach/design phase of one dog park in each sub-area in the next five years. With location and design in hand, outside $$ could then be raised (or grants secured) to (help) fund the construction phase. In addition to the unmet need, dog park infrastructure costs are relatively low and can be easily modified should a later full Park Plan overhaul/review determine the dog park layout should be changed. A relatively straight forward approach to achieve this would be to link the walkability elements identified in Section 1.6 (pg. 86) with the Framework for Park Improvements Tier 2 (pg. 117) where a sentence or two was added to give these Sec. 1.6 items ‘priority consideration’ as Tier 2 (and Tier 3) elements are considered for any park. 3. To make a dog park a success, there are both ‘essential’ and subsequent ‘important’ elements that are needed. As already stated in the document, previous dog park approvals have resulted in very small (and potentially problematic) parks. There currently is no guidance on what are minimum requirements for an enclosed dog park. Having such guidance will minimize potential problems in the future. To remedy this, the following sentence is proposed to be added to the end of Section 1.17 ‘Dog Parks and Dog Area’ (Pg. 88): Appendix __ provides a more complete list of essential and important elements that will increase the success of an enclosed dog park. Appendix __ is included below that would be placed at the end of the Appendix section of the Update. 4. With regards to Table F-1 in the Appendices on Rough Costs (Dog Parks), to be consistent with the text in the update about referencing all-weather ground cover (an ‘essential element’) needed in dog parks, this table should add ‘all-weather ground cover costs’ and either remove or put as secondary options the ‘safety lighting’ and ‘agility equipment’ costs. Thank you for considering these comments. Thank you also again for supporting efforts to elevate the quality of life for our canine kids. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Slocitydogs.org "Appendix __. Dog Park Design Guidelines' insert: The following should be used for guidance of any new 3 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! enclosed dog park within the City of San Luis Obispo. Dog parks include ‘essential’ elements as well as ‘important’ additional elements to enhance the human/dog experience while at the dog park. Essential Elements Size and shape. Preferable enclosed dog park size should be one acre or more (as recommended by the American Kennel Club). Dog parks may be sized down to ½-acre if larger areas are not available and still provide a workable dog park. Dog park shape can be highly variable. It is important to provide longer open areas for large dogs to be able to fetch balls/frisbees. Location. Most, if not all, of the enclosed area should be useable. Unusable or undesirable elements include: steep slopes, areas of ponding water or poor drainage, unprotected waterways, too many trees hindering ball throwing activities, potentially ‘toxic’ vegetation within close proximity (e.g., oleander shrubs, eucalyptus trees, etc.) Large-Small Dog Areas. To provide safety for small dogs there should always be separate enclosures for small and big dogs. Each enclosure can be separate and apart, but within easy walking distance. Large dog enclosures should be substantially larger than small dog enclosures. Fencing. Continuous sturdy fencing around each enclosure should be 4 to 5 feet from the ground. It should be made so balls cannot go under or through the fence. Fence design/materials can be variable. Gates. All dog entry gates shall have a double gate with 6’ x 10’ ‘holding area to reduce escapes and allow for better ‘introductions’ into the park. Large dog enclosures typically have two entry gates and the small dog enclosure will need one entry gate. Each enclosure will have a service gate to allow passage of larger vehicles that will be needed from time to time. Groundcover. An all-weather surface is needed to make the enclosure useable year-round. The type of material is variable but likely to be either wood chips or turf. Water Stations. Each enclosure should have at least one drinking water station (two preferable at the big dog enclosure). Waste Bags and receptacles/signage. Waste dispenser bags and waste receptacles will be placed strategically throughout each enclosed area. Dog Park Rule signs would be posted at each entry point. Utilities. Water, irrigation and electrical lines should be considered during initial design and installed or ‘roughed’ in during initial construction. Subsequent Important Elements Shade Structure. This element could also be considered ‘essential’ in some cases where no shade exists. Both humans and dogs should be considered when installing shade structures and large landscaping elements. Locating some benches/tables within or near shade structure is recommended. Benches/Tables. Durable benches should be placed on concrete slabs in multiple locations throughout the enclosed areas. Tables on concrete slabs should also be considered at various locations. Landscaping. Internal and external landscaping, namely trees and large shrubs have numerous benefits. Internally, it provides natural boundaries and separation for dogs that establish such mental boundaries, as well as provides shade. Care should be taken to avoid plants toxic to dogs. Initially, protective barriers around internal landscaping will be needed. External trees also provide shade without causing ball throwing interference issues. Storage shed. The storage shed would store tools, supplies and agility course equipment. This should be placed on a concrete slab. Kiosk. An information Kiosk would provide the following: dog park rules, upcoming events, sponsors, other dog- related information. Water Tubs. Some dogs love water. Tubs on platforms that can be easily emptied can enhance the dogs’ experience at the park. Should locate near landscaped area or low-lying area as they will be regularly dumped. Dog Washing station. As certain on-site conditions can result in dirty dogs, a dog-rinsing station (water spigot next to well-draining concrete slab) would enhance the dog park experience. Safety Lighting. As most parks will be a ‘dawn-to-dusk’ operation, night lighting would only be needed for safety and/or emergency needs. Electricity needs could be at shade structure, kiosk, entrances and shed. 4 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Memorial Elements. Most dogs are thought of by their humans as their children. When they pass, many people want a place to remember their loved ones. The following elements are examples to help in this grieving/ remembrance process: installing memorial walkways/circles/walls with individualized bricks, memorial plaques at key elements of the park, such as trees and benches. Agility Equipment. Most dogs do best when they are given ‘jobs’ to exercise their mental faculties. One such job is agility training. This is a great way to apply a dog’s physical and mental prowess. Such portable agility training equipment could be stored in an on-site shed. Public Art. Dog-inspired art work would enhance the dog park experience and create greater community interest.   Name not shown outside Neighborhoods March 3, 2021, 7:39 PM I support the expansion of Cheng Park. I would like to see the existing statues and structures remain and would like to new structures connected by a path to something like Chiang Kai-shek pavilion in San Jose added where people can sit under it and reflect and meditate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ Plum_Pavillion_- _Overfelt_Garden_%281347406841%29.jpg Another idea is adding a second larger pagoda, like Stow Park in San Francisco https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/7/5/3/large1500/357 718112.jpg Flora that represents significance in Chinese culture should be present. Certain flora represents the seasons (peach blossoms for spring, chrysanthemums for autumn); others stand for human qualities such as purity (lotus) or humility (orchid). Any or all of these florae would be great additions. If possible, I'd like to see a creation of a third Asian cultural park in San Luis Obispo. Perhaps one that is charged upon entry to use. The tea garden in Lodi's Micke Grove Park is one example of a medium sized Japanese garden. A smaller Japanese garden example would be Urashima Taro in Sacramento's fairytale land. https://www.fairytaletown.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/japanese_garden-780x325.jpg One key feature this garden offers is the traditional Japanese arches and moon bridge over water not currently present in Eto Park. Thank you for your time E Lerner inside Neighborhood 10 March 8, 2021, 9:51 AM I noted on pg. 48, "No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area." However, there is no further mention of this area. Community members in the area, especially those in the Toscano and Serra Meadows developments do not have effective access to a park. This is with the exception of traversing over the South Hills to Meadow Park, but this access is currently blocked by Toscano development. I am concerned we have outlined a plan through 2041 with no consideration for the residents south of the South Hills. Name not available inside Neighborhood 1 March 17, 2021, 11:48 AM Can we add legal access to Madonna from the Tassajara or Luneta entrances? Name not available inside Neighborhood 8 March 17, 2021, 6:59 PM We need a fenced dog park as well as more places to roller skate!!! Maybe some hammock stands? Tauria Linala inside Neighborhood 9 5 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! March 21, 2021, 11:38 PM Just watched the slide show. The Plan references diamonds and rectangular fields. I have previously read the City of Santa Maria Parks Assessment from a few years ago. They found a big demand from the citizens for soccer fields. They found they were over-programmed for hoops and baseball, with those sports somewhat declining. It would appear that having plenty of soccer field space available would be an element of DEI. I am very interested in the re-visioning of the Senior Center and Ludwig Centers. Also, it seems that there are opportunities to acquire some park land off South Higuera as it seems a long way to any other parks. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Timothy Cleath inside Neighborhood 8 March 23, 2021, 8:47 AM As a Laguna lake side property owner for more than 35 years who walks in the park at least 5 times a week, the assessment of the park included in the appendices does not do a very good job of covering the conditions of the park. It does not speak much about the conditions of the roadways and walkways in the park (poor), lack of control of unleashed dogs from the dog park and in the rest of the park, drainage and the lakeside improvements (particularly erosion along the lake front and the dangerous landing for the dock next to the picnic area. I also find the outside light at the bathroom facilities to be glaring and is an all night light pollution to the homes across the lake. Name not available March 24, 2021, 8:45 PM Please add a plan than will address the prevention of further erosion of the hill on the frisbee golf course and Sinsheimer. Paths where players slide down to retrieve frisbees are now carved down the side of the hill and mountain bikers and kids perform dangerous stunts straight down along the rock. When it rained, the paths became tributaries down the side. I have watched the hillside deteriorate since the additional frisbee target was added. I know everyone loves the course but soon, there will be no hillside left. Please have a team go check it out. Name not available March 25, 2021, 5:37 AM Dogparks are quite simply essential. Our city has so many dogs in need of safe places to run and play. Leash only parks are continuously being used as dog parks which is unfair and dangerous . Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 10:41 AM I am impressed by the process Parks & Rec used to gather and organize community inputs and the thoroughness and professionalism of the product, the Parks & Rec Plan 2021- 2041. It was wise to identify multiple potential sources of funding for this plan because I believe City budgets are going to be stressed for years by its Unfunded Pension Liability. I doubt that CalPERS is going to come close to meeting its target of 7% return on investment. If so, our unfunded liability shown as $148M on the City web site will increase substantially in spite of our plan to pay down that liability over a 20 year period. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 7:43 PM The Parks and Recreation Plan is a good start, however, I worry about the impact of the louder more privileged voices who have had the ability and money to be loud about their needs and not the low income or BIPOC members of our Community. Has our Latinx community been reached? Name not available outside Neighborhoods March 26, 2021, 4:18 AM SLO desperately needs an enclosed dog park. Closest one is in AG or way over at Cuesta. Dog parks are a great way to come together as a community and meet other dog owners. 6 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! John Smigelski inside Neighborhood 8 March 26, 2021, 12:36 PM I am impressed by the quality of this report and by the March 25 presentation. I came away with a better understanding of the needs of the community. There was a comment about the Laguna Lake Park and the 1993 master plan. I think the commenter was correct in stating that the features and the opportunities provided by the lake should be a core part of the plan: Improving views-- vistas and wildlife, and promoting access to the lake for all sorts of recreational activities. A lot has changed in the 30 years since the master plan was developed and an update is warranted to maximize the benefits to local and greater community. With that in mind, I think an effort should be made to include the future residents of SLR in the process. There is a waiting list that would provide a great sample to be combined with the views of the established communities. A couple of weekends ago I biked in the park and found it busier than I ever saw it, Parking lots were full and people were enjoying the beauty of the area while engaged in the wide range of activities that the park presents. It was great to see! In the Laguna lake reserve plan there was a potential for a peninsula trail that extends from the new ADA trail by the boat ramp. This trail/boardwalk extends out along the lake and provides great bird watching opportunities. Is it possible to have Cal Poly students have a design competition to come up with an innovated deign that would make this a unique and attractive feature to provide unmatched viewing opportunities. Since there is talk of possibly moving a community center to this area, have you considered purchasing the Golden Gong? It is a great, underused parcel. Name not available April 2, 2021, 10:24 AM Hello. I have one comment on parks in general. Please remove the single direction signs on the trails. For those of us trail running, with specific routes and self-races, these are extremely inconvenient and aggravating. I know they might seem necessary, but they are useless for social distancing because as a runner I'm going to pass people anyway, and now their back is to me so it's harder to get their attention. Please remove those. Please please please. Name not available April 2, 2021, 12:24 PM Will there be a triathlon this year? Name not available April 2, 2021, 5:44 PM Is there a timeline for the margarita park. I recommend high priority for that project. There are no other walkable parks or playgrounds in that area. Name not available April 4, 2021, 3:04 PM I would like to see more unique activities included. Just some ideas: 1. Enclose a part of Sinsheimer Park to be a dog park. 2. Let dogs swim in Laguna Lake. 3. Create an area for BMX and dirt biking – could be a place for competitions and could bring money to the city. 4. Work with the high school to use their new pool as more of a play pool. The current schedule at the city pool is too limited. 5. Ropes course/discovery track, think climbing/bridges/tree houses. 6. Longer distance/smooth skating/long boarding opportunities. Even if in a larger loop. 7. Water interactive area... Spouting fountain, etc. 8. Plant fruit and avocado trees in parks for limited public harvesting throughout the city, not just private gardening areas. 9. Creative building park using salvaged and recycled materials (https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adventureplayground/) Overall comment: Get the transient drug users out of the parks. Police the skate park to fine for booze and smoking. Why bother spending so much money on the parks when so many people are afraid to use them anymore? Name not available April 4, 2021, 4:45 PM 7 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! We cannot enjoy the parks when meth'd out homeless people are sleeping in soiled pants. The homeless problem is a drug problem and SLO is losing this battle. Name not available April 5, 2021, 2:53 PM Thank you for publicly distributing the SLO City Parks and Recreation Plan. I am truly impressed. Not only is the document a rich source of information about the City and its parks, but it also recognizes the need for enhancing existing parks and creating new ones for our growing and evolving population. l also like how the plan ties into recreational opportunities (including the Bob Jones trail) outside of city boundaries -- I might suggest you add that integration of parks, trails, etc., as one of the City's "Goals and Policies" in Chapter 4. In sum, very well done. Bravo and thank you for the thousands of hours put into this effort. Brett Cross inside Neighborhood 8 April 6, 2021, 9:06 PM Glaring absent from the Laguna Lake Park section is any focus on the Lake itself. There wording about natural aquatic improvements. What is the meaning of that phrase and the policy implications for retaining and restoring Laguna Lake. There is an interesting section in the document about Market Potential Index. The data shows canoeing/kayaking at 140 and Fishing 117. Those activities are not occurring at those rates at Laguna Lake which would make sense. Laguna Lake use to be used for sailing, fishing, and later windsurfing. Now some Stand Up Paddle boarding. The restoration of Laguna Lake should be a primary goal of the Laguna Lake Park. If you look at page 74 in Community Parks "For Laguna Lake Park, we asked participants to rank a list of 11 potential improvements. The most popular: a bike pump track, an adventure playground, a botanical garden, a walking path, an outdoor learning area, and additional picnic areas. So how did the responses go from the above to the proposals in the 5 year plan on page 121.?ght noise, lighting). + Evaluate this site for a future community center with both indoor and outdoor activity areas and architecture and/or as a site for a second pool or aquatics center. Consider incorporation of a nature center, youth day camp programming, and educational materials, presentations, docent walks, and concessions. Plan and park development will be supported by dedicated funding available through development agreements. + Incorporate more active uses, such as basketball courts, pickleball courts, a bike pump track, adventure playground/ obstacle course, exercise walking path, and lighted or unlighted multi-use sports fields and courts. A botanical garden was also well-supported as a passive use. + Implement Phase 1 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which should include lighted and/or unlighted sports fields (these may be diamond, rectangular, or multiuse fields). These recommendation are not consistent with community input. Name not available inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 7:49 AM Thank you for allowing for this sort of feedback. I ran the SLO Parks and Rec tennis program 1989 thru 1994. The Sinsheimer Park tennis facility is a great facility and well located. I have been using the courts thru SLO Rec Dept to run community tennis tournaments for the past 7 years (none in the past year - Covid relatied). The courts do need lights, although because of the strong voice of local property owners, that goal will be difficult to achieve. The courts, however, are in serious need of resurfacing. The unevenness of the current surface texture is not only a detriment to the quality of tennis play, but also provides for 8 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! some very slippery areas that don't have the sure footing of other areas on that particular court. If the state/country ever gets to a point where there is universal daylight savings time, the need for lights will be diminished slightly. Overall, the need for resurfacing of these courts is the top priority in my opinion. It would also be advisable to have a second tennis complex - possibly in the new Orcutt Expansion Area where a well-designed facility would have lights integrated into the building plan. Thank you for your time. Paul Fiala, USPTA Tennis Professional. Dottie Mae Doomsday inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 5:47 PM I love what you are doing with our parks and the things that are planned. My only suggestion is more multi use spaces and covered social gathering areas for families and youth to utilize for all sports. Resurfacing basketball courts or other flat areas suitable for quad, blade, biker or scooter so that everyone can use them and 5 Ken Hampian hockey rinks. That last one was for fun but seriously, that rink is a very unique element to our area and people drive from all over to skate safely in it. We LOVE it. Name not available April 7, 2021, 7:46 PM Hello- I am sure a lot of thought went into this plan. However, as a full-time working parent going to read through this document that is 154 pages long, seems impossible. I would like to share with you, that San Luis Obispo is a great town, however really lacks in spaces where dogs can be off leash. We live in the Sinsheimer neighborhood and would love to see an off leash area, either across from the tennis courts where the grass can be easily maintained and a small fence can be put up, or up on Terrace Hill. There are plenty of neighborhood members that are willing to maintain this dog space. As a mother, I understand that we put a lot of effort into creating parks for children and families, however those families also have dogs that should have spaces to enjoy without receiving tickets. Another area that could be developed as along the bike path within the Sinsheimer neighborhood. One more idea that would be amazing, would be adding a little pump track for children to ride their bikes on, similar to the Morro Bay bike park. This will encourage outdoor time for families as well as allow children to practice your skills. If you would like to contact me for further ideas, please email me at or call me at Again, I apologize for not reading the full document that is 154 pages long, maybe a shortened version could be put out to the community to read over the improvements put forth for the next 20 years. Sincerely, Dora Dubois Name not available inside Neighborhood 10 April 7, 2021, 8:00 PM Great work on the plan. If you are to prioritize lighted tennis courts other than the existing lighted courts at the high school already open to the public, please consider placing lighted tennis courts at a location other than Sinsheimer. There are other opportunity sites better suited and more practical. Given the costs of lighting, and the high need for other park services and facilities to serve a wider demographic, lights may not be a suitable priority for the city. Thank you. Name not available inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 8:26 PM Please consider removing the lighted tennis courts at Sinsheimer Park. Funds would be better spent elsewhere as lights have recently been installed at the high school courts, which are underutilized. The Sinsheimer courts are immediately adjacent to homes and will cause serious disturbances to those residences in terms of night time lighting and noise. The ball field lights already cause a significant unbearable amount of lighting and the tennis courts are so much closer. The angle of tennis court lights will shine directly into homes. Please remove this from the parks and rec element because the funds are better spent elsewhere. If absolutely necessary consider a different location sited away from existing homes. Terry & Joyce Mohan inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 10:13 PM 9 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! I have been informed that the Parks Department is again looking into putting lights at Sinheimer Park including the tennis courts. The neighbors who live in close proximate to the park, including myself, are totally against turning the park, especially the tennis courts, into a late-night hangout for juveniles. We have proven time and again that lighting the tennis courts at Sinsheimer is totally unnecessary as there are courts at the high school that were remodeled specifically so Sinsheimer could be left dark and they are not even being utilized. The last estimate for lighting at Sinsheimer was half a million dollars. There are numerous places in the city where courts could be built and lighted for less that would not be as intrusive into residences as Sinesheimer is. My last suggestion was the parking lot of the golf course on LOVR. It is flat, never full, and set back away from any housing. But I guess if the tennis players are too lazy to drive a mile down to the high school they are not going to drive all the way over to LOVR. The city parks should not even be open after sunset. The powers to be at the time, most of whom have since moved out of town, didn't have any consideration for the residents of Ellen Way, which has turned into a student rental graveyard when they put the skate park so close to residences and changed the hours to keep the parks open past sunset. Go by there around 9 pm and hear what the people living in those apartments on Murray Ave. have to listen to. These kids should be home doing their homework or getting ready for bed not out slamming skateboards annoying the residents who live near Santa Rosa Park. We don't need skateboarders on the tennis courts at Sinsheimer or people screaming over in the playground until ten o'clock at night. The police have enough to do without having to constantly answer out noise complaint calls. If you want to trash a neighborhood put your lighted park and tennis courts off Orcutt Road near the new development. There's a lot of families in there and they would love to have all these amenities. Sinesheimer Park is in a settled mature neighborhood that does not need to be open at night to satisfy city residents and lighting will only attract undesirable characters. It has already been proven the Parks Department can not secure Sinsheimer at night now so let's not make matters worse. NO LIGHTS AT SINESHEIMER. Terry & Joyce Mohan San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name not available April 8, 2021, 3:18 PM Please consider more areas where people can roller skate, it has grown and popularity but there are very few places to go. Removing the basket ball hoops from the roller rink in Santa Rosa park would be a great help. There are plenty of places to play basketball but not to safety roller skate Name not available outside Neighborhoods April 9, 2021, 11:51 AM Good work and thank you staff, but it is disappointing to see a lack of diversity and inclusion of a wider spectrum of demographics. Here is a a prime example: there seems to be a disproportionate interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on installing tennis court lighting for a very small demographic while there many other people who need access to basic park resources. While the surveys seem to indicate community interest in lighted courts, there are many comments and concerns that were blatantly not included, we are a group that has expressed these concerns but our concerns appear to be intentionally not included. The highschool already has lights and is located 1 mile from sinshiemer an is readily open to the public and rarely fully utilized. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lights, when there are existing lighted courts, seems like a waste of funds to only serve a small group of people. This should not be a priority considering the substantial need for other park resources that could be utilized by the entire community rather than a small demographic. There needs to be more diversity and inclusion to other demographics, particularly those of less privileged backgrounds where tennis is not their go-to sport due to their socioeconomic status. Please eliminate lighted courts as a priority and open up those funds to better serve all demographics of the community not just a privileged few. 10 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! 41 From:Tonikian, Victoria Sent:Monday, April 26, 2021 4:18 PM To:Avakian, Greg Cc:Andrews, Jeff Subject:RE: Open City Hall download -P&R Plan Attachments:parks-recreation-plan-and-element-update (2).pdf Hi Greg, Attached please find the updated PDF. I hope you had a great weekend too!! VT From: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:48 PM To: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Cc: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: Open City Hall download -P&R Plan Good afternoon VT, I hope you enjoyed a wonderful weekend. When you have a chance, can you download the most up to date Open City Hall comments for the Park & Rec Blueprint Plan. I saw some additional Registered and Unregistered Open City Hall comments that I’d like our committee to review prior to Wednesday morning. Thank you! -GA Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM Contents i. Summary of statements 2 ii. Individual statements 3 Summary Of Statements As of April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM, this forum had: Topic Start Attendees:51 March 1, 2021, 3:13 PM Statements:28 Hours of Public Comment:1.4 2 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Individual Statements Name not available March 3, 2021, 3:57 PM Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Representing Friends of SLO City Dogs and our existing 13,000 canine companions within the City, we would first like to thank you, staff and the consultant for recognizing the immediate need for dog parks. Many of us are so looking forward to the day we will have places we can walk to safely take our dogs to be off leash for exercising and socializing. We fully support the concept of looking at the City from a walkability standpoint and breaking the City out into six subareas. We are also very supportive of the City including an enclosed dog park within each of these subareas. We concur that establishing an enclosed dog park is a high priority, and that efforts should begin immediately to finalize a location and design so construction of the first enclosed dog park can happen in the very near future. The following are suggestions to amend the Update to address this ‘unmet’ need that was identified in the existing Parks and Recreation Plan that was prepared 20 years ago: 1. Emerson Park is one of the two public places downtown (Sub-area 2 – the other area is Mitchell Park) that is large enough to support an enclosed dog park. There are many hundreds of homes within one mile that have dogs. We strongly encourage pursuit now, as a part of the Emerson Park’s Revitalization Plan (and not just a future use considered at a later date), that an enclosed dog park be included as one of the amenities to increase park usage and ‘walkability’; having a downtown dog park could also increase tourist traffic that travel with their dogs; Pg. 124 shows conflicting information with an enclosed dog park in both the short and long-term sections (suggest deleting reference in long-term section); 2. As there is overwhelming evidence currently in many of our parks that dogs are regularly seen off-leash, we would strongly support language that could be added to the Master Plan to allow completion of the outreach/design phase of one dog park in each sub-area in the next five years. With location and design in hand, outside $$ could then be raised (or grants secured) to (help) fund the construction phase. In addition to the unmet need, dog park infrastructure costs are relatively low and can be easily modified should a later full Park Plan overhaul/review determine the dog park layout should be changed. A relatively straight forward approach to achieve this would be to link the walkability elements identified in Section 1.6 (pg. 86) with the Framework for Park Improvements Tier 2 (pg. 117) where a sentence or two was added to give these Sec. 1.6 items ‘priority consideration’ as Tier 2 (and Tier 3) elements are considered for any park. 3. To make a dog park a success, there are both ‘essential’ and subsequent ‘important’ elements that are needed. As already stated in the document, previous dog park approvals have resulted in very small (and potentially problematic) parks. There currently is no guidance on what are minimum requirements for an enclosed dog park. Having such guidance will minimize potential problems in the future. To remedy this, the following sentence is proposed to be added to the end of Section 1.17 ‘Dog Parks and Dog Area’ (Pg. 88): Appendix __ provides a more complete list of essential and important elements that will increase the success of an enclosed dog park. Appendix __ is included below that would be placed at the end of the Appendix section of the Update. 4. With regards to Table F-1 in the Appendices on Rough Costs (Dog Parks), to be consistent with the text in the update about referencing all-weather ground cover (an ‘essential element’) needed in dog parks, this table should add ‘all-weather ground cover costs’ and either remove or put as secondary options the ‘safety lighting’ and ‘agility equipment’ costs. Thank you for considering these comments. Thank you also again for supporting efforts to elevate the quality of life for our canine kids. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Slocitydogs.org "Appendix __. Dog Park Design Guidelines' insert: The following should be used for guidance of any new 3 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! enclosed dog park within the City of San Luis Obispo. Dog parks include ‘essential’ elements as well as ‘important’ additional elements to enhance the human/dog experience while at the dog park. Essential Elements Size and shape. Preferable enclosed dog park size should be one acre or more (as recommended by the American Kennel Club). Dog parks may be sized down to ½-acre if larger areas are not available and still provide a workable dog park. Dog park shape can be highly variable. It is important to provide longer open areas for large dogs to be able to fetch balls/frisbees. Location. Most, if not all, of the enclosed area should be useable. Unusable or undesirable elements include: steep slopes, areas of ponding water or poor drainage, unprotected waterways, too many trees hindering ball throwing activities, potentially ‘toxic’ vegetation within close proximity (e.g., oleander shrubs, eucalyptus trees, etc.) Large-Small Dog Areas. To provide safety for small dogs there should always be separate enclosures for small and big dogs. Each enclosure can be separate and apart, but within easy walking distance. Large dog enclosures should be substantially larger than small dog enclosures. Fencing. Continuous sturdy fencing around each enclosure should be 4 to 5 feet from the ground. It should be made so balls cannot go under or through the fence. Fence design/materials can be variable. Gates. All dog entry gates shall have a double gate with 6’ x 10’ ‘holding area to reduce escapes and allow for better ‘introductions’ into the park. Large dog enclosures typically have two entry gates and the small dog enclosure will need one entry gate. Each enclosure will have a service gate to allow passage of larger vehicles that will be needed from time to time. Groundcover. An all-weather surface is needed to make the enclosure useable year-round. The type of material is variable but likely to be either wood chips or turf. Water Stations. Each enclosure should have at least one drinking water station (two preferable at the big dog enclosure). Waste Bags and receptacles/signage. Waste dispenser bags and waste receptacles will be placed strategically throughout each enclosed area. Dog Park Rule signs would be posted at each entry point. Utilities. Water, irrigation and electrical lines should be considered during initial design and installed or ‘roughed’ in during initial construction. Subsequent Important Elements Shade Structure. This element could also be considered ‘essential’ in some cases where no shade exists. Both humans and dogs should be considered when installing shade structures and large landscaping elements. Locating some benches/tables within or near shade structure is recommended. Benches/Tables. Durable benches should be placed on concrete slabs in multiple locations throughout the enclosed areas. Tables on concrete slabs should also be considered at various locations. Landscaping. Internal and external landscaping, namely trees and large shrubs have numerous benefits. Internally, it provides natural boundaries and separation for dogs that establish such mental boundaries, as well as provides shade. Care should be taken to avoid plants toxic to dogs. Initially, protective barriers around internal landscaping will be needed. External trees also provide shade without causing ball throwing interference issues. Storage shed. The storage shed would store tools, supplies and agility course equipment. This should be placed on a concrete slab. Kiosk. An information Kiosk would provide the following: dog park rules, upcoming events, sponsors, other dog- related information. Water Tubs. Some dogs love water. Tubs on platforms that can be easily emptied can enhance the dogs’ experience at the park. Should locate near landscaped area or low-lying area as they will be regularly dumped. Dog Washing station. As certain on-site conditions can result in dirty dogs, a dog-rinsing station (water spigot next to well-draining concrete slab) would enhance the dog park experience. Safety Lighting. As most parks will be a ‘dawn-to-dusk’ operation, night lighting would only be needed for safety and/or emergency needs. Electricity needs could be at shade structure, kiosk, entrances and shed. 4 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Memorial Elements. Most dogs are thought of by their humans as their children. When they pass, many people want a place to remember their loved ones. The following elements are examples to help in this grieving/ remembrance process: installing memorial walkways/circles/walls with individualized bricks, memorial plaques at key elements of the park, such as trees and benches. Agility Equipment. Most dogs do best when they are given ‘jobs’ to exercise their mental faculties. One such job is agility training. This is a great way to apply a dog’s physical and mental prowess. Such portable agility training equipment could be stored in an on-site shed. Public Art. Dog-inspired art work would enhance the dog park experience and create greater community interest.   Name not shown outside Neighborhoods March 3, 2021, 7:39 PM I support the expansion of Cheng Park. I would like to see the existing statues and structures remain and would like to new structures connected by a path to something like Chiang Kai-shek pavilion in San Jose added where people can sit under it and reflect and meditate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ Plum_Pavillion_- _Overfelt_Garden_%281347406841%29.jpg Another idea is adding a second larger pagoda, like Stow Park in San Francisco https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/7/5/3/large1500/357 718112.jpg Flora that represents significance in Chinese culture should be present. Certain flora represents the seasons (peach blossoms for spring, chrysanthemums for autumn); others stand for human qualities such as purity (lotus) or humility (orchid). Any or all of these florae would be great additions. If possible, I'd like to see a creation of a third Asian cultural park in San Luis Obispo. Perhaps one that is charged upon entry to use. The tea garden in Lodi's Micke Grove Park is one example of a medium sized Japanese garden. A smaller Japanese garden example would be Urashima Taro in Sacramento's fairytale land. https://www.fairytaletown.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/japanese_garden-780x325.jpg One key feature this garden offers is the traditional Japanese arches and moon bridge over water not currently present in Eto Park. Thank you for your time E Lerner inside Neighborhood 10 March 8, 2021, 9:51 AM I noted on pg. 48, "No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area." However, there is no further mention of this area. Community members in the area, especially those in the Toscano and Serra Meadows developments do not have effective access to a park. This is with the exception of traversing over the South Hills to Meadow Park, but this access is currently blocked by Toscano development. I am concerned we have outlined a plan through 2041 with no consideration for the residents south of the South Hills. Name not available inside Neighborhood 1 March 17, 2021, 11:48 AM Can we add legal access to Madonna from the Tassajara or Luneta entrances? Name not available inside Neighborhood 8 March 17, 2021, 6:59 PM We need a fenced dog park as well as more places to roller skate!!! Maybe some hammock stands? Tauria Linala inside Neighborhood 9 5 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! March 21, 2021, 11:38 PM Just watched the slide show. The Plan references diamonds and rectangular fields. I have previously read the City of Santa Maria Parks Assessment from a few years ago. They found a big demand from the citizens for soccer fields. They found they were over-programmed for hoops and baseball, with those sports somewhat declining. It would appear that having plenty of soccer field space available would be an element of DEI. I am very interested in the re-visioning of the Senior Center and Ludwig Centers. Also, it seems that there are opportunities to acquire some park land off South Higuera as it seems a long way to any other parks. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Timothy Cleath inside Neighborhood 8 March 23, 2021, 8:47 AM As a Laguna lake side property owner for more than 35 years who walks in the park at least 5 times a week, the assessment of the park included in the appendices does not do a very good job of covering the conditions of the park. It does not speak much about the conditions of the roadways and walkways in the park (poor), lack of control of unleashed dogs from the dog park and in the rest of the park, drainage and the lakeside improvements (particularly erosion along the lake front and the dangerous landing for the dock next to the picnic area. I also find the outside light at the bathroom facilities to be glaring and is an all night light pollution to the homes across the lake. Name not available March 24, 2021, 8:45 PM Please add a plan than will address the prevention of further erosion of the hill on the frisbee golf course and Sinsheimer. Paths where players slide down to retrieve frisbees are now carved down the side of the hill and mountain bikers and kids perform dangerous stunts straight down along the rock. When it rained, the paths became tributaries down the side. I have watched the hillside deteriorate since the additional frisbee target was added. I know everyone loves the course but soon, there will be no hillside left. Please have a team go check it out. Name not available March 25, 2021, 5:37 AM Dogparks are quite simply essential. Our city has so many dogs in need of safe places to run and play. Leash only parks are continuously being used as dog parks which is unfair and dangerous . Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 10:41 AM I am impressed by the process Parks & Rec used to gather and organize community inputs and the thoroughness and professionalism of the product, the Parks & Rec Plan 2021- 2041. It was wise to identify multiple potential sources of funding for this plan because I believe City budgets are going to be stressed for years by its Unfunded Pension Liability. I doubt that CalPERS is going to come close to meeting its target of 7% return on investment. If so, our unfunded liability shown as $148M on the City web site will increase substantially in spite of our plan to pay down that liability over a 20 year period. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 7:43 PM The Parks and Recreation Plan is a good start, however, I worry about the impact of the louder more privileged voices who have had the ability and money to be loud about their needs and not the low income or BIPOC members of our Community. Has our Latinx community been reached? Name not available outside Neighborhoods March 26, 2021, 4:18 AM SLO desperately needs an enclosed dog park. Closest one is in AG or way over at Cuesta. Dog parks are a great way to come together as a community and meet other dog owners. 6 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! John Smigelski inside Neighborhood 8 March 26, 2021, 12:36 PM I am impressed by the quality of this report and by the March 25 presentation. I came away with a better understanding of the needs of the community. There was a comment about the Laguna Lake Park and the 1993 master plan. I think the commenter was correct in stating that the features and the opportunities provided by the lake should be a core part of the plan: Improving views-- vistas and wildlife, and promoting access to the lake for all sorts of recreational activities. A lot has changed in the 30 years since the master plan was developed and an update is warranted to maximize the benefits to local and greater community. With that in mind, I think an effort should be made to include the future residents of SLR in the process. There is a waiting list that would provide a great sample to be combined with the views of the established communities. A couple of weekends ago I biked in the park and found it busier than I ever saw it, Parking lots were full and people were enjoying the beauty of the area while engaged in the wide range of activities that the park presents. It was great to see! In the Laguna lake reserve plan there was a potential for a peninsula trail that extends from the new ADA trail by the boat ramp. This trail/boardwalk extends out along the lake and provides great bird watching opportunities. Is it possible to have Cal Poly students have a design competition to come up with an innovated deign that would make this a unique and attractive feature to provide unmatched viewing opportunities. Since there is talk of possibly moving a community center to this area, have you considered purchasing the Golden Gong? It is a great, underused parcel. Name not available April 2, 2021, 10:24 AM Hello. I have one comment on parks in general. Please remove the single direction signs on the trails. For those of us trail running, with specific routes and self-races, these are extremely inconvenient and aggravating. I know they might seem necessary, but they are useless for social distancing because as a runner I'm going to pass people anyway, and now their back is to me so it's harder to get their attention. Please remove those. Please please please. Name not available April 2, 2021, 12:24 PM Will there be a triathlon this year? Name not available April 2, 2021, 5:44 PM Is there a timeline for the margarita park. I recommend high priority for that project. There are no other walkable parks or playgrounds in that area. Name not available April 4, 2021, 3:04 PM I would like to see more unique activities included. Just some ideas: 1. Enclose a part of Sinsheimer Park to be a dog park. 2. Let dogs swim in Laguna Lake. 3. Create an area for BMX and dirt biking – could be a place for competitions and could bring money to the city. 4. Work with the high school to use their new pool as more of a play pool. The current schedule at the city pool is too limited. 5. Ropes course/discovery track, think climbing/bridges/tree houses. 6. Longer distance/smooth skating/long boarding opportunities. Even if in a larger loop. 7. Water interactive area... Spouting fountain, etc. 8. Plant fruit and avocado trees in parks for limited public harvesting throughout the city, not just private gardening areas. 9. Creative building park using salvaged and recycled materials (https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adventureplayground/) Overall comment: Get the transient drug users out of the parks. Police the skate park to fine for booze and smoking. Why bother spending so much money on the parks when so many people are afraid to use them anymore? Name not available April 4, 2021, 4:45 PM 7 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! We cannot enjoy the parks when meth'd out homeless people are sleeping in soiled pants. The homeless problem is a drug problem and SLO is losing this battle. Name not available April 5, 2021, 2:53 PM Thank you for publicly distributing the SLO City Parks and Recreation Plan. I am truly impressed. Not only is the document a rich source of information about the City and its parks, but it also recognizes the need for enhancing existing parks and creating new ones for our growing and evolving population. l also like how the plan ties into recreational opportunities (including the Bob Jones trail) outside of city boundaries -- I might suggest you add that integration of parks, trails, etc., as one of the City's "Goals and Policies" in Chapter 4. In sum, very well done. Bravo and thank you for the thousands of hours put into this effort. Brett Cross inside Neighborhood 8 April 6, 2021, 9:06 PM Glaring absent from the Laguna Lake Park section is any focus on the Lake itself. There wording about natural aquatic improvements. What is the meaning of that phrase and the policy implications for retaining and restoring Laguna Lake. There is an interesting section in the document about Market Potential Index. The data shows canoeing/kayaking at 140 and Fishing 117. Those activities are not occurring at those rates at Laguna Lake which would make sense. Laguna Lake use to be used for sailing, fishing, and later windsurfing. Now some Stand Up Paddle boarding. The restoration of Laguna Lake should be a primary goal of the Laguna Lake Park. If you look at page 74 in Community Parks "For Laguna Lake Park, we asked participants to rank a list of 11 potential improvements. The most popular: a bike pump track, an adventure playground, a botanical garden, a walking path, an outdoor learning area, and additional picnic areas. So how did the responses go from the above to the proposals in the 5 year plan on page 121.?ght noise, lighting). + Evaluate this site for a future community center with both indoor and outdoor activity areas and architecture and/or as a site for a second pool or aquatics center. Consider incorporation of a nature center, youth day camp programming, and educational materials, presentations, docent walks, and concessions. Plan and park development will be supported by dedicated funding available through development agreements. + Incorporate more active uses, such as basketball courts, pickleball courts, a bike pump track, adventure playground/ obstacle course, exercise walking path, and lighted or unlighted multi-use sports fields and courts. A botanical garden was also well-supported as a passive use. + Implement Phase 1 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which should include lighted and/or unlighted sports fields (these may be diamond, rectangular, or multiuse fields). These recommendation are not consistent with community input. Name not available inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 7:49 AM Thank you for allowing for this sort of feedback. I ran the SLO Parks and Rec tennis program 1989 thru 1994. The Sinsheimer Park tennis facility is a great facility and well located. I have been using the courts thru SLO Rec Dept to run community tennis tournaments for the past 7 years (none in the past year - Covid relatied). The courts do need lights, although because of the strong voice of local property owners, that goal will be difficult to achieve. The courts, however, are in serious need of resurfacing. The unevenness of the current surface texture is not only a detriment to the quality of tennis play, but also provides for 8 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! some very slippery areas that don't have the sure footing of other areas on that particular court. If the state/country ever gets to a point where there is universal daylight savings time, the need for lights will be diminished slightly. Overall, the need for resurfacing of these courts is the top priority in my opinion. It would also be advisable to have a second tennis complex - possibly in the new Orcutt Expansion Area where a well-designed facility would have lights integrated into the building plan. Thank you for your time. Paul Fiala, USPTA Tennis Professional. Dottie Mae Doomsday inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 5:47 PM I love what you are doing with our parks and the things that are planned. My only suggestion is more multi use spaces and covered social gathering areas for families and youth to utilize for all sports. Resurfacing basketball courts or other flat areas suitable for quad, blade, biker or scooter so that everyone can use them and 5 Ken Hampian hockey rinks. That last one was for fun but seriously, that rink is a very unique element to our area and people drive from all over to skate safely in it. We LOVE it. Name not available April 7, 2021, 7:46 PM Hello- I am sure a lot of thought went into this plan. However, as a full-time working parent going to read through this document that is 154 pages long, seems impossible. I would like to share with you, that San Luis Obispo is a great town, however really lacks in spaces where dogs can be off leash. We live in the Sinsheimer neighborhood and would love to see an off leash area, either across from the tennis courts where the grass can be easily maintained and a small fence can be put up, or up on Terrace Hill. There are plenty of neighborhood members that are willing to maintain this dog space. As a mother, I understand that we put a lot of effort into creating parks for children and families, however those families also have dogs that should have spaces to enjoy without receiving tickets. Another area that could be developed as along the bike path within the Sinsheimer neighborhood. One more idea that would be amazing, would be adding a little pump track for children to ride their bikes on, similar to the Morro Bay bike park. This will encourage outdoor time for families as well as allow children to practice your skills. If you would like to contact me for further ideas, please email me at or call me at Again, I apologize for not reading the full document that is 154 pages long, maybe a shortened version could be put out to the community to read over the improvements put forth for the next 20 years. Sincerely, Dora Dubois Name not available inside Neighborhood 10 April 7, 2021, 8:00 PM Great work on the plan. If you are to prioritize lighted tennis courts other than the existing lighted courts at the high school already open to the public, please consider placing lighted tennis courts at a location other than Sinsheimer. There are other opportunity sites better suited and more practical. Given the costs of lighting, and the high need for other park services and facilities to serve a wider demographic, lights may not be a suitable priority for the city. Thank you. Name not available inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 8:26 PM Please consider removing the lighted tennis courts at Sinsheimer Park. Funds would be better spent elsewhere as lights have recently been installed at the high school courts, which are underutilized. The Sinsheimer courts are immediately adjacent to homes and will cause serious disturbances to those residences in terms of night time lighting and noise. The ball field lights already cause a significant unbearable amount of lighting and the tennis courts are so much closer. The angle of tennis court lights will shine directly into homes. Please remove this from the parks and rec element because the funds are better spent elsewhere. If absolutely necessary consider a different location sited away from existing homes. Terry & Joyce Mohan inside Neighborhood 7 April 7, 2021, 10:13 PM 9 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! I have been informed that the Parks Department is again looking into putting lights at Sinheimer Park including the tennis courts. The neighbors who live in close proximate to the park, including myself, are totally against turning the park, especially the tennis courts, into a late-night hangout for juveniles. We have proven time and again that lighting the tennis courts at Sinsheimer is totally unnecessary as there are courts at the high school that were remodeled specifically so Sinsheimer could be left dark and they are not even being utilized. The last estimate for lighting at Sinsheimer was half a million dollars. There are numerous places in the city where courts could be built and lighted for less that would not be as intrusive into residences as Sinesheimer is. My last suggestion was the parking lot of the golf course on LOVR. It is flat, never full, and set back away from any housing. But I guess if the tennis players are too lazy to drive a mile down to the high school they are not going to drive all the way over to LOVR. The city parks should not even be open after sunset. The powers to be at the time, most of whom have since moved out of town, didn't have any consideration for the residents of Ellen Way, which has turned into a student rental graveyard when they put the skate park so close to residences and changed the hours to keep the parks open past sunset. Go by there around 9 pm and hear what the people living in those apartments on Murray Ave. have to listen to. These kids should be home doing their homework or getting ready for bed not out slamming skateboards annoying the residents who live near Santa Rosa Park. We don't need skateboarders on the tennis courts at Sinsheimer or people screaming over in the playground until ten o'clock at night. The police have enough to do without having to constantly answer out noise complaint calls. If you want to trash a neighborhood put your lighted park and tennis courts off Orcutt Road near the new development. There's a lot of families in there and they would love to have all these amenities. Sinesheimer Park is in a settled mature neighborhood that does not need to be open at night to satisfy city residents and lighting will only attract undesirable characters. It has already been proven the Parks Department can not secure Sinsheimer at night now so let's not make matters worse. NO LIGHTS AT SINESHEIMER. Terry & Joyce Mohan San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Name not available April 8, 2021, 3:18 PM Please consider more areas where people can roller skate, it has grown and popularity but there are very few places to go. Removing the basket ball hoops from the roller rink in Santa Rosa park would be a great help. There are plenty of places to play basketball but not to safety roller skate Name not available outside Neighborhoods April 9, 2021, 11:51 AM Good work and thank you staff, but it is disappointing to see a lack of diversity and inclusion of a wider spectrum of demographics. Here is a a prime example: there seems to be a disproportionate interest in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on installing tennis court lighting for a very small demographic while there many other people who need access to basic park resources. While the surveys seem to indicate community interest in lighted courts, there are many comments and concerns that were blatantly not included, we are a group that has expressed these concerns but our concerns appear to be intentionally not included. The highschool already has lights and is located 1 mile from sinshiemer an is readily open to the public and rarely fully utilized. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lights, when there are existing lighted courts, seems like a waste of funds to only serve a small group of people. This should not be a priority considering the substantial need for other park resources that could be utilized by the entire community rather than a small demographic. There needs to be more diversity and inclusion to other demographics, particularly those of less privileged backgrounds where tennis is not their go-to sport due to their socioeconomic status. Please eliminate lighted courts as a priority and open up those funds to better serve all demographics of the community not just a privileged few. 10 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 26, 2021, 4:16 PM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! 42 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:16 AM To:Scott, Shawna; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey; Bergam, Aleah Cc:Andrews, Jeff Subject:FW: Open Town Hall Attachments:parks-recreation-plan-and-element-update (1).pdf Please find attached the most updated Open City Hall communication regarding the Blueprint. There are 6 NEW comments that were under the “Unregistered” tab that rendered them unviewable. Victoria has provided the updated list for us to have for PRC tomorrow. They are dated, so please review. Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 10:59 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Cc: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Open Town Hall From: Tonikian, Victoria Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 10:59 AM To: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall Hi Jeff, Here you go! VT From: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 9:27 AM To: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall 43 Hi Victoria! Would you mind pulling these for me again? It looks like we have new unregistered comments on the site. Thank you! Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:41 AM To: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall Not a problem, Jeff! Just let me know when you need me to pull it – it takes about 2 minutes so not a bother at all! VT From: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:40 AM To: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org>; Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall This is incredibly helpful, thank you Victoria!! I hope you don’t mind if I reach out again if we receive additional unregistered comments. Have a super weekend!! Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 44 From: Tonikian, Victoria <vtonikia@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:36 AM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org>; Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall Hi Jeff, I have an admin account and have attached the all of the responses here. VT From: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:21 AM To: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall Jeff, I am not familiar with OpenGov. The only person in our office that I think might be is Victoria and she is flexing off today. I forwarded your earlier note to Greg Hermann as I think that he may have more knowledge (and have cc’ed him on this note). You could check with IT and see if they have any more knowledge. Sorry! Kevin From: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 9:13 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Town Hall Good morning, I made a support ticket with OpenGov and here’s what they said: … these comments are left by members of the public who do not have a registered account with the City. The City of San Luis Obispo has chosen to not share unregistered responses with members of the public and that is why you are unable to view them. Does someone in the Clerk’s office maybe have an admin account with OpenGov where you can view the unregistered comments? If so, can I have the login OR would someone share said comments with me? As always, I appreciate your office and thank you so much! Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org 45 T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Andrews, Jeff Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 8:23 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Open Town Hall Hi there, Does anyone know how we might be able to access the feedback from ‘Unregistered’ statements on our P&R element update issue? https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415/statements?scope=off_forum Thank you!! Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 1 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM Contents i. Summary of statements 2 ii. Individual statements 3 Summary Of Statements As of April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Attendees:38 March 1, 2021, 3:13 PM Statements:19 Minutes of Public Comment:57 2 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Individual Statements Name not available March 3, 2021, 3:57 PM Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Representing Friends of SLO City Dogs and our existing 13,000 canine companions within the City, we would first like to thank you, staff and the consultant for recognizing the immediate need for dog parks. Many of us are so looking forward to the day we will have places we can walk to safely take our dogs to be off leash for exercising and socializing. We fully support the concept of looking at the City from a walkability standpoint and breaking the City out into six subareas. We are also very supportive of the City including an enclosed dog park within each of these subareas. We concur that establishing an enclosed dog park is a high priority, and that efforts should begin immediately to finalize a location and design so construction of the first enclosed dog park can happen in the very near future. The following are suggestions to amend the Update to address this ‘unmet’ need that was identified in the existing Parks and Recreation Plan that was prepared 20 years ago: 1. Emerson Park is one of the two public places downtown (Sub-area 2 – the other area is Mitchell Park) that is large enough to support an enclosed dog park. There are many hundreds of homes within one mile that have dogs. We strongly encourage pursuit now, as a part of the Emerson Park’s Revitalization Plan (and not just a future use considered at a later date), that an enclosed dog park be included as one of the amenities to increase park usage and ‘walkability’; having a downtown dog park could also increase tourist traffic that travel with their dogs; Pg. 124 shows conflicting information with an enclosed dog park in both the short and long-term sections (suggest deleting reference in long-term section); 2. As there is overwhelming evidence currently in many of our parks that dogs are regularly seen off-leash, we would strongly support language that could be added to the Master Plan to allow completion of the outreach/design phase of one dog park in each sub-area in the next five years. With location and design in hand, outside $$ could then be raised (or grants secured) to (help) fund the construction phase. In addition to the unmet need, dog park infrastructure costs are relatively low and can be easily modified should a later full Park Plan overhaul/review determine the dog park layout should be changed. A relatively straight forward approach to achieve this would be to link the walkability elements identified in Section 1.6 (pg. 86) with the Framework for Park Improvements Tier 2 (pg. 117) where a sentence or two was added to give these Sec. 1.6 items ‘priority consideration’ as Tier 2 (and Tier 3) elements are considered for any park. 3. To make a dog park a success, there are both ‘essential’ and subsequent ‘important’ elements that are needed. As already stated in the document, previous dog park approvals have resulted in very small (and potentially problematic) parks. There currently is no guidance on what are minimum requirements for an enclosed dog park. Having such guidance will minimize potential problems in the future. To remedy this, the following sentence is proposed to be added to the end of Section 1.17 ‘Dog Parks and Dog Area’ (Pg. 88): Appendix __ provides a more complete list of essential and important elements that will increase the success of an enclosed dog park. Appendix __ is included below that would be placed at the end of the Appendix section of the Update. 4. With regards to Table F-1 in the Appendices on Rough Costs (Dog Parks), to be consistent with the text in the update about referencing all-weather ground cover (an ‘essential element’) needed in dog parks, this table should add ‘all-weather ground cover costs’ and either remove or put as secondary options the ‘safety lighting’ and ‘agility equipment’ costs. Thank you for considering these comments. Thank you also again for supporting efforts to elevate the quality of life for our canine kids. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Slocitydogs.org "Appendix __. Dog Park Design Guidelines' insert: The following should be used for guidance of any new 3 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! enclosed dog park within the City of San Luis Obispo. Dog parks include ‘essential’ elements as well as ‘important’ additional elements to enhance the human/dog experience while at the dog park. Essential Elements Size and shape. Preferable enclosed dog park size should be one acre or more (as recommended by the American Kennel Club). Dog parks may be sized down to ½-acre if larger areas are not available and still provide a workable dog park. Dog park shape can be highly variable. It is important to provide longer open areas for large dogs to be able to fetch balls/frisbees. Location. Most, if not all, of the enclosed area should be useable. Unusable or undesirable elements include: steep slopes, areas of ponding water or poor drainage, unprotected waterways, too many trees hindering ball throwing activities, potentially ‘toxic’ vegetation within close proximity (e.g., oleander shrubs, eucalyptus trees, etc.) Large-Small Dog Areas. To provide safety for small dogs there should always be separate enclosures for small and big dogs. Each enclosure can be separate and apart, but within easy walking distance. Large dog enclosures should be substantially larger than small dog enclosures. Fencing. Continuous sturdy fencing around each enclosure should be 4 to 5 feet from the ground. It should be made so balls cannot go under or through the fence. Fence design/materials can be variable. Gates. All dog entry gates shall have a double gate with 6’ x 10’ ‘holding area to reduce escapes and allow for better ‘introductions’ into the park. Large dog enclosures typically have two entry gates and the small dog enclosure will need one entry gate. Each enclosure will have a service gate to allow passage of larger vehicles that will be needed from time to time. Groundcover. An all-weather surface is needed to make the enclosure useable year-round. The type of material is variable but likely to be either wood chips or turf. Water Stations. Each enclosure should have at least one drinking water station (two preferable at the big dog enclosure). Waste Bags and receptacles/signage. Waste dispenser bags and waste receptacles will be placed strategically throughout each enclosed area. Dog Park Rule signs would be posted at each entry point. Utilities. Water, irrigation and electrical lines should be considered during initial design and installed or ‘roughed’ in during initial construction. Subsequent Important Elements Shade Structure. This element could also be considered ‘essential’ in some cases where no shade exists. Both humans and dogs should be considered when installing shade structures and large landscaping elements. Locating some benches/tables within or near shade structure is recommended. Benches/Tables. Durable benches should be placed on concrete slabs in multiple locations throughout the enclosed areas. Tables on concrete slabs should also be considered at various locations. Landscaping. Internal and external landscaping, namely trees and large shrubs have numerous benefits. Internally, it provides natural boundaries and separation for dogs that establish such mental boundaries, as well as provides shade. Care should be taken to avoid plants toxic to dogs. Initially, protective barriers around internal landscaping will be needed. External trees also provide shade without causing ball throwing interference issues. Storage shed. The storage shed would store tools, supplies and agility course equipment. This should be placed on a concrete slab. Kiosk. An information Kiosk would provide the following: dog park rules, upcoming events, sponsors, other dog- related information. Water Tubs. Some dogs love water. Tubs on platforms that can be easily emptied can enhance the dogs’ experience at the park. Should locate near landscaped area or low-lying area as they will be regularly dumped. Dog Washing station. As certain on-site conditions can result in dirty dogs, a dog-rinsing station (water spigot next to well-draining concrete slab) would enhance the dog park experience. Safety Lighting. As most parks will be a ‘dawn-to-dusk’ operation, night lighting would only be needed for safety and/or emergency needs. Electricity needs could be at shade structure, kiosk, entrances and shed. 4 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Memorial Elements. Most dogs are thought of by their humans as their children. When they pass, many people want a place to remember their loved ones. The following elements are examples to help in this grieving/ remembrance process: installing memorial walkways/circles/walls with individualized bricks, memorial plaques at key elements of the park, such as trees and benches. Agility Equipment. Most dogs do best when they are given ‘jobs’ to exercise their mental faculties. One such job is agility training. This is a great way to apply a dog’s physical and mental prowess. Such portable agility training equipment could be stored in an on-site shed. Public Art. Dog-inspired art work would enhance the dog park experience and create greater community interest.   Name not shown outside Neighborhoods March 3, 2021, 7:39 PM I support the expansion of Cheng Park. I would like to see the existing statues and structures remain and would like to new structures connected by a path to something like Chiang Kai-shek pavilion in San Jose added where people can sit under it and reflect and meditate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ Plum_Pavillion_- _Overfelt_Garden_%281347406841%29.jpg Another idea is adding a second larger pagoda, like Stow Park in San Francisco https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/7/5/3/large1500/357 718112.jpg Flora that represents significance in Chinese culture should be present. Certain flora represents the seasons (peach blossoms for spring, chrysanthemums for autumn); others stand for human qualities such as purity (lotus) or humility (orchid). Any or all of these florae would be great additions. If possible, I'd like to see a creation of a third Asian cultural park in San Luis Obispo. Perhaps one that is charged upon entry to use. The tea garden in Lodi's Micke Grove Park is one example of a medium sized Japanese garden. A smaller Japanese garden example would be Urashima Taro in Sacramento's fairytale land. https://www.fairytaletown.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/japanese_garden-780x325.jpg One key feature this garden offers is the traditional Japanese arches and moon bridge over water not currently present in Eto Park. Thank you for your time E Lerner inside Neighborhood 10 March 8, 2021, 9:51 AM I noted on pg. 48, "No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area." However, there is no further mention of this area. Community members in the area, especially those in the Toscano and Serra Meadows developments do not have effective access to a park. This is with the exception of traversing over the South Hills to Meadow Park, but this access is currently blocked by Toscano development. I am concerned we have outlined a plan through 2041 with no consideration for the residents south of the South Hills. Name not available inside Neighborhood 1 March 17, 2021, 11:48 AM Can we add legal access to Madonna from the Tassajara or Luneta entrances? Name not available inside Neighborhood 8 March 17, 2021, 6:59 PM We need a fenced dog park as well as more places to roller skate!!! Maybe some hammock stands? Tauria Linala inside Neighborhood 9 5 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! March 21, 2021, 11:38 PM Just watched the slide show. The Plan references diamonds and rectangular fields. I have previously read the City of Santa Maria Parks Assessment from a few years ago. They found a big demand from the citizens for soccer fields. They found they were over-programmed for hoops and baseball, with those sports somewhat declining. It would appear that having plenty of soccer field space available would be an element of DEI. I am very interested in the re-visioning of the Senior Center and Ludwig Centers. Also, it seems that there are opportunities to acquire some park land off South Higuera as it seems a long way to any other parks. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Timothy Cleath inside Neighborhood 8 March 23, 2021, 8:47 AM As a Laguna lake side property owner for more than 35 years who walks in the park at least 5 times a week, the assessment of the park included in the appendices does not do a very good job of covering the conditions of the park. It does not speak much about the conditions of the roadways and walkways in the park (poor), lack of control of unleashed dogs from the dog park and in the rest of the park, drainage and the lakeside improvements (particularly erosion along the lake front and the dangerous landing for the dock next to the picnic area. I also find the outside light at the bathroom facilities to be glaring and is an all night light pollution to the homes across the lake. Name not available March 24, 2021, 8:45 PM Please add a plan than will address the prevention of further erosion of the hill on the frisbee golf course and Sinsheimer. Paths where players slide down to retrieve frisbees are now carved down the side of the hill and mountain bikers and kids perform dangerous stunts straight down along the rock. When it rained, the paths became tributaries down the side. I have watched the hillside deteriorate since the additional frisbee target was added. I know everyone loves the course but soon, there will be no hillside left. Please have a team go check it out. Name not available March 25, 2021, 5:37 AM Dogparks are quite simply essential. Our city has so many dogs in need of safe places to run and play. Leash only parks are continuously being used as dog parks which is unfair and dangerous . Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 10:41 AM I am impressed by the process Parks & Rec used to gather and organize community inputs and the thoroughness and professionalism of the product, the Parks & Rec Plan 2021- 2041. It was wise to identify multiple potential sources of funding for this plan because I believe City budgets are going to be stressed for years by its Unfunded Pension Liability. I doubt that CalPERS is going to come close to meeting its target of 7% return on investment. If so, our unfunded liability shown as $148M on the City web site will increase substantially in spite of our plan to pay down that liability over a 20 year period. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 7:43 PM The Parks and Recreation Plan is a good start, however, I worry about the impact of the louder more privileged voices who have had the ability and money to be loud about their needs and not the low income or BIPOC members of our Community. Has our Latinx community been reached? Name not available outside Neighborhoods March 26, 2021, 4:18 AM SLO desperately needs an enclosed dog park. Closest one is in AG or way over at Cuesta. Dog parks are a great way to come together as a community and meet other dog owners. 6 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! John Smigelski inside Neighborhood 8 March 26, 2021, 12:36 PM I am impressed by the quality of this report and by the March 25 presentation. I came away with a better understanding of the needs of the community. There was a comment about the Laguna Lake Park and the 1993 master plan. I think the commenter was correct in stating that the features and the opportunities provided by the lake should be a core part of the plan: Improving views-- vistas and wildlife, and promoting access to the lake for all sorts of recreational activities. A lot has changed in the 30 years since the master plan was developed and an update is warranted to maximize the benefits to local and greater community. With that in mind, I think an effort should be made to include the future residents of SLR in the process. There is a waiting list that would provide a great sample to be combined with the views of the established communities. A couple of weekends ago I biked in the park and found it busier than I ever saw it, Parking lots were full and people were enjoying the beauty of the area while engaged in the wide range of activities that the park presents. It was great to see! In the Laguna lake reserve plan there was a potential for a peninsula trail that extends from the new ADA trail by the boat ramp. This trail/boardwalk extends out along the lake and provides great bird watching opportunities. Is it possible to have Cal Poly students have a design competition to come up with an innovated deign that would make this a unique and attractive feature to provide unmatched viewing opportunities. Since there is talk of possibly moving a community center to this area, have you considered purchasing the Golden Gong? It is a great, underused parcel. Name not available April 2, 2021, 10:24 AM Hello. I have one comment on parks in general. Please remove the single direction signs on the trails. For those of us trail running, with specific routes and self-races, these are extremely inconvenient and aggravating. I know they might seem necessary, but they are useless for social distancing because as a runner I'm going to pass people anyway, and now their back is to me so it's harder to get their attention. Please remove those. Please please please. Name not available April 2, 2021, 12:24 PM Will there be a triathlon this year? Name not available April 2, 2021, 5:44 PM Is there a timeline for the margarita park. I recommend high priority for that project. There are no other walkable parks or playgrounds in that area. Name not available April 4, 2021, 3:04 PM I would like to see more unique activities included. Just some ideas: 1. Enclose a part of Sinsheimer Park to be a dog park. 2. Let dogs swim in Laguna Lake. 3. Create an area for BMX and dirt biking – could be a place for competitions and could bring money to the city. 4. Work with the high school to use their new pool as more of a play pool. The current schedule at the city pool is too limited. 5. Ropes course/discovery track, think climbing/bridges/tree houses. 6. Longer distance/smooth skating/long boarding opportunities. Even if in a larger loop. 7. Water interactive area... Spouting fountain, etc. 8. Plant fruit and avocado trees in parks for limited public harvesting throughout the city, not just private gardening areas. 9. Creative building park using salvaged and recycled materials (https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adventureplayground/) Overall comment: Get the transient drug users out of the parks. Police the skate park to fine for booze and smoking. Why bother spending so much money on the parks when so many people are afraid to use them anymore? Name not available April 4, 2021, 4:45 PM 7 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! We cannot enjoy the parks when meth'd out homeless people are sleeping in soiled pants. The homeless problem is a drug problem and SLO is losing this battle. Name not available April 5, 2021, 2:53 PM Thank you for publicly distributing the SLO City Parks and Recreation Plan. I am truly impressed. Not only is the document a rich source of information about the City and its parks, but it also recognizes the need for enhancing existing parks and creating new ones for our growing and evolving population. l also like how the plan ties into recreational opportunities (including the Bob Jones trail) outside of city boundaries -- I might suggest you add that integration of parks, trails, etc., as one of the City's "Goals and Policies" in Chapter 4. In sum, very well done. Bravo and thank you for the thousands of hours put into this effort. 8 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | April 6, 2021, 10:58 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! 46 From:Andrews, Jeff Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 12:36 PM To:Andrews, Jeff Cc:Scott, Shawna; Avakian, Greg; Bergam, Aleah; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:City of San Luis Obispo, CA: PRC - Parks and Recreation Commission Attachments:04-07-2021 PRC Agenda.pdf; PRC_PR Update_04.07.2021.pdf; 03-03-2021 PRC Minutes.pdf BCC: PRC Commissioners Good afternoon PRC Commissioners, The April 7, 2021 PRC meeting agenda packet & March draft minutes have been posted to the PRC website. I have also attached them to this email. Please follow the link on the first page of the agenda to join the Zoom meeting next week. Let me know if there are any questions. Have a safe Easter weekend. Thank you, Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: webmaster@slocity.org <webmaster@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:28 PM To: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Subject: City of San Luis Obispo, CA: PRC - Parks and Recreation Commission This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. PRC - Parks and Recreation Commission  Date: 04/07/2021 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM  Location: Zoom This is a regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Agendas are posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting and can be viewed on the PRC Agendas & Minutes web page. 47 Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference (instructions to join can be found on the current agenda). There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of San Luis Obispo, CA eNotifications. Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 3, 2021 Page 1 Minutes PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday, March 3, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference by Chair Thurman. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Rodney Thurman, Vice Chair Robert Spector, Commissioners Kari Applegate, Rick Blair, Adam Stowe, and Andrew Webber Absent: N/A Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Greg Avakian, Recreation Manager Devin Hyfield, Recreation Manager Lindsey Stephenson, Senior Planner Shawna Scott, and Administrative Assistant III Jeff Andrews PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Consideration of Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of February 3, 2020. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER APPLEGATE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WEBBER, CARRIED 5-0-1-0 the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the Minutes of the Regular Parks and Commission Meeting of February 3, 2020. CONSENT ITEMS N/A BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Receive Presentation on summary of the Introduction of the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) – (Scott/Avakian – 60 minutes) Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 3, 2021 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. John McKenzie commented representing Friends of SLO City Dog Parks UPDATES 3. Directors Report (Avakian – 20 minutes) a. Discuss format for March 25 Community Virtual Workshop for discussion on the draft Parks and Recreation Plan and Element Update b. Update on Grant submittal for Emerson Park c. Update on potential pickleball court project for Mitchell Park d. Update on current Parks and Recreation programs (Spring 2021) i. Youth Services 1. Expanded to 4 childcare school sites starting today (Bishop Peak, Pacheco, C.L. Smith, Sinsheimer) 2. Childcare staff have been approved and are scheduled for COVID- 19 vaccinations ii. Contract Classes 1. Basketball clinics, tennis lessons, youth yoga, roller derby iii. Youth Sports 1. Soccer clinics, fitness camp, pickleball clinic, disc golf clinic 2. Will remain through June iv. Adult Sports 1. Softball registration to begin mid-late March with an early summer season v. Special Events 1. Events to remain virtual; partnering with downtown businesses 2. Currently not issuing permits for community events vi. Fitness in the Parks continuing; some businesses moving to their own parking lots vii. Public Art 1. Greenway bulb-out paining projects are complete 2. Tile restoration completed 3. Utility boxes to be revisited for updates and new boxes viii. Aquatics 1. Starting March 1, 2021, the SLO Swim Center will be offering 9 swim reservations time slots to the public and reservations will start on the hour throughout the day. 2. Great video facility safety check-in walkthrough on the P&R Facebook page 3. The SLO Swim Center began its “O-Fish-Al” Swim School Spring Swim Lessons starting March 1, 2021. 4. The SLO Swim Center is now hiring staff for the upcoming spring and summer seasons. The SLO Swim Center will also be offering American Red Cross Lifeguarding courses to the public in March and April. ix. Facilities 1. All Fields are reopened after their annual maintenance closures. Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 3, 2021 Page 3 2. Indoor facilities remain closed and assisting with County pandemic response 3. With the recent update on competitive sports by the State of California, as of Friday, February 26, 2021, per the California Department of Public Heath, Inter-Team competitions may resume in California for all sports (adult and youth), and more specifically in SLO County given the COVID-19 case rate has dropped below 14 cases per 100,000. 4. Organization preparing to host games or matches at City facilities have been submitting updated request. Each organization must submit their safety guidelines outlining how the organization will be enforcing the guidelines addressed within the document. 5. Given the amount of time required for both the organization to submit safety guidelines, as well as the City to update field lines and staffing needs, games and matches are approved to proceed as of Sunday, March 14. 6. Document Highlights a. Only one competition per team, per day b. Tournaments are not permitted c. Physical distancing must be maintained at all times with face coverings worn on the sidelines, dugouts, etc d. Informed Consent: Organizations shall provide the City updated liability waivers containing consent information for understanding and acknowledgement of risk e. Sanitization of high touch equipment (balls, goals, benches, glass, bats, etc) shall occur throughout the games and matches determined breaks and the conclusion of the activity f. This document does not apply to collegiate or professional sports g. While not a state requirement, weekly testing of both coaches and participants for high contact sports is strongly encouraged for sports such as football, rugby, hockey. h. Youth Organizations must submit per match per field expected amount of attendance and stress to participants that observers are limited to household members only. i. Observers must wear facial coverings at all times and must maintain 6-ft distance with non-household members. j. For any adult sport, no spectators are permitted for games. k. In response to the updated State and County guidelines, Damon-Garcia Spring season will be extended through the end of May. The summer renovation closure of Damon- Garcia will be moved to June – August 2021, reopening on Wednesday, September 1. x. Golf (Hyfield) 1. Golf Course continues to be well utilized 2. February saw 252 new players, and some high use dates! Minutes – Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of March 3, 2021 Page 4 3. Night Disc Golf will be held on March 23. 4. The Golf Course will be expanding their hours around Daylight savings from 7:00 am – 7:00 pm. 5. The maintenance crew continues to address leaks on the course as well as focusing on rewiring sprinklers along the course to updated satellite boxes. For the past two weeks, the crew has been focused on trenching ditches along hole #1 to lay wire to all sprinklers systems in order to control all from one box location. For this reason, hole #1 has been closed with a planned reopening by March 12. xi. OpenSLO 1. Mission Plaza setup continues including seasonal decorations and expanded outdoor dining xii. Ranger Service 1. Finishing work at new Miossi Open Space 2. Encampment clean-up continues; 23 tons of material cleaned up 3. Night hike program was extended to this year, final report will be presented to Council on March 16 PUBLIC COMMENT: None SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS 4. Subcommittee Liaison Reports a. Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Spector i. Senior Center closed for programming b. Active Transportation Committee: Commissioner Webber i. No update c. City Facilities (Fields, Golf, Pool, & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner Applegate i. See Directors report d. Jack House Committee: Vacant e. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman i. TC did not meet last month ii. ECOSLO is doing tree plantings f. Youth Sports Association: Commissioner Stowe i. No update ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: XX/XX/2021 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 7, 2021 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Parks and Recreation Commission can attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in Commission meetings in the following ways: 1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting on Zoom: • https://slocity-org.zoom.us/j/93388957355?pwd=enp3eWxEQkVLTjhXTXhVdVdWclN5QT09 • Or dial in: 669-900-6833 • Meeting ID: 933 8895 7355 • Passcode: 286934 • Find your local number: https://slocity-org.zoom.us/u/abfL6sB2wp 2. Public Comment - The City Council will still be accepting public comment. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: • Mail or Email Public Comment o Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. All emails will be sent to Commissioners and saved as agenda correspondence however we cannot guarantee emails received after 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting we be sent out to Commission or uploaded to the website prior to the meeting starting. • Verbal Public Comment o In Advance of the Meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Council Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. o During the meeting – Joining the webinar (instructions above). Once the meeting has started please put your name and the item # you would like to speak on in the chat box. During public comment for the item your name will be called, and your mic will be unmuted. Contact the office of the City Clerk at cityclerk@slocity.org for more information. All Comments/Correspondence received will be saved as part of the record for the meeting. Parks and Recreation Committee Agenda for April 7, 2021 2 | P a g e Wednesday, April 7, 2021 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Via Webinar CALL TO ORDER: Chair Rodney Thurman ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kari Applegate, Rick Blair, Kari Howell, Adam Stowe, Andrew Webber, Vice Chair Robert Spector, and Chair Rodney Thurman PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Committee of March 3, 2021 CONSENT ITEMS N/A BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Introduction of new Commissioner: Kari Howell 3. Receive Presentation on the Public Draft of the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) - (Scott/Avakian – 60 minutes) a. Review and provide comments and recommendations on the Public Draft Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) Parks and Recreation Committee Agenda for April 7, 2021 3 | P a g e 4. Receive Background on the Potential of Instating a City Ordinance on the Regulation of Child Play Areas within City Parks - (Avakian – 30 minutes) a. Provide feedback and recommendations regarding child play areas (playgrounds) to be included in the City staff presentation regarding multiple updated and new ordinances at the April 13, 2021 City Council meeting 5. Directors Report (Avakian – 15 minutes) SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS 6. Subcommittee Liaison Reports (Chair) – 15 minutes) a. Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Spector b. Active Transportation Committee: Commissioner Webber c. City Park and Rec Facilities: Commissioner Applegate d. Jack House Committee: Vacant e. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman f. Youth Sports Association: Commissioner Stowe 7. Communication ADJOURNMENT To the Special M eeting of the Parks and Recreation Commi ttee as approved by the PRC to Wednesday , May 12, 202 1, at 5:30 p.m., via Webinar. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participa te in a meeting should direct such request to the Parks and Recreation Department at (805) 781-7300 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the fol lowing web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/61014/Row1.aspx Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report Meeting Date: 03/03/2021 Item Number: DATE: April 7, 2021 FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks and Recreation Director Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, Community Development SUBJECT: Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and provide comments and recommendations on the Public Draft Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) BACKGROUND For additional background regarding the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update (Plan Update), including the summarized introduction to the Public Draft Plan Update please refer to the March 3, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission agenda report, available here. The public is encouraged to attend the public hearings on this item and provide comments as the Public Draft Plan Update proceeds through the hearing process. The document and links to opportunities for public comment are available here: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate DISCUSSION The Public Workshop on the Plan Update was held via Zoom on March 25, 2021. Approximately 30 participants were in attendance throughout the Workshop (attendance varied at times). Staff presented the Public Draft Plan Update, conducted virtual polls on specific parks and facilities, received public comments and questions via Zoom Chat and public testimony, and responded to questions from the public. The public was also encouraged to provide comments on Open City Hall, which continues to be a resource for the public to provide comments. Comments received prior to the preparation of this agenda report are summarized; however, please note staff will continue to receive comments as the Plan Update progresses through the public review process. In addition, staff presented the Public Draft Plan Update to the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on March 18, 2021. The ATC unanimously moved to recommend adoption of the Plan Update, with recommendations identified on the following page. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 2 Active Transportation Committee, March 18, 2021 Staff presented the Public Draft Plan Update to the Active Transportation Committee, and received a unanimous recommendation to the Planning Commission that the City Council adopt the Plan Update, with the following recommendations: • Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including non-vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Identify need for a paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park. • Provide stronger language in Policy 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access and Policy 1.16 Shaded Play Areas, beyond “evaluate potential…”and “strive to”. • Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike: Amend title to be more inclusive of those accessing parks and facilities by alternative non-vehicular means beyond “foot and bike”. • Overall, provide more specific ties to the Active Transportation Plan. • Suggestion to locate pump tracks on routes to schools and locate pump tracks where it can be accessed via bicycle. • Specifically address Sinsheimer Park, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park in Policy 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access, Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike, and Policy 5.2 Safe Access to Parks by Sustainable Transportation. • Include bicycle parking in parks, with facilities for standard, electric, and cargo bicycles. Staff invites feedback from the PRC regarding these recommendations, which will also be presented to the Planning Commission upon their consideration of the Plan Update. Public Workshop, March 25, 2021 Based on the comments received during the public meeting, staff recommends the PRC consider and discuss the following topics, summarized below. • Overall, in order to provide more clarity in the Plan Update, staff recommends incorporation of clarifying language regarding identified future park and facility improvements, including the intention to provide equitable distribution of amenities throughout the identified sub-areas, and the flexible nature of the Plan Update. The document should note that identified amenities for each park are possibilities for future consideration and will depend on implementation of other plans and projects within the City in addition to extensive community engagement. • One of the guiding themes of the Plan Update is “Inclusion and Access”, including “equitable access to recreation”.1 Staff looks forward to conducting further outreach and hearing more from the community about how parks and recreation, and associated programming, can be more inclusive and equitable by providing diverse opportunities, access, and activities for everyone. Staff encourages the community to provide public comment regarding any social, activity, ability, income, or other barriers to accessing parks and recreation in the city, and how we can best address these important issues. 1 Inclusion and Access: The City’s parks, public spaces, recreation amenities and programs will be accessible to residents and visitors, including the full diversity of our community. The City will continue to work to create equitable access to recreat ion and green spaces, and to address both physical and non -physical barriers that may prevent people from having full access to the benefits of parks and recreation. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 3 Comments received during the Workshop regarding specific parks and facilities warranting further discussion by the PRC are summarized below. Laguna Lake Park • Commenters noted a need for paths and facilities for roller sport activities, such as roller skating. Staff recommends that the Plan Update expand potential amenities to include improvements to existing paths, and/or construction of new/modified universal multi-use paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, and roller sports to provide more opportunities for diverse activities and use of urban paths. The PRC should discuss if this is appropriate for Laguna Lake Park. • Attendees noted a need for an additional roller area facility in the City, to support activities such as roller derby, and persons learning roller sports. While this was not specifically identified as a priority amenity, the PRC should discuss if a multi-use roller court should be identified as one of the potential future amenities to be considered in the comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan. • In order to address comments expressing a desire for a more passive environment at the park, the need for more focus on the lake itself and associated aquatics activities, staff recommends that the Plan Update is clear regarding the future community engagement that will be associated with the comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan in order to find the balance between passive and active recreational uses and facilities. Meadow Park, Meadow Park Center, Exposition Park • The Public Draft Plan Update identifies improvement of walking paths, use, and long-term maintenance of these shared paths, but does not specifically identify smooth surfaces for roller activities. The PRC should discuss if the Plan Update should include incorporation of a potential amenity to serve those learning a roller sport within Meadow or Exposition Park. • The Public Draft Plan Update does not currently specifically call out multi-use or skate tracks; however, based on feedback during the Workshop, staff recommends this description be expanded to include potential skating and other roller activities suitable for a track. Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Stadium, and SLO Swim Center • The Plan Update does not currently specifically call out multi-use or skate tracks; however, based on feedback during the Workshop, staff recommends this description be expanded in the document (applicable to both Sinsheimer area and the Railroad Safety Trail) to include skating and other roller activities suitable for a track. The design of the pump track would be dependent on community engagement and is anticipated to be designed for all ages and abilities as these facilities provide good opportunities to learn, and gain confidence, in bicycle and roller sports. • Comments presented by both the public and the ATC noted the need for improved non-vehicular connections the Sinsheimer area, in addition to improved access both to and through the park. The Plan Update identifies “accessibility” as an item that should be addressed in the comprehensive plan for this park area. Based on comments from the public and the ATC, staff recommends that connectivity should be highlighted more clearly. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 4 • Attendees noted a need for an additional roller area or facility in the City, to support activities such as roller derby, and persons learning roller sports. While this was not specifically identified as a priority amenity, the PRC should discuss if a multi -use roller court should be identified as one of the potential future amenities to be considered in the comprehensive plan for the Sinsheimer area. Laguna Lake Golf Course • Comments provided by the public regarding alternative programming included an obstacle course event (similar to previous City event), multi-use trails, inclusive and equitable golf clubs and classes, mini-golf, covered multi-use area (barbeque, or roller sports). These present potential options for consideration in the present and future. SLO Senior Center • There was overall support for a multi-generational facility, either at the current location or a new location as identified in the Plan Update. Further outreach with the members of the Senior Center and the community will occur to determine the appropriate use and programming of the existing facility and any future facility. In addition to the Workshop, the community was encouraged to provide comments on the Open SLO website. Comments received to date are summarized below, and the PRC is encouraged to review all public comments received prior to the public meeting, as staff anticipates and encourages further public comment. • Support for additional dog parks in the city. Suggestions for additional clarifications related to dog parks and associated essential elements; incorporation of a dog park in the Emerson Park Revitalization Plan; inclusion of a policy to establish a dog park within each sub-area in the near term (0-5 years); and incorporation of an appendix to the Plan Update that includes dog park design guidelines. The PRC should discuss if this information should be incorporated into the Plan Update. • Support for the expansion of Cheng Park and the creation of a new Asian cultural park in the city, including new structures, paths, and gardens. • Concern regarding the lack of a park in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (the Specific Plan calls for a park, but the subject parcel has not yet been proposed for development by the landowner). • Need for a fenced dog park and additional areas for roller skating. • Recommendation for more soccer fields, and acquisition of land on South Higuera for parkland. • Support for the re-visioning of the SLO Senior Center and the Ludwick Center. • Concern regarding current conditions at Laguna Lake Park, including roadways, walkways, drainage, lakeside erosion, and restroom lighting. • Concern regarding erosion within the Sinsheimer area near the disc golf course. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 5 QUESTIONS FOR PRC In addition to providing feedback on the recommendations from the ATC, and recommendations for staff based on public comments received during and following the Public Workshop, staff suggests consideration of the following questions: 1. Are modifications to Chapter 5 needed, including Draft Plan Update Table 5-1 Phasing of Tier 3 Park Improvements? 2. Does the Draft Plan represent the community as a whole and ‘tell the story’ regarding the community engagement opportunities to this point? 3. Is there more the Draft Plan can provide to further incorporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? 4. Is there anything missing from the Draft Plan Update that would be important to include? The PRC’s feedback and recommendations will be reviewed by staff and the project consultant and incorporated into the Public Draft Plan Update for further presentation to the PRC and the public. Key next dates and opportunities for review are identified in the table below. Date Action May 4, 2021 City Council Study Session May 12, 2021 Special Meeting Parks and Recreation Commission: Recommendation to Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Planning Commission: Recommendation to City Council July 6, 2021 City Council – Adoption of final plan 48 From:Andrews, Jeff Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 11:56 AM To:Scott, Shawna Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey; Bergam, Aleah Subject:RE: PRC April 7, 2021 Attachments:meeting_saved_chat.txt; parks-recreation-plan-and-element-update.pdf I was just sending this to you! Here’s the chat from Thursday night, and the Open Town Hall comments (the 3 highlighted comments were the unregistered ones). Happy Monday! Jeff Andrews pronouns he/him/his Administrative Assistant III Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E jandrews@slocity.org T 805.781.7018 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 11:53 AM To: Andrews, Jeff <jandrews@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Subject: PRC April 7, 2021 Good morning, I hope you all had a great weekend. Felt like summer yesterday! I need to prepare the PRC Agenda Report this week, and wanted to include a summary of the workshop and public comment. Is there a way to see/organize the comments that were provided in chat? Was there any luck viewing the “non-registered” comments on Open SLO? Any emailed comments that should be included? Thank you, Shawna Shawna Scott Senior Planner 49 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 17:41:02 From Aleah Bergam - City of SLO to Everyone : Does the Draft Plan represent you and/or your interests? 17:44:04 From Meghan Burger, City of SLO to Everyone : Megan H??? 17:59:12 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone (in Waiting Room) : Welcome to the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 workshop. The meeting will begin shortly, thank you for your patience. The meeting will be recorded. Please use this time to visit our project website where you will find the draft of the Blueprint for the Future: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate Throughout the workshop we will be asking for additional input via Open Town Hall: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415 Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org 18:04:09 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : Welcome to the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 workshop! Please use the chat to provide comments and ask questions. There will also be time for public comments. This meeting is being recorded. Project Website: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate Open City Hall: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415 Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org 18:07:38 From Brett Cross to Everyone : is there music playing 18:08:52 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Brett Cross(Direct Message) : There is not music playing. 18:13:18 From Brett Cross to SLO City Parks & Rec(Direct Message) : The Bright Ideas was at Ludwick? 18:14:30 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : The Bright Ideas workshops was at Ludwick 18:17:59 From Brett Cross to SLO City Parks & Rec(Direct Message) : are there cost estimates in the draft and appendices. 18:19:42 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Brett Cross(Direct Message) : Hi Brett. If you ask your question to 'everyone', an appropriate staff member will answer your question. 18:22:00 From Brett Cross to SLO City Parks & Rec(Direct Message) : ok 18:23:50 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Is there a cost estimate for projects such as new community center, swim center. I see a cost estimate in Appendix F for a Turf Field and a couple of other typical projects. 18:31:29 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : Hi Brett. Thank you for your question. This will be addressed later in the presentation. 18:37:40 From Annie Turner to Everyone : Reason I don’t go to Laguna Park as much: the asphalt is too rugged for roller skating. Not great terrain. 18:37:42 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : Here to advocate for roller skating. 18:37:55 From Brett Cross to Everyone : What was the impetus for considering Laguna Lake Park for ball fields, aquatic center, community center and other built projects. 18:38:17 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Where did the passive recreation concept go? 18:39:06 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : I also don’t go to this park due to lack of skating and safe spaces. 18:39:07 From John McKenzie to Everyone : Enclosed dog park would be a great improvement, not just ground treatment 18:40:09 From Annie Turner to Everyone : Will that provide a path for roller skating or a flat paved surface for roller derby? 18:40:45 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : I would also like some fence on that dog park 18:40:59 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : Id love to have a multi use rink like Santa Rosa. That rink is very unique to our area and people love it. 18:41:04 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : Santa Rosa Park is in very high demand with roller sports and others. More spaces would be fantastic. 18:41:16 From John McKenzie to Everyone : It would be great to include an off leash dog walking area, such as the fenced area to the north in the open space area 18:41:18 From Brett Cross to Everyone : you missed my comment about Laguna Lake being a Passive Recreation Area 18:41:19 From The Joneses to Everyone : more ,multi-use rinks like Santa Rosa please 18:43:01 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : I am wondering about the reason for synthetic turf. 18:43:11 From Brett Cross to Everyone : It appears the plan is looking at existing spaces to basically "cram" in uses. 18:43:23 From John McKenzie to Everyone : As many dogs use this park now, I hope the dog park is a mid-term element 18:43:26 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : I really appreciate what you all have done with this park over the last year. 18:43:32 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Is there a plan to update the buildings as well 18:43:34 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : Also, I would love to see expansion of smooth surfaces for beginners to learn how to roller skate. 18:44:52 From Craig Campbell to Everyone : Its a good park, but I usually go to others that have more hillside trails. 18:45:00 From adam to Everyone : It would be helpful on these poll questions to make clear what is mid term and what is long term 18:45:14 From Brett Cross to Everyone : How many annexed development project such as San Luis Ranch paid Park In-lieu fees. 18:45:18 From Kari Howell (she, her, hers) to Everyone : The playground is quite nice and seems new at this park, is that a long term assessment? Or are they specific inclusive, accessible improvements? 18:45:22 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Or multi use space 18:46:32 From Brett Cross to Everyone : What is the percentage of use of the building at Meadow-prior to Covid 18:46:57 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : @Brett I believe it was used every Sunday for a church 18:47:26 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : As well as the UU across the street uses its open spaces/playground for the kids 18:48:02 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Really Greg? That's your opinion/definition of a community park. 18:48:36 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Greg, Have you read the 1993 Laguna Lake Master Plan? 18:49:42 From Brett Cross to Everyone : It appears that the City is planning on paving over Laguna Lake park-- basically because that's where this space. 18:49:56 From Brett Cross to Everyone : there is space 18:51:04 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Maybe the City should not have allowed San Luis Ranch to pay in lieu fees instead of providing the required developed park area. 18:51:57 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : When you’ve listed bike pump tracks before, I’ve always thought that those would/could be skating tracks too. Is this the case, or would that answer be a part of future planning? 18:52:30 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Where is all this money coming from? 18:53:03 From Jeff Whitener to Everyone : Great plan. Lots of use opportunities. Needs lots more connectivity options. 18:53:12 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : An expanded therapy pool would be really wonderful. 18:53:49 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : As well as an expanded little kids pool. Its get crowed in there at prime time 18:53:56 From Craig Campbell to Everyone : Really like the ideas for the pool - important as our only City pool site. 18:54:41 From Kari Howell (she, her, hers) to Everyone : ^^ great suggestions re: the pool. Seems like a good assessment of an already nice park 18:55:06 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : I would like to advocate for areas where many different uses could occur. I have noticed tennis courts say no skating. Why is this and could there be a schedule for taking turns for use? For example, roller skate wheels are softer on surfaces than other wheels. 18:55:20 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : As a friend pointed out, my clarified question is if the pump tracks would be multi-use surfaces for all wheels, so I mean scooters, skateboards, roller and inline skates and bikes. 18:56:11 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : I like the therapy pool. Expansion could include a small kiddie pool separate from warm therapy pool. 18:56:15 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : I love this park and its layout already. I like the large open areas so I kind of hate to see some of it taken away. 18:56:21 From Myron Amerine Lea Brooks to Everyone : Needs better access from the RR Safety Trail. This is a hard park to access by bicycle. 18:56:42 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : More shade around the play ground! 18:58:40 From Annie Turner to Everyone : I have another meeting soon; I just wanted to advocate for more roller skating areas and roller derby rinks. It’s difficult to be vying w basketball etc. on the only rink in the county. 19:08:46 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : View the draft on our Project Website: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate Provide additional written feedback at Open City Hall: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415 Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org 19:16:01 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : I just don't know where all the pickballers are going to park at Mitchell? Parking is already tight 19:16:51 From Brett Cross to Everyone : Mitchell Park is not an appropriate park for Pickleball courts. Staff might want to read the comments on Nextdoor. 19:17:19 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : How do we encourage people to walk to our parks or ride bicycles instead of driving? 19:17:22 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : I love that. Thanks Greg. 19:18:01 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Im loving the fun stuff in the plaza 19:19:30 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : I don’t play golf but Im all for updating it 19:20:21 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : My family loves the Obstacle Course event for kids/families at the golf course. 19:20:23 From Kari Howell (she, her, hers) to Everyone : not a golfer, so I enjoy the alternative programming. Seems like a smart use of space (i think i went to a funrun there a while back?) 19:20:34 From Lindy Hatcher, HBACC to Everyone : I don't play golf, but might take it up in retirement. 19:20:35 From Myron Amerine Lea Brooks to Everyone : I don't golf and there isn't anything else to do. A multiuse trail with connectivity with Laguna Middle School and neighborhoods would be nice. 19:21:02 From john Smigelski to Everyone : Hopefully Creek rehabilitation includes stabilizing the banks of the creek, 19:21:08 From The Joneses to Everyone : husbands a golfer and he never goes 19:21:08 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Myron that’s a great idea 19:21:12 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : We need to host free golf clubs/classes for city elementary kids for equity. 19:21:37 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Lisa I also second that comment! 19:21:40 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : multi use trail! great idea. anything to get more safe skating in our town. 19:22:03 From The Joneses to Everyone : multi use trail for skating is great. husband doesn't use it bc its only 9 holes 19:22:06 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : A cross town/safer biking/skating trips would be awesome 19:22:15 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : Yes, multiuse trails is a great idea and the classes for equity. 19:23:09 From Devin Hyfield to Everyone : Hi Lisa - Thank you for the suggestion. The LLGC partners with the Central Coast First Tee program which focuses on youth development within golf https://www.firstteecentralcoast.org/ 19:23:24 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Shout to to them for letting the Middle School pick up and drop off in their parking lot! 19:23:24 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : a simple flat cover multi use could serve as covered bbq areas orrrr as a public use skate spot. 19:23:26 From Craig Campbell to Everyone : Some great ideas there 19:23:27 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : Yes to Marina! 19:24:08 From The Joneses to Everyone : yes Shauna to all your ideas 19:24:48 From The Joneses to Everyone : turn it into a mini golf course 19:27:23 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : it would be nice to have a way to connect to Board Street from the RR Trail. Id love to skate over for lunch at Taste. 19:27:26 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : I asked before, but would the pump tracks be multiuse surface for all wheels? 19:29:23 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : Id like to note that there is a city ordinance that bans roller skating within SLO city "streets" Id love to see that disappear for commuter skaters. 19:29:43 From Jeff Whitener to Everyone : Great to know this plan is being integrated with the ATP! 19:29:55 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Agreed Shauna! We have a lot of types of skates in our community 19:30:20 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Thanks for explain that Greg! 19:30:23 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : great idea! the skate park is really only for a certain type of skater already at a certain level. 19:30:42 From The Joneses to Everyone : mutli-use is the way to go! thank you! 19:31:31 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : Multi-use safe space for all ages on rotation and together, please. 19:31:56 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : Yes, multi surface is most inclusive. 19:31:57 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : I think a multi generation space is great, some times can be senior only 19:32:35 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : I love the multi generation idea too. 19:33:05 From Lindy Hatcher, HBACC to Everyone : Great idea for multi gen facility. 19:37:29 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : View the draft on our Project Website: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate Provide additional written feedback at Open City Hall: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415 Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org 19:39:56 From Lindy Hatcher, HBACC to Everyone : Have you met with the Senior Center members regarding the multi gen offerings? They may want to have some dedicated senior-only time. 19:40:54 From Greg Avakian - City of SLO to Everyone : Thank you Lindy. We have briefly but will be doing much more. 19:41:56 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : @Greg code10.76.010 regarding roller skates down town streets. 19:42:06 From John McKenzie to Everyone : Thank you Greg and your hard-working staff to working with the ommunity and putting together a well thought out comprehensive 'blueprint' for our recreational future! 19:43:21 From Andrew Webber to Everyone : Jeff is the unsung hero of the night! 19:45:10 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : Thank you. 19:45:32 From The Joneses to Everyone : thanks Jules! 19:49:41 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : Please raise your hand or let me know in the chat if you would like to verbally ask a question or make a comment. 19:51:17 From Brett Cross to Everyone : The City needs a new park and not try to push amenities into existing parks. 19:58:44 From Lisa Jouet she/her to SLO City Parks & Rec(Direct Message) : Thank you! 19:59:01 From Lisa Jouet she/her to Everyone : Thank you! 19:59:35 From SLO City Parks & Rec to Everyone : Thank you for attending the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 workshop! We appreciate your comments, questions, and participation. View the draft on our Project Website: https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate Provide additional written feedback at Open City Hall: https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/189/Issue_10415 Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org 20:00:31 From Shauna Gustuson to Everyone : thank you everyone. well planned meeting. 20:00:58 From Marina Penna (she/her/hers) to Everyone : Thank you for a great meeting. 20:01:26 From Jules Jensen-Chow to Everyone : Great meeting, thank you. 1 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM Contents i. Summary of statements 2 ii. Individual statements 3 Summary Of Statements As of March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Attendees:27 March 1, 2021, 3:13 PM Statements:12 Minutes of Public Comment:36 2 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Individual Statements Name not available March 3, 2021, 3:57 PM Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Representing Friends of SLO City Dogs and our existing 13,000 canine companions within the City, we would first like to thank you, staff and the consultant for recognizing the immediate need for dog parks. Many of us are so looking forward to the day we will have places we can walk to safely take our dogs to be off leash for exercising and socializing. We fully support the concept of looking at the City from a walkability standpoint and breaking the City out into six subareas. We are also very supportive of the City including an enclosed dog park within each of these subareas. We concur that establishing an enclosed dog park is a high priority, and that efforts should begin immediately to finalize a location and design so construction of the first enclosed dog park can happen in the very near future. The following are suggestions to amend the Update to address this ‘unmet’ need that was identified in the existing Parks and Recreation Plan that was prepared 20 years ago: 1. Emerson Park is one of the two public places downtown (Sub-area 2 – the other area is Mitchell Park) that is large enough to support an enclosed dog park. There are many hundreds of homes within one mile that have dogs. We strongly encourage pursuit now, as a part of the Emerson Park’s Revitalization Plan (and not just a future use considered at a later date), that an enclosed dog park be included as one of the amenities to increase park usage and ‘walkability’; having a downtown dog park could also increase tourist traffic that travel with their dogs; Pg. 124 shows conflicting information with an enclosed dog park in both the short and long-term sections (suggest deleting reference in long-term section); 2. As there is overwhelming evidence currently in many of our parks that dogs are regularly seen off-leash, we would strongly support language that could be added to the Master Plan to allow completion of the outreach/design phase of one dog park in each sub-area in the next five years. With location and design in hand, outside $$ could then be raised (or grants secured) to (help) fund the construction phase. In addition to the unmet need, dog park infrastructure costs are relatively low and can be easily modified should a later full Park Plan overhaul/review determine the dog park layout should be changed. A relatively straight forward approach to achieve this would be to link the walkability elements identified in Section 1.6 (pg. 86) with the Framework for Park Improvements Tier 2 (pg. 117) where a sentence or two was added to give these Sec. 1.6 items ‘priority consideration’ as Tier 2 (and Tier 3) elements are considered for any park. 3. To make a dog park a success, there are both ‘essential’ and subsequent ‘important’ elements that are needed. As already stated in the document, previous dog park approvals have resulted in very small (and potentially problematic) parks. There currently is no guidance on what are minimum requirements for an enclosed dog park. Having such guidance will minimize potential problems in the future. To remedy this, the following sentence is proposed to be added to the end of Section 1.17 ‘Dog Parks and Dog Area’ (Pg. 88): Appendix __ provides a more complete list of essential and important elements that will increase the success of an enclosed dog park. Appendix __ is included below that would be placed at the end of the Appendix section of the Update. 4. With regards to Table F-1 in the Appendices on Rough Costs (Dog Parks), to be consistent with the text in the update about referencing all-weather ground cover (an ‘essential element’) needed in dog parks, this table should add ‘all-weather ground cover costs’ and either remove or put as secondary options the ‘safety lighting’ and ‘agility equipment’ costs. Thank you for considering these comments. Thank you also again for supporting efforts to elevate the quality of life for our canine kids. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Slocitydogs.org "Appendix __. Dog Park Design Guidelines' insert: The following should be used for guidance of any new 3 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! enclosed dog park within the City of San Luis Obispo. Dog parks include ‘essential’ elements as well as ‘important’ additional elements to enhance the human/dog experience while at the dog park. Essential Elements Size and shape. Preferable enclosed dog park size should be one acre or more (as recommended by the American Kennel Club). Dog parks may be sized down to ½-acre if larger areas are not available and still provide a workable dog park. Dog park shape can be highly variable. It is important to provide longer open areas for large dogs to be able to fetch balls/frisbees. Location. Most, if not all, of the enclosed area should be useable. Unusable or undesirable elements include: steep slopes, areas of ponding water or poor drainage, unprotected waterways, too many trees hindering ball throwing activities, potentially ‘toxic’ vegetation within close proximity (e.g., oleander shrubs, eucalyptus trees, etc.) Large-Small Dog Areas. To provide safety for small dogs there should always be separate enclosures for small and big dogs. Each enclosure can be separate and apart, but within easy walking distance. Large dog enclosures should be substantially larger than small dog enclosures. Fencing. Continuous sturdy fencing around each enclosure should be 4 to 5 feet from the ground. It should be made so balls cannot go under or through the fence. Fence design/materials can be variable. Gates. All dog entry gates shall have a double gate with 6’ x 10’ ‘holding area to reduce escapes and allow for better ‘introductions’ into the park. Large dog enclosures typically have two entry gates and the small dog enclosure will need one entry gate. Each enclosure will have a service gate to allow passage of larger vehicles that will be needed from time to time. Groundcover. An all-weather surface is needed to make the enclosure useable year-round. The type of material is variable but likely to be either wood chips or turf. Water Stations. Each enclosure should have at least one drinking water station (two preferable at the big dog enclosure). Waste Bags and receptacles/signage. Waste dispenser bags and waste receptacles will be placed strategically throughout each enclosed area. Dog Park Rule signs would be posted at each entry point. Utilities. Water, irrigation and electrical lines should be considered during initial design and installed or ‘roughed’ in during initial construction. Subsequent Important Elements Shade Structure. This element could also be considered ‘essential’ in some cases where no shade exists. Both humans and dogs should be considered when installing shade structures and large landscaping elements. Locating some benches/tables within or near shade structure is recommended. Benches/Tables. Durable benches should be placed on concrete slabs in multiple locations throughout the enclosed areas. Tables on concrete slabs should also be considered at various locations. Landscaping. Internal and external landscaping, namely trees and large shrubs have numerous benefits. Internally, it provides natural boundaries and separation for dogs that establish such mental boundaries, as well as provides shade. Care should be taken to avoid plants toxic to dogs. Initially, protective barriers around internal landscaping will be needed. External trees also provide shade without causing ball throwing interference issues. Storage shed. The storage shed would store tools, supplies and agility course equipment. This should be placed on a concrete slab. Kiosk. An information Kiosk would provide the following: dog park rules, upcoming events, sponsors, other dog- related information. Water Tubs. Some dogs love water. Tubs on platforms that can be easily emptied can enhance the dogs’ experience at the park. Should locate near landscaped area or low-lying area as they will be regularly dumped. Dog Washing station. As certain on-site conditions can result in dirty dogs, a dog-rinsing station (water spigot next to well-draining concrete slab) would enhance the dog park experience. Safety Lighting. As most parks will be a ‘dawn-to-dusk’ operation, night lighting would only be needed for safety and/or emergency needs. Electricity needs could be at shade structure, kiosk, entrances and shed. 4 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! Memorial Elements. Most dogs are thought of by their humans as their children. When they pass, many people want a place to remember their loved ones. The following elements are examples to help in this grieving/ remembrance process: installing memorial walkways/circles/walls with individualized bricks, memorial plaques at key elements of the park, such as trees and benches. Agility Equipment. Most dogs do best when they are given ‘jobs’ to exercise their mental faculties. One such job is agility training. This is a great way to apply a dog’s physical and mental prowess. Such portable agility training equipment could be stored in an on-site shed. Public Art. Dog-inspired art work would enhance the dog park experience and create greater community interest.   Name not shown outside Neighborhoods March 3, 2021, 7:39 PM I support the expansion of Cheng Park. I would like to see the existing statues and structures remain and would like to new structures connected by a path to something like Chiang Kai-shek pavilion in San Jose added where people can sit under it and reflect and meditate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/ Plum_Pavillion_- _Overfelt_Garden_%281347406841%29.jpg Another idea is adding a second larger pagoda, like Stow Park in San Francisco https://static3.bigstockphoto.com/7/5/3/large1500/357 718112.jpg Flora that represents significance in Chinese culture should be present. Certain flora represents the seasons (peach blossoms for spring, chrysanthemums for autumn); others stand for human qualities such as purity (lotus) or humility (orchid). Any or all of these florae would be great additions. If possible, I'd like to see a creation of a third Asian cultural park in San Luis Obispo. Perhaps one that is charged upon entry to use. The tea garden in Lodi's Micke Grove Park is one example of a medium sized Japanese garden. A smaller Japanese garden example would be Urashima Taro in Sacramento's fairytale land. https://www.fairytaletown.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/japanese_garden-780x325.jpg One key feature this garden offers is the traditional Japanese arches and moon bridge over water not currently present in Eto Park. Thank you for your time E Lerner inside Neighborhood 10 March 8, 2021, 9:51 AM I noted on pg. 48, "No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area." However, there is no further mention of this area. Community members in the area, especially those in the Toscano and Serra Meadows developments do not have effective access to a park. This is with the exception of traversing over the South Hills to Meadow Park, but this access is currently blocked by Toscano development. I am concerned we have outlined a plan through 2041 with no consideration for the residents south of the South Hills. Name not available inside Neighborhood 1 March 17, 2021, 11:48 AM Can we add legal access to Madonna from the Tassajara or Luneta entrances? Name not available inside Neighborhood 8 March 17, 2021, 6:59 PM We need a fenced dog park as well as more places to roller skate!!! Maybe some hammock stands? Tauria Linala inside Neighborhood 9 5 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! March 21, 2021, 11:38 PM Just watched the slide show. The Plan references diamonds and rectangular fields. I have previously read the City of Santa Maria Parks Assessment from a few years ago. They found a big demand from the citizens for soccer fields. They found they were over-programmed for hoops and baseball, with those sports somewhat declining. It would appear that having plenty of soccer field space available would be an element of DEI. I am very interested in the re-visioning of the Senior Center and Ludwig Centers. Also, it seems that there are opportunities to acquire some park land off South Higuera as it seems a long way to any other parks. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. Thank you. Timothy Cleath inside Neighborhood 8 March 23, 2021, 8:47 AM As a Laguna lake side property owner for more than 35 years who walks in the park at least 5 times a week, the assessment of the park included in the appendices does not do a very good job of covering the conditions of the park. It does not speak much about the conditions of the roadways and walkways in the park (poor), lack of control of unleashed dogs from the dog park and in the rest of the park, drainage and the lakeside improvements (particularly erosion along the lake front and the dangerous landing for the dock next to the picnic area. I also find the outside light at the bathroom facilities to be glaring and is an all night light pollution to the homes across the lake. Name not available March 24, 2021, 8:45 PM Please add a plan than will address the prevention of further erosion of the hill on the frisbee golf course and Sinsheimer. Paths where players slide down to retrieve frisbees are now carved down the side of the hill and mountain bikers and kids perform dangerous stunts straight down along the rock. When it rained, the paths became tributaries down the side. I have watched the hillside deteriorate since the additional frisbee target was added. I know everyone loves the course but soon, there will be no hillside left. Please have a team go check it out. Name not available March 25, 2021, 5:37 AM Dogparks are quite simply essential. Our city has so many dogs in need of safe places to run and play. Leash only parks are continuously being used as dog parks which is unfair and dangerous . Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 10:41 AM I am impressed by the process Parks & Rec used to gather and organize community inputs and the thoroughness and professionalism of the product, the Parks & Rec Plan 2021- 2041. It was wise to identify multiple potential sources of funding for this plan because I believe City budgets are going to be stressed for years by its Unfunded Pension Liability. I doubt that CalPERS is going to come close to meeting its target of 7% return on investment. If so, our unfunded liability shown as $148M on the City web site will increase substantially in spite of our plan to pay down that liability over a 20 year period. Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 25, 2021, 7:43 PM The Parks and Recreation Plan is a good start, however, I worry about the impact of the louder more privileged voices who have had the ability and money to be loud about their needs and not the low income or BIPOC members of our Community. Has our Latinx community been reached? Name not available outside Neighborhoods March 26, 2021, 4:18 AM SLO desperately needs an enclosed dog park. Closest one is in AG or way over at Cuesta. Dog parks are a great way to come together as a community and meet other dog owners. 6 | www.opentownhall.com/10415 Created with OpenGov | March 26, 2021, 9:35 AM PARKS & RECREATION PLAN AND ELEMENT UPDATE Share your ideas about the Parks & Recreation Plan and Element Update! 50 From:Wilbanks, Megan Sent:Monday, March 1, 2021 2:51 PM To:John McKenzie Subject:RE: PRC 3/3/21 Meeting - Item #3 Master Plan Update Good Afternoon, Thank you for taking the time to contact the Parks & Recreation Commission on this topic; your message has been provided directly to them. Your remarks have been added to the Agenda Correspondence record for the March 3, 2021 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. Sincerely, City Clerk's Office City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cityclerk@slocity.org T (805) 781-7100 From: John McKenzie < Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 2:19 PM To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Subject: PRC 3/3/21 Meeting - Item #3 Master Plan Update This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Representing Friends of SLO City Dogs and our existing 13,000 canine companions within the City, we would first like to thank you, staff and the consultant for recognizing the immediate need for dog parks. Many of us are so looking forward to the day we will have places we can walk to safely take our dogs to be off leash for exercising and socializing. We fully support the concept of looking at the City from a walkability standpoint and breaking the City out into six subareas. We are also very supportive of the City including an enclosed dog park within each of these subareas. We concur that establishing an enclosed dog park is a high priority, and that efforts should begin immediately to finalize a location and design so construction of the first enclosed dog park can happen in the very near future. The following are suggestions to amend the Update to address this ‘unmet’ need that was identified in the existing Parks and Recreation Plan that was prepared 20 years ago: 1. Emerson Park is one of the two public places downtown (Sub-area 2 – the other area is Mitchell Park) that is large enough to support an enclosed dog park. There are many hundreds of homes within one mile that have dogs. We strongly encourage pursuit now, as a part of the Emerson Park’s Revitalization Plan (and not just a future use considered at a later date), that an enclosed dog park be included as one of the amenities to increase park usage and ‘walkability’; having a downtown dog park could also increase tourist traffic that travel with their dogs; Pg. 124 shows conflicting information with an enclosed dog park in both the short and long-term sections (suggest deleting reference in long-term section); 2. As there is overwhelming evidence currently in many of our parks that dogs are regularly seen off-leash, we would strongly support language that could be added to the Master Plan to allow completion of the outreach/design phase of one dog park in 51 each sub-area in the next five years. With location and design in hand, outside $$ could then be raised (or grants secured) to (help) fund the construction phase. In addition to the unmet need, dog park infrastructure costs are relatively low and can be easily modified should a later full Park Plan overhaul/review determine the dog park layout should be changed. A relatively straight forward approach to achieve this would be to link the walkability elements identified in Section 1.6 (pg. 86) with the Framework for Park Improvements Tier 2 (pg. 117) where a sentence or two was added to give these Sec. 1.6 items ‘priority consideration’ as Tier 2 (and Tier 3) elements are considered for any park. 3. To make a dog park a success, there are both ‘essential’ and subsequent ‘important’ elements that are needed. As already stated in the document, previous dog park approvals have resulted in very small (and potentially problematic) parks. There currently is no guidance on what are minimum requirements for an enclosed dog park. Having such guidance will minimize potential problems in the future. To remedy this, the following sentence is proposed to be added to the end of Section 1.17 ‘Dog Parks and Dog Area’ (Pg. 88): Appendix __ provides a more complete list of essential and important elements that will increase the success of an enclosed dog park. Appendix __ is included as an attachment with this email to drop in at the end of the Appendix section of the Update. 4. With regards to Table F-1 in the Appendices on Rough Costs (Dog Parks), to be consistent with the text in the update about referencing all-weather ground cover (an ‘essential element’) needed in dog parks, this table should add ‘all-weather ground cover costs’ and either remove or put as secondary options the ‘safety lighting’ and ‘agility equipment’ costs. Thank you for considering these comments. Thank you also again for supporting efforts to elevate the quality of life for our canine kids. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Slocitydogs.org 52 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Monday, March 1, 2021 9:25 AM To:Stanwyck, Shelly Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:Prop. 68 Statewide Park Program - Emerson Park Revitalization Project Attachments:EMERSON 2021 (006).pdf Happy Monday, Shelly! I wanted to send you a quick email in anticipation of a few docusign requests coming your way later this week/early next week. We have re-envisioned our Emerson Park Site Plan (attached) for the Prop. 68 Statewide Park Program, based on public input through public workshops and survey responses. Adrienne is reviewing our application this week and we should have final grant documents to send to you to sign as our Authorized Representative by end of day next Monday, March 8. You will see the Docusign forms sent by me in your inbox. Please let us know if you have any questions! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STExercise Equipment MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS Drought Tolerant Landscaping New Amenities Hydration station BOCCE COURT Updated AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES PARKING LOT Permeable e-co surface (buffer/ landscape strip, slope = bioswale) SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) Update perimeter fencing / Update + relocate Bocce Court / Multi-purpose court / Dog Park (include fencing): 1/2 acre which is about half the current field. Expand the dog park zone 33% or 40% of the grass. / 3 Shade Structures / Restroom (2 stalls) / Compost bin / 2 Hydration Stations /Educational Garden New and existing building space at the park makes up approximately 4% of the overall area. Compost stationSHADEFIELD Safety lights RESTROOM 16’ 8” x 24’ 400 sq ft Lights Storm water barrel Educational garden 53 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Wednesday, February 24, 2021 11:39 AM To:Scott, Shawna Subject:Emerson Park Revitalization Project Description Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed The Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project includes activation and enhancement of Emerson Park, based on public input through targeted public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Key project amenities includes the construction of restrooms, resurfacing of the black top, expansion of the current basketball court to a multi-purpose court and adding a half court, expand and revitalize the current playground, creation of a fenced dog park, installation of an educational garden featuring drought tolerant landscaping, installation of compost bins, installation of shade structures, additional drought tolerant landscaping, update and relocate the bocce court, updated perimeter fencing, the installation of safety lighting along walking paths and on the multi-purpose court, installation of additional hydration stations, and installation of solar panels on the restrooms. Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 54 From:Prop68@CCC <Prop68@ccc.ca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 4:03 PM To:Bergam, Aleah; Reed Addis Cc:Zamastil, Adam@CCC; Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey; Anderson, Mike@CCC Subject:RE: Conservation Corps Consultation - Prop 68 SSP Grant Opportunity (City of SLO) - Project Revision Attachments:CCC Prop 68 Consultation Response - Feasible - Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Aleah, The CCC Los Padres Center has reviewed your project and determined that it is feasible for CCC services to be used. See attac hed for how we can assist. Additional information is needed to determine if crews can assist with the installation of shade structures depending upon structure complexity and to provide an accurate cost estimate for labor. Please contact the project manager of the Los Padres Center to discuss costs and coordinate the planning of CCC involvement in this project, and reach out again if your project receives funding: Adam Zamastil, Conservationist Supervisor (Project Manager) Email: Adam.Zamastil@ccc.ca.gov Phone: 805-549-3561 Thank you again for consulting with us on your Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project. Please include the attached Corps Consultation Review Document with your application as official confirmation that you have consulted with the CCC. Best regards, ANDREA GABRIEL Bond Program Analyst & Corps Consultation Liaison Bonds & Grants Unit Emergency & Environmental Programs 1719 24th Street Sacramento, CA 95816 P: (916) 341-3272 Andrea.Gabriel@ccc.ca.gov Prop1@ccc.ca.gov Prop68@ccc.ca.gov ccc.ca.gov From: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:28 PM To: Prop68@CCC <Prop68@ccc.ca.gov>; Reed Addis <inquiry@prop68communitycorps.org> 55 Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org> Subject: Conservation Corps Consultation - Prop 68 SSP Grant Opportunity (City of SLO) - Project Revision To Whom it May Concern – The City of San Luis Obispo has changed our site plan for our Emerson Park Revitalization Project and so we are re- submitting our Proposition 68 Corps Consultation Form in addition to our Location Map. Hoping our project will receive grant monies and that we can work with CCC and/or CALCC in performing project activities. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you for your time, Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Revised January 2021 California Conservation Corps and Certified Community Conservation Corps Corps Consultation Review Document Proposition 68 – Parks, Environment and Water Bond Except for an exempted project, this Corps Consultation Review Document shall be completed by California Conservation Corps and Certified Community Conservation Corps (hereafter collectively referred to as Corps) staff on behalf of applicants wishing to seek preference for using the Corps, and must accompany applications for funding through Proposition 68, Chapter 1, Division 45: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018. Please see the Corps Consultation Process for more information. A copy of the process can be requested from the state department administering the grant program. 1. Name of Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Project Title: Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project Department/Conservancy to which you are applying for funding: CA Dept. of Parks and Recreation Grant Program: Statewide Park Program (SPP) Round 4 Date Response Sent to Applicant: 2/23/21 This Consultation Review Document is being prepared by: ☒ The California Conservation Corps (CCC) ☐ California Association of Local Conservation Corps (CALCC) 2. Applicant has submitted the required information by email to the Corps: ☒ Yes, Applicant has submitted all necessary information. ☐ No, Applicant has not submitted all information or did not submit information to both Corps. Application is deemed non-compliant. 3. Determination: ☐ It is NOT feasible for Corps services to be used on the project (deemed compliant). ☒ It is feasible for Corps services to be used on the project. The following aspects of the project can be accomplished with Corps services (deemed compliant): CCC Corpsmembers from the Los Padres Center can assist with the installation of the educational garden and dog park fencing and updating current landscaping to include drought- resistant plants. Additional information is needed to determine if crews can assist with the installation of shade structures depending upon structure complexity and to provide an accurate cost estimate for labor. Please contact the project manager of the Los Padres Center to discuss costs and coordinate the planning of CCC involvement in this project, and reach out again if your project receives funding: Adam Zamastil, Conservationist Supervisor (Project Manager) Email: Adam.Zamastil@ccc.ca.gov Phone: 805-549-3561 Notes CCC and CALCC representatives will return a Corps Consultation Review Document to applicant via email within 10 business days of receipt of a complete consultation request as verification of consultation. Applicant will include a copy of the documents as part of the project application. If the Corps determine it is feasible for their services to be used on the project, applicant will contact the Corps to discuss costs and coordinate the planning of Corpsmember involvement in the project and reach out again if the project receives funding. Submission of past consultations does not satisfy the requirement to consult with the Corps. The Corps must be consulted each grant cycle prior to submitting a grant application. 57 Thanks! Aleah From: Bergam, Aleah Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:11 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: CEQA Compliance Certification for Emerson Park Grant Hi Shawna, See attached for the CEQA Compliance Certification form we need completed by the end of February 2021 for our grant application. I know you needed a project description last time, and Devin said he could help with some of these items and can provide an updated project description. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you so much for your help! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 CEQA COMPLIANCE (CHECKLIST #9) State of California – The Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CEQA Compliance Certification Grantee: _____________________________________________________________ Project Name: _________________________________________________________ Project Address: _______________________________________________________ Is the CEQA analysis complete? ¨ Yes ¨ No What document was filed, or is expected to be filed for this project’s CEQA analysis: (check one) Date complete/expected to be completed ¨Notice of Exemption (attach recorded copy if filed)___________ ¨Notice of Determination (attach recorded copy if filed)___________ If CEQA is complete, and a Notice of Exemption or Notice of Determination was not filed, attach a letter from the Lead Agency explaining why, certifying the project has complied with CEQA and noting the date that the project was approved by the Lead Agency. Lead Agency Contact Information Agency Name: ________________________________________________________ Contact Person: _______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: _______________________________________________________ Phone: ( ___ ) __________________ Email: _________________________________ Certification I hereby certify that the above referenced Lead Agency has complied or will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the project is described in adequate and sufficient detail to allow the project’s construction or acquisition. I further certify that the CEQA analysis for this project encompasses all aspects of the work to be completed with grant funds. ________________________ ________ ___________________ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Date AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (Signature) (Printed Name and Title) FOR OGALS USE ONLY CEQA Document Date Received PO Initials ¨NOE ¨NOD 58 From:Kloepper, Shelsie Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:03 AM To:Nichols, Vanessa Cc:Hyfield, Devin Subject:Building Code ADA Question Attachments:EMERSON 2021.pdf Hello Vanessa, I have a quick building code questions. Could you answer the following question or pass it along to the appropriate person in Building to answer it? Parks and Recreation are working on securing a grant for a project at Emerson Park. We are working on analyzing all the components of the design and came across an ADA questions. If we install a restroom in the approximate location shown on the attached schematic, will we be required to provide ADA access to Pacific Street? There will be ADA access from the restrooms to the parking lot and from the parking lot to the right-of-way at Nipomo Street. Pacific may be the closest street to the proposed restroom, but there are 5 steps from the sidewalk to the pathway to the playground. Thank you for your help addressing this question. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Shelsie Kloepper Engineer III 59 Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SKloepper@slocity.org T 805.783.7735 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STEXERCISE EQUIPT. MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS DROUGHT TOLLERANT lANDSCAPING New Amenities HYDRATION STATION BOCCE COURT Updated AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES PARKING LOT Permeable e-co surface (buffer/ landscape strip, slope = bioswale) SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) REST ROOM Updated/relocate Bocce Court / Multi-purpose court / Dog Park (include fencing): 1/2 acre which is about half the current field. Expand the dog park zone 33% or 40% of the grass. / 3 Shade Structures / Restroom (2 stalls) / Compost bin / 2 Hydration Stations /Educational GardenCOMPOST STATIONSHADEFIELD SAFETY LIGHTS 60 From:Hyfield, Devin Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:46 AM To:Read, Chris Subject:Emerson Park Prop 68 Grant Submittal Attachments:EMERSON 2021.pdf Hi Chris – Reaching out to see if with the redesigned layout of the Emerson Park grant submittal is if we should be adding in any specific conservation techniques and add them with the document. Take a look at the attached park layout with new elements. Happy to chat if you’d like. Devin Hyfield pronouns he/him/his Recreation Manager Parks & Recreation Aquatics, Facilities and Golf 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E DHyfield@slocity.org T 805.781.7295 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 PACIFIC ST NIPOMO STEXERCISE EQUIPT. MULTI- PURPOSE COURT (1.5 COURTS) PARKS & REC OFFICE DOG PARK COMMUNITY GARDENS DROUGHT TOLLERANT lANDSCAPING New Amenities HYDRATION STATION BOCCE COURT Updated AmenitiesBEACH STPISMO ST PICNIC TABLES PARKING LOT Permeable e-co surface (buffer/ landscape strip, slope = bioswale) SHADE SHADE EXPAND PLAYGROUND (2 DIVIDED PLAYGROUNDS) REST ROOM Updated/relocate Bocce Court / Multi-purpose court / Dog Park (include fencing): 1/2 acre which is about half the current field. Expand the dog park zone 33% or 40% of the grass. / 3 Shade Structures / Restroom (2 stalls) / Compost bin / 2 Hydration Stations /Educational GardenCOMPOST STATIONSHADEFIELD SAFETY LIGHTS 61 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 9:55 AM To:Bergam, Aleah Cc:Hyfield, Devin Subject:RE: CEQA Compliance Certification for Emerson Park Grant From: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:30 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: RE: CEQA Compliance Certification for Emerson Park Grant Hi Shawna/Devin – Thanks! Aleah From: Bergam, Aleah Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 8:11 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: CEQA Compliance Certification for Emerson Park Grant Hi Shawna, See attached for the CEQA Compliance Certification form we need completed by the end of February 2021 for our grant application. I know you needed a project description last time, and Devin said he could help with some of these items and can provide an updated project description. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you so much for your help! Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst 62 Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 63 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 8:28 PM To:Prop68@CCC; Reed Addis Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:Conservation Corps Consultation - Prop 68 SSP Grant Opportunity (City of SLO) - Project Revision Attachments:Emerson Park Project Location Map_7-8-2019.pdf; Prop-68-Corps-Consultation-Form_Emerson Park Revitalization - City of SLO_2-5-2021.pdf To Whom it May Concern – The City of San Luis Obispo has changed our site plan for our Emerson Park Revitalization Project and so we are re- submitting our Proposition 68 Corps Consultation Form in addition to our Location Map. Hoping our project will receive grant monies and that we can work with CCC and/or CALCC in performing project activities. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you for your time, Aleah Bergam Administrative Analyst Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E abergam@slocity.org T 805.781.7296 slocity.org 1211712012 PROJECT LOCATION ' ' 1600 800 0 1600 SCALE 1" = 1600' NORTH Reference Documents: City Stand ard Specifications - January 20 10 Edition City Engineering Standards - January 20 10 Edition 2010 California Building Code (CBC) based on 2009 IBC 2010 California Green Building Code ( CGBC) City of San Luis Obispo san luis obispo county, california EMERSON PARK DATE 12/17/2012 FILE NO./LOCATION \ SHE OF 3 Approved: 1/24/201 Revised December 2019 Page 1 of 2 California Conservation Corps and Certified Community Conservation Corps Corps Consultation Form Proposition 68 – Parks, Environment and Water Bond To initiate the Corps Consultation Process, this completed form and all required attachments must be emailed to the California Conservation Corps (CCC) and certified local conservation corps (represented by the California Association of Local Conservation Corps (CALCC)): California Conservation Corps: Prop68@ccc.ca.gov California Association of Local Conservation Corps: Inquiry@Prop68CommunityCorps.org Upon completion of the consultation process, both the CCC and CALCC will each send to the Applicant a completed Corps Consultation Review Document to include with the grant application. Please see the Corps Consultation Process for more information. A copy of the process can be requested from the state department administering the grant program. Except for an exempted project as noted below, this Corps Consultation Form shall be completed by entities applying for funding through Proposition 68, Chapter 1, Division 45: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018. The Corps have determined that it is not feasible to use their services on projects that do not include hand labor, therefore these projects are exempt from the consultation process and do not need to submit the Corps Consultation Review Document to the administering agency. 1. Is this application solely for planning or acquisition with no field work? Yes (Application is exempt from the requirement to consult with the Corps and no further action is required) No (proceed to Question 2) 2. Department/Conservancy administering the grant program to which you are applying for funding: 3. Name of Grant Program: 4. Due date of Grant Application: 5. Anticipated Grant Award Date: 6. Name of Grant Applicant Organization: 7. Project Title: 8. Project Start and End Dates: 9. Anticipated Start and End Dates for Corpsmember Labor (identify all seasons, if applicable): 10. Best person to contact regarding project details: Name: Email Address: Title & Organization: Phone Number: Revised December 2019 Page 2 of 2 11. Project Description identifying key project activities, deliverables, and a clear description of field work (Attach additional pages if necessary): 12. Portions of this project that can be carried out by Corpsmembers. If unfamiliar with the full capabilities of Corpsmembers, type “Uncertain”. (Attach additional pages if necessary): 13. Please attach the following: • Project Location Map(s) (required) • Site Plan(s) (if available) • Any other information that would be helpful for Project Managers to understand your project Notes CCC and CALCC representatives will return a Corps Consultation Review Document to applicant via email within 10 business days of receipt of a complete consultation request as verification of consultation. Applicant will include a copy of the documents as part of the project application. If the Corps determine it is feasible for their services to be used on the project, applicant will contact the Corps to discuss costs and coordinate the planning of Corpsmember involvement in the project and reach out again if the project receives funding. Submission of past consultations does not satisfy the requirement to consult with the Corps. The Corps must be consulted each grant cycle prior to submitting a grant application. 64 From:Avakian, Greg Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 12:16 PM To:John McKenzie Subject:RE: Emerson - dog park? Thank you John! Yes, we are just trying to see what will fit in the footprint at Emerson based on the different workshops we had. Much appreciated and as we move forward with dog park discussions and projects (fingers crossed sooner than later), we will definitely include the you and the Friends of SLO Dog Parks for assistance. Enjoy the wonderful weather this weekend! Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 From: John McKenzie < Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 5:35 AM To: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Emerson - dog park? Hi Greg, Thanks for the potentially exciting inquiry! It appears the existing grass field occupies about one acre of the 3+ acre site. Ideally, based on the AKC standard, I would like the entire grass field be a dedicated dog park. However, given the need to provide other recreational needs, I understand something smaller needs to be considered. My research has shown that some communities have approved dog parks as small as 1/2 acre. That would be my smallest size recommendation with the hope it could be larger. One of the nice things potentially is that there is a lot of flexibility in the shape. The small dog compound can (should) be separated from the big dog compound. The big dog to small dog compound size ratio should be 3:1 or 4:1 (big dogs need as much room as possible to run). Either by design (e.g. 'L" shape perimeter) or interior landscaping (e.g. interior windrow of shrubs/trees) you should try to create at least two interior 'zones' for the big dog compound. If this does become a part of the new Emerson Park, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks would like to help in the construction and/or maintenance phases. We could also start fundraising campaigns for some of the 'extras' that are not included in the initial plan. John McKenzie -----Original Message----- From: "Avakian, Greg" Sent: Feb 4, 2021 2:13 PM To: John McKenzie 65 Subject: Emerson - dog park? Hi John: Quick question as a follow up from the Emerson Park community forum…. What is the minimum size of space if we utilized the grass area for a dog area? What would be the preferred in size based on the current lawn area? Keep in mind, the community sill wants some grass area for park space. Thanks in advance for your assistance. -Greg Greg Avakian pronouns he/him/his Director of Parks and Recreation Parks & Recreation 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E gavakian@slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications For updates on COVID-19 and how to access City services during COVID, visit slocity.org/covid19 66 From:Bergam, Aleah Sent:Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:59 AM To:Setterlund, David Cc:Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:RE: SSP - Public Meeting The article below includes some photos you can use too Dave. From: Setterlund, David <dsetterl@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:57 AM To: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SSP - Public Meeting Hello, Would I be able to have access to slides or master plan images of the below mentioned stuffs? From: Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:10 AM To: Setterlund, David <dsetterl@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SSP - Public Meeting The article lists rec features  Amphitheater/performing arts dance, music, and theater stage.  Athletic fields (soccer regulation size or "futbol-rapido," baseball/softball, football).  Athletic courts (basketball, "futsal," tennis, pickleball).  Community gardens, botanical orchards demonstration gardens and orchards.  Community/Recreation center.  Dog park.  Running track/walking loop, par course.  Non-motorized trail, pedestrian/bicycle bridge, greenbelt/linear.  Outdoor gym exercise equipment.  Open space and natural area for recreation.  Picnic/Bar-B-Que areas.  Playground and tot lot.  Plaza, Zocalo, Gazebo.  Public art (mosaic tiles, sculptures, murals).  Skate park, skating rink, and BMX or pump track (non-motorized bike tracks).  Swimming pool, splash pad, aquatic center, fishing pier or paddling launch site.  Lighting to allow for extended nighttime use of a recreation feature.  Shade structure/covered park areas over a recreation feature to allow for extended day time use. We may want to take some of these out if the park space isn’t conducive – such as Open Space/Rec Center, etc. 67 The article below even has some photos of amenities we can use. From: Bergam, Aleah Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:06 AM To: Setterlund, David <dsetterl@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; Billeter, Sarah <sbilleter@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SSP - Public Meeting Hi Dave! I found some more guidance and this article might be helpful to use – we could create some handouts people could fill out and send in (maybe use Google Drawings?) And maybe post those on the website? I think the poll feature via GoToMeeting would be great and I can help with drafting a survey we can send out via the Hawthorne school portal. Feel free to put a meeting on the calendar with me and Jeff if you want to talk through the technology piece a little more. From: Setterlund, David <dsetterl@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:23 PM To: Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; Billeter, Sarah <sbilleter@slocity.org>; Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org> Subject: SSP - Public Meeting Hello, Please see linked notes and needs for the 4pm SSP meeting. SSP Emerson Park Revitalization.docx 68 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 3:20 PM To:Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey; Bergam, Aleah; Avakian, Greg Subject:FW: Service Population Information and Forecast [WRTD.NrjQ] Attachments:3/4 PRC Meeting - Item 3 Hello team, I spoke with Mike and he stated two acres is the standard for a dog park. I am responding to John McKenzie’s email (see attached), Devin has talked about equity in providing amenities throughout the City (not just in one location), and I suggest we address this in the presentation when considering potential locations for amenities. Thank you, Shawna From: Michael Svetz <michael.svetz@prosconsulting.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:55 PM To: Peter Winch <pwinch@wrtdesign.com>; Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org>; Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Service Population Information and Forecast [WRTD.NrjQ] Oh gosh no. That is more of a small off leash dog area.. not dog park.. Typically dog parks these days start at at least a minimum of 2 acres Mike Svetz, Principal PROS Consulting Phoenix, AZ 85338 C-623 388-1787 www.prosconsulting.com From: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 3:25:45 PM To: Michael Svetz <michael.svetz@prosconsulting.com>; Peter Winch <pwinch@wrtdesign.com> Cc: Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; Bergam, Aleah <abergam@slocity.org>; Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Service Population Information and Forecast [WRTD.NrjQ] Hi Mike, I meant to say thank you for this earlier, the week has been roaring along. Another question related to a question from the public about dog parks – is there a standard acreage for dog parks? For example, if a dog park was proposed that is less than ¼-acre (or other specified size) should it count, or not count, towards meeting LOS? 1 From:John McKenzie < Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 11:54 AM To:Scott, Shawna Cc:Avakian, Greg Subject:3/4 PRC Meeting - Item 3 Attachments:3-4 PRC dog park locations.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Shawna, I've had a chance to review the priority list to be considered by the PRC as a part of the P&R Master Plan update. As you know, representing Friends for SLO City Dog Parks, my following questions focus on establishing dog parks within the City. First I want to continue thanking you and the update team for your overall efforts on this challenging undertaking. It is encouraging to see that dog parks are finally getting some long overdue recognition. In reviewing how the dog park issue is being packaged, if I'm reading it correctly, I see that 1 dog park is needed now and an additional dog park by 2025. However, if the proposed dog parks from Specific Plans are considered, they would provide for these identified needs with no more dog parks through 2035. The report appropriately recognizes Laguna Lake Park as the first park to receive dog park improvements. The report continues on to identify four more potential parks (Sinshiemer, Santa Rosa, Emerson, Stoneridge) for possible dog park consideration. At one of your meetings late last year two other parks (Laguna Hills and Islay) were identified as potential location s. I have attached a graphic to try and display this info to better understand where these would be located and how well it serves our residential areas. My first question is why is Stoneridge in the mix? This park is only 1+ acre in size with a basketball court in the middle. Hopefully, the City is in agreement with applying basic criteria needed for a dog park, including the dedication of 1/2 to 3/4 acre minimum area dedicated for dog use. Unless I am missing something this option should be removed. Why were Laguna Hills and Islay removed? They both have at least 1/2 acre of available area and abut large residential areas. On Specific Plan dog parks I have the following reservations - the Avila Ranch DP, while meeting the 1/2 acre criteria, is not near any existing residential areas and will serve only that development so should not count towards serving the city's unmet needs, especially since the City is strongly discouraging the use of and ownership of cars as it approves new development. I think Righetti Ranch has or had a dog park included, as well as San Luis Ranch. The dog parks within these projects are 1/4 acre or smaller and, based on my research will 'fail' or have serious problems when you have lots of dogs forced to be within close quarters of each other due to the undersized facilities - these should not count towards meeting the City's unmet needs. Are these dog parks the ones being recognized in the 3/4 report or are there others that I did not mentioned? The attached graphic has tried to identified what I think could be considered logical residential 'neighborhoods/units for the purpose of finding a walkable dog park location within each neighborhood. Based on this graphic, I would contend that the City should plan for 4 dog parks (excluding Avila Ranch) with at least one being located within each of these circles. I would argue that we currently need 4 parks now to serve the 12,000 dogs we currently have, and should be reflected in the table as currently needed or by 2035. I also strongly believe that the previously suggested parks (Islay, Laguna Hills) be added back onto the list of possible sites. Further, the other 4 parks that I suggested to you previously still have merit and should be retained in some fashion. For example, the Damon Garcia option, if it were recognized, it could be folded into and considered as a part of the currently proposed expansion area, and could potentially be a wonderful dog park in those portions left over that don't quite fit for soccer field dimensions. I am very interested in any methodology you and your team could share that was used to help identify the City's needs. As I plan to attend the 3/4 meeting a timely response would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Main Residential Areas Specific Plan Areas Emerson Park Islay Park Avila Ranch Righetti Ranch San Luis Ranch Laguna Lake Park Sinshiemer Park Santa Rosa Park Stoneridge Park Laguna Hills Park Orange –Current potential DP park Green –Previous potential DP park 80 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 7:36 PM To:Stephenson, Lindsey; Hyfield, Devin; John Gibbs; Peter Winch Subject:Notes from PRC Meeting Attachments:PRC 09.04.2019 Public Comment and PRC Discussion and Direction.docx See attached, and let’s discuss further regarding moving forward to the October PRC meeting. Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Public Comment 1. Tim Townly: soccer; no soccer fields May through August; expensive to play at Cal Poly; homelessness issues 2. John McKenzie, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks; encourages dog park at Sinsheimer Park and Emerson Park; question why Islay/Laguna Hills identified for dog parks; consider walkability when identifying where dog parks should be located, in addition to populations of people; can document identify that dog parks should be considered in all parks with ½ acre area available for potential dog park; consider dog parks in all future master plans 3. Connie Church, VP Pickleball Club: French Park ideal for large pickleball complex in the future in lower area; very active pickleball membership, wants to expand to younger people but have limited capacity and lack of facilities; eight courts minimum requirement for tournaments 4. Peter Mertens: Appreciates planning process; remove lights on Sinsheimer tennis courts (existing); concern about light drift into residential yards; expense/waste of money to put lights on older courts; look elsewhere, and needs to start with Master Plan; look into new facilities; recognizes need for lighted tennis courts; would be more exciting to consider bigger vision for community; excited to see natural habitat as a use; Sinsheimer Park restore creek corridor; with comprehensive vision, Ludwick Center – take a step back and look broadly at community, consider new facility rather than tearing down old existing facility; no lights at existing tennis courts 5. Gene Hydachak: support for pickleball; great training program at Ludwick existing (donations by members); increasing participation numbers; currently sharing with other uses (basketball courts, tennis courts); excited about three new pickleball courts; cannot hold national tournament (inadequate b/c need eight courts); French Park perfect location for eight courts; Margaritaville / Indian Wells tournament 6. Gary Havis: Pickleball as economic generator (visitors, hotels, etc.); bicycling economic generator; two pump tracks good idea; need for cross-town connection; better connection to Laguna Lake for bicycles 7. Lea Brooks: Pump track at Sinsheimer good idea, but not near trail (b/c pump track users would jump across trail); design to prevent conflicts; lives near Mitchell Park, wants dog park there; Laguna Lake Golf Course, ATC updating bike plan and looking at multi-use path adjacent to golf course to connect neighborhoods and connect to middle school; question about Bob Jones Safety Trail (why not included as park); portions of Bob Jones not utilized, good potential for this trail; is this Parks and Rec or Public Works; how to make safe and appealing to all users 8. Artemesia Shine: Consider eyes towards people who are homeless as people who are part of our community; lack of adequate shelter services; do not promote legal/criminalizing solution for people who are homeless; look to Santa Monica (homeless court; maintenance; hot meal programs); incorporate un-homed community’s needs 9. Steve Davis: comments about Tiers; missing piece is any project that is big will take years to develop but needs to be included in Plan; look at population and expand to 2030 and base needs on future population and need for 80 acres of parks; need to identify acquisition of land; be visionary or we’ll miss opportunities; need to look at future need and bigger picture; need to look at funding sources; look at big picture; need to have big vision; provide opportunity/land/space/vision – and provide in Plan 10. Mary Vandenberg: Supports comments about big vision; SLO Senior Center; small building maxed out; currently all-volunteer program; current members mostly in 80’s and 90’s, active walkers/drivers, have hard time finding parking and unable to bicycle, do not play pickleball due to physical limitations; senior population growing; consider that there will be a segment of population that is not active and cannot take advantage of open space areas; regarding big vision – when tearing down/modifying building, talk to Senior Center Executive Board to figure out where to go in the future, collaborate; wants to grow program and needs help from City to do so 11. Sarah Flickinger: echos last two speakers; need for outdoor community spaces; more opportunities to interact with nature; need places to take dogs; need more park space with increased population; need for parks/facilities in South Broad Corridor (new park with more passive recreation uses); address persons with disabilities; lacking ADA accessibility at some parks, needs to be primary goal for not only seniors but also children; adjacent passive/quiet spaces near active spaces (kids with sensory sensitivities), enable parents to watch children with different needs; multi-generational opportunities; add ping pong/chess at Mitchell for intergenerational interaction (also at Sinsheimer); supports fields for pick-up games for soccer; more bike racks within viewsheds of facilities (be able to see bike, safety); need for flat rollerskating area (flat rinks) 12. Jeff Whitener: Quantification of what we have and what we have planned and how that stacks up against standards; acreage for parks, dog parks, etc.; see where we stand; is there room for another Tier 3 goal – new parks and new land; need to look for donors/citizens who can contribute to goals; need for comprehensive list 13. Kelly Heffernon: supports dog parks; compared to smaller communities SLO has not no park; wants more/heavier mention of dog parks in Plan PRC Comments 1. Tier 3 falls short, need to look to future 2. Look at Sinsheimer as one totality 3. Broader themes need to be identified: health, safety, security 4. Need standards for neighborhoods; safe to walk/bike; need dog parks; need to be able to walk dog from home to dog park 5. Facilities: Mitchell and Emerson Parks – ownership by neighbors; gazebo/dome/stage/amphitheater structure for concerts, classes, destination point 6. Need more land, need more facilities; need to be much more creative; rooftop uses; mini community center/rec center; need to be aggressive in creating more space 7. SLO Senior Center – need to accommodate 8. Need to have standards for everything, be ADA compliant everywhere 9. Cross over between Parks and Rec and other Commissions such as ATC 10. Agrees that we need to look out into the future; need for new lands to address needs in 20 years; address further; need a list of potential areas for new parks 11. Laguna Lake Park – how are we determining what goes into parks and what works together? A (John G.): Master Plan Update does not go into level of detail (concept plans); may lead to more focused studio work; (Shelly): staff will need to flush out priorities (different work product), if we have focused priorities, staff can work on concept plan through CIP process; will be discussing cost at future PRC meeting(s) 12. Troubled by missing vision/statement that SLO Parks and Rec are the people that are heading towards xyz; wants to have more of a handle on the vision for the next 20 years; wants more excitement 13. Shelly: pathways to move forward: take what we’ve heard and come up with some visionary projects; materials represent ongoing maintenance needs and can discuss this further; start with maintenance of what we have or vision? PRC sounds like it wants to start with vision. 14. Maintain at high level what to maintain; top 5 parks (visionary, what that vision would look like) 15. Shelly: heard to look beyond existing parks and look at areas for new parks and facilities; be visionary with existing resources 16. Regarding maintenance: serious issues including living assets such as trees; need to prioritize for safety; maintenance priorities 17. Trusts staff to pick ten; what is the vision for neighborhood parks; maintenance, security; staff presents visions and goes from there Direction from PRC: Return to PRC with approximately ten visions for parks; identify vision for neighborhood parks; look at areas for new parks and facilities. Don’t disregard maintenance in the plan, including both built and natural elements. 81 From:Peter Winch <PWinch@wrtdesign.com> Sent:Friday, August 16, 2019 6:24 PM To:Stephenson, Lindsey; Hyfield, Devin Cc:Scott, Shawna; Stanwyck, Shelly; John Gibbs Subject:Updated Park-by-Park table [WRTD.NrjQ] Attachments:SLO Park Site Assessment form_v3.xlsx Hi SLO team, Please see updated park-by-park table, attached. I’ve summarized community-identified needs based on the engagement work. There’s a second worksheet with more detail. I think we’re well set-up to have a constructive session on Monday. PETER WINCH AICP ASSOCIATE | PLANNER WRT 478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B San Francisco, CA 94103 pwinch@wrtdesign.com 415.882.7853 The Tie-Rods That Bind A San Francisco parklet provides history lessons and builds community bonds. http://www.wrtdesign.com/offsite/the-tie-rods-that-bind 82 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Tuesday, June 25, 2019 6:05 PM To:Peter Winch Cc:John Gibbs; Hyfield, Devin; Stephenson, Lindsey Subject:Parks and Recreation Workshop and Emailed Comments Attachments:Workshop Card Results_06.25.2019.xlsx Hi Peter, Please see attached workshop input and emailed comments. Thank you, Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 83 From:Stephenson, Lindsey Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2019 10:15 AM To:Stanwyck, Shelly; Hyfield, Devin Subject:FW: Parks and Recreation Commission - Focus for tonight's PRC meeting Attachments:Community Needs Assessment_Preliminary Recommendations.pdf; Attachment 2 Parks and Recreation Public Workshop_DRAFT Framework.pdf; PRC_Questions for Discussion.docx After our conversation with Shawna… she sent me the attached documents and email below which I have now forwarded onto the PRC and printed copies of the WRT recommendations for the PRC to use for the discussion tonight. Please find attached the following, for the PRC to focus on tonight: 1. Community Needs Assessment Preliminary Recommendations The PRC should review and discuss each preliminary recommendation and provide feedback to Staff. The PRC should determine if:  Additional recommendations should be included in the Community Needs Assessment;  Any recommendations should be removed from the Community Needs Assessment;  Any recommendation should be refined prior to inclusion in the Community Needs Assessment; and  The PRC needs additional information to provide direction on any specific recommendation(s). 2. Public Workshop_DRAFT Framework The PRC should review the themes, trends, and specifics identified in the Public Workshop Framework table (Attachment 2) and provide direction to staff on the following questions:  Are there other themes, trends, or specifics that should be included at the public workshop?  Are there themes, trends, specifics that may not be necessary to include in the scope of this public workshop?  Are there preliminary recommendations identified in the Draft Community Needs Assessment report that should be incorporated into a public workshop station for public input?  Should different colored dots be provided to specific age segments (i.e. 14 and under, 14 – 34, 35 – 54, 55 and over)? The items to pull up on the screen during the meeting include: 1. Community Needs Assessment Preliminary Recommendations 2. Attachment 2_Parks and Recreation Public Workshop_DRAFT Framework 3. PRC Questions for Discussion (see attached) What do you think about printing copies of the Preliminary Recommendations for the PRC to refer to in hand at the meeting? It is only six pages, and it may be helpful for them to refer to if they haven’t brought a hard copy of the Community Needs Assessment report with them to the meeting. Thank you, 84 Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Parks and Recreation Public Workshop  June 5, 2019 | 4:00 – 7:00 PM  Ludwick Community Center, San Luis Obispo  DRAFT Workshop Stations  Station  THEME TRENDS and SPECIFICS  1  Welcome, basic information and sign‐ ups for interested parties list  N/a  2  Building Community and Enhancing  Neighborhoods  Connectivity Shuttles to/between parks  Improved bike paths (ATC plan)  Intersection safety (ATC plan)  Margarita area, trail within greenway  Transit (more stops, frequency): PW  Access to parks, gap closure  Creation of community How has P&R helped build community  (appreciation station)?  Neighborhood Events: What, When, Where Block parties  Neighborhood clean‐up   Concerts  Neighborhood garage/yard sales  Activities in Parks: What, When, Where Yoga (and similar)  Exercise/boot camp type classes  Art classes  Photography classes  Educational classes  Cultural events  Fitness competitions  After‐school programs  Pocket/mini parks – neighborhood beautification: What, Where Public art: What, Where Dog parks: What (i.e. fencing, separate small/large dogs), Where What is lacking in your neighborhood: What, Where Station  THEME TRENDS and SPECIFICS  3  Community Parks: Sinsheimer Park,  Sinsheimer Stadium, and SLO Swim  Center  Recreation at Park   Lights at tennis courts: (Yes/No)   More tennis courts: (Yes/No)   Expanded disc golf: (Yes/No)   Disc golf maintained by City: (Yes/No)   Bike pump track: (Yes/No)   Mini soccer field: (Yes/No)    Programming and Classes   Fitness classes: (Yes/No)    Events and Activities   Daytime concerts: (Yes/No)   Evening concerts: (Yes/No)    Improvements at Park   Bollard (low) lighting on paths: (Yes/No)   More bike parking: (Yes/No)   More vehicle parking: (Yes/No)   More activities at park: (Yes/No)   Connection to Railroad Safety Trail: (Yes/No)   Shade structures: (Yes/No)    SLO Swim   SLO Swim Center: More hours for  recreational swimming: (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: larger therapy/warm  water pool (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: More aerobic classes for  adults: (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: More educational classes  for adults: (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: More classes for kids:  (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: shade structures:  (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: tables, community  gathering areas: (Yes/No)   SLO Swim Center: splash pad: (Yes/No)    Sinsheimer Stadium   Stadium Improvements, turf: (Yes/No)   Stadium for baseball only: (Yes/No)   Stadium, designed for softball: (Yes/No)  4  Community Parks: Laguna Lake Park  Dog Area / Dog Park   Fenced Dog park: (Yes/No)    Recreation   Expanded disc golf (Yes/No)   Exercise pathways: (Yes/No)   Connecting walking paths: (Yes/No)   Multi‐use sports fields: (Yes/No)   Lighted multi‐use sports fields: (Yes/No)   Bike pump track: (Yes/No)   Basketball courts: (Yes/No)   Lighted basketball courts: (Yes/No)   Pickleball courts: (Yes/No)   Adventure obstacle courses: (Yes/No)   Pickleball courts: (Yes/No)   Mini‐playground: (Yes/No)    Programming and Classes   Fitness classes: (Yes/No)   Art classes: (Yes/No)   Photography classes: (Yes/No)   Art classes for teens: (Yes/No)   Outdoor education for teens: (Yes/No)   Bike education classes for adults: (Yes/No)   Bike education classes for kids/teens:  (Yes/No)    Improvements and Amenities   Cultural education/kiosks: (Yes/No)   Meditative garden: (Yes/No)   Nature park: (Yes/No)   More bike parking: (Yes/No)   More vehicle parking: (Yes/No)   Shade structures: (Yes/No)   Public access dock: (Yes/No)   Non‐motorized boat, stand up paddle  rentals: (Yes/No)   More picnic areas: (Yes/No)    Events and Activities   Concerts for teens: (Yes/No)   Nature camp for kids: (Yes/No)   Daytime concerts: (Yes/No)   Evening concerts: (Yes/No)  Station  THEME TRENDS and SPECIFICS   Daytime events (i.e. Farmer’s Market, Fairs,  Festivals): (Yes/No)  5  Field and Facilities:   Damon Garcia   Ludwick Community Center   Laguna Golf Course   SLO Senior Center   Jack House  Damon Garcia Sports Fields   Synthetic turf: (Yes/No)    Ludwick Community Center   Remodel/renovate/expand for multi‐ generational indoor multi‐use facility:  (Yes/No)    Laguna Golf Course   Lighting for evening use: (Yes/No)   Reduce golf hours and add other field  activities: (Yes/No)   Reduce golf hours/days and add  community picnic days: (Yes/No)   Eliminate golf and renovate for other  multi‐use turf sports: (Yes/No)   Events at golf course: (Yes/No)   More golf activities for adults: (Yes/No)   More golf activities for youth: (Yes/No)    SLO Senior Center   Add active adult programming: (Yes/No)   Incorporate teen center: (Yes/No)    Jack House   Yoga in garden: (Yes/No)   Art classes in garden: (Yes/No)   After school yoga for teens: (Yes/No)   After‐school art classes for teens: (Yes/No)    6  Sustainability  Landscaping   Allergen‐reduction   Lower maintenance   Water conservation   Creating park landscapes and environments  7  New Ideas / Other  Other new ideas from the public      8 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS What do all these findings suggest in terms of future improvements to San Luis Obispo’s parks and recreation programs? This section provides early guidance meant to start the conversation and inform the Plan Update. PARKS AND FACILITIES Rethink Park Classification and Define Downtown Public Space. The Plan Update is an opportunity to redefine park types in a robust way that serves the City’s vision. Downtown Public Spaces. In particular, the Plan should define and describe urban public spaces that support interaction in a highly- walkable, mixed-use downtown, consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. The farmers’ market, the creek, privately-owned public open spaces (POPOS), roof gardens, and temporary plazas, can be leveraged as part of the park system and be recognized as “park equivalencies.” In other words, they may be counted toward meeting City standards even if the space is not a traditional park. The Plan should develop a standard and metric accordingly. Rethink Park Acreage Standards. San Luis currently provides 4.4 acres of park land per 1,000 residents– substantially less park land than the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element call for. But this existing system offers a diverse range of parks and facilities and receives strong support from the community. In other words, San Luis Obispo has demonstrated that a high-quality park system can be achieved within a smaller footprint than was envisioned the last time the City updated its planning documents. Lowering the park acreage standards is not the same as lowering standards for parks. In fact, it is likely to work in reverse: a more realistic park acreage standard will help the City focus on investing in community priorities. Define Park Acreage. Planning documents have produced a range of acreage results for each facility. The Department should set clear terms for what counts as park acreage and approve a current count. Rethink Park Access Standards and How to Fill Access Gaps. The current ½ to 1-mile standard for neighborhood parks should be adjusted to (a) move the City toward a higher standard for park space within walking distance, using network analysis and a single ½-mile threshold and (b) recognize that community parks are also valuable for local use and should be counted. The Plan should also provide neighborhood-specific guidance on strategies to address gaps. For example, the south side of Loomis Street may provide an opportunity 9Executive Summary PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS for a new linear park to serve the City’s northeast neighborhoods. Stoneridge Park may have potential to be expanded from a mini park to better serve its southside neighborhood. Signalized crossings and safe routes to Santa Rosa Park will give better access to the neighborhood west of Santa Rosa Street on the north side. Focus on Key Facilities and Amenities. The new Parks and Recreation Master Plan should provide clear direction on achieving recreation facility priorities revealed through the Community Needs Assessment process. These include swimming pools; pickleball and tennis courts; urban and park trails; shaded play areas; dog parks; and a nature park/botanical garden. The Plan will articulate the needs, program, and geography of need. Emphasize High-Quality Design. The community’s expectation for high quality design and innovative features has increased. SLO Parks should better reflect our time including preservation of natural features, use of drought-tolerant plantings, incorporation of public art, and the relationship between park zones and surrounding uses. The Department should become more nimble to test new programming ideas and implement public art as a placemaking tool. Walking and Biking in Parks and to Parks. Community members clearly communicated the importance of being able to walk and bike to parks and the value they place on walking paths and trails. The Parks Master Plan will identify specific priority park access improvements, such as signalized crossings of busy streets and overcrossings of rail lines. The Plan will prioritize extending the City’s system of multiuse trails, and ensure that walking paths are recognized as an important park amenity. There are many opportunities to create safer access to parks for people of all ages traveling on foot or by non- motorized means. The Department should be part of San Luis Obispo’s active transportation planning program. Open Space Access. Passive enjoyment of open space is a clear priority for San Luis Obispo residents. Trailheads provide access to the City’s treasured open space areas, but these trailheads are also often located in neighborhoods and have limited or no dedicated parking. The City should prioritize the development of pedestrian and bike routes that connect to open space trailheads to enhance access while minimizing impacts. Swimming and Multipurpose Indoor Facilities. Swimming comes through as a high-priority need in San Luis Obispo. Significant improvements are needed to make the SLO Swim Center more usable. That facility should also be expanded to provide more capacity, or a new facility should be developed to meet community need. This new facility could be developed jointly or separately from a multipurpose recreation center developed to replace the Ludwick Community Center. A versatile new facility that can support a combination of activities (fitness and community classrooms, gym, rentable spaces), paired with aquatics, could be a vital addition. Tennis and Pickleball Courts. San Luis Obispo has demand for both more tennis courts and more pickleball courts. These demands should both be addressed and not be forced to compete. Currently, tennis courts are concentrated at Sinsheimer Park and pickleball courts at French Park. Future courts should be developed in the northern and western parts of the City. 10 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Shaded Play Areas. The Community Needs Assessment shows a desire for more shaded play areas. Existing play areas should be evaluated systematically, and enhancements scheduled based on need. The City should strive for shaded play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile) of all residents: this should be a core feature of all parks, including mini-parks. Shade trees and shade structures also contribute to distinctive identity and sustainability. Dog Parks. San Luis Obispo currently has one dog park, at Laguna Lake Park. Community members are strongly advocating for more dog facilities, and this is borne out as a priority in the Community Needs Assessment. Future dog facilities should be designed in a way that draws on community input, and distributed to be accessible to residents in other parts of the City. Investments in new facilities should be paired with reinvestment in the existing facility at Laguna Lake to ensure equity and to balance use. Nature Park/Botanical Garden. This facility type was indicated in the Community Needs Assessment, and could be a good match for environmental education and gardening programs that were also found to be desired. Quiet, Meditative Areas. Many residents expressed the need for more quiet, meditative areas in parks. The Plan should incorporate this as a desired character zone to be included in future parks and look for opportunities to create these spaces in existing parks. A “zen garden” was specifically requested by residents. Mitchell and Emerson Parks. Mitchell and Emerson need to function more successfully to serve their evolving neighborhoods, while also being part of an ecosystem of downtown-area parks that support events and public art. Programming may be a critical element to maintain a feeling of comfort and security for neighborhood residents. These two parks should be subject to more focused design and programming consideration. (See Community Events recommendation below.) Sinsheimer Park. Sinsheimer Park is an important and favorite park for many San Luis Obispo residents. This is remarkable, because it has potential to be much better than it is. A master planning process for this park can show how its various elements can be tied together to create synergy; how space can be used to accommodate additional use; how access can be improved for all modes of travel, including walking and biking access across the railroad; and how parking issues can be resolved and the creek can become an asset. The adjacent school, school district bus yard, and Johnson Park should also be part of the discussion. Can these parts be rearranged in a way that creates lasting, positive impact? Laguna Lake Park. Laguna Lake Park also has significant untapped potential—that was being explored by a Cal Poly landscape architecture studio. Those ideas and others should inform future direction and provide inspiration for how the City can get the most out of this site. Laguna Lake Park may have space for recreational facilities, space to accommodate large events, and unique opportunities to support enjoyment of the water and the open space preserve beyond. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 11Executive Summary RECREATION PROGRAMS Expand Programs and Services in the Areas of Greatest Demand. Ongoing analysis of the participation trends of programming and services in San Luis Obispo is significant when delivering high quality programs and services. By doing so, staff will be able to focus their efforts on the programs and services of the greatest need and reduce or eliminate programs and services where interest is declining. Based on the Community Needs Assessment, Recreational Swimming, Lap Swimming, Swim Lessons, Yoga, Personal Training and Fitness Classes, Sun n Fun & Club Star, and Tennis programs should all be expanded. Program Evaluation. Implement the program assessment and evaluation tool as recommended. Assessment and evaluation tool is provided as an Excel spreadsheet as a stand-alone separate document. Certain programs were identified as being important to evaluate. These included Gymnastics, Lifeguard Training & Junior Guards, Golf, Drop-in Sports, LEGO Camps, Junior Ranger Activity Camps, Junior Giants, Youth Futsal, Tennis Lessons, Ultimate Pick-up, Surfing Lessons, and Youth Fitness & Wellness programs. These programs may have a limited, targeted audience and may be ideal to offer strategically in terms of frequency, days of week, times of day and time of year. Community Events. San Luis Obispo residents have shown a clear interest in more community events in parks. These could range from more highly- programmed festivals to informal food truck pods, community picnics, and events as small as fitness classes and yoga in the park. Community members focused on three parks as good sites for events: Mission Plaza, Laguna Lake, and Mitchell. Emerson Park should also be included in this list. The Plan should help the Department identify specific facility needs to support event use, and niches for each event site. Participation Data Collection and Analysis. Collect data on customer retention. Through ongoing participation data analysis, refine recreation program offerings to reduce low enrollment or cancelled programs due to no enrollment. Staff Evaluations. Expand current evaluation tools to consistently evaluate all part-time employees especially given that the parks PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS and recreation industry is heavily reliant on part-time staff to provide excellent programs and services. Customer Input. Develop tools to reach lost and non-participant customers in an effort to continually attempt to expand the Department’s customer base. 12 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS Implement a Work Order Management System. A work order system should be used to track maintenance requirements that are tied to daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal and annual work orders based on the established maintenance standards. This will assist staff in staying on top of the preventative maintenance of both the built (playgrounds, structures, infrastructure, etc.) and natural (turf, trees, etc.) assets of the park system. Further, utilizing a work order management system will provide staff the necessary “actual cost” data for work being performed. Systematic Approach to Contracting Services. Through the development of management processes, the Department must continually evaluate the private sector to determine if the financial resources dedicated to parks maintenance are sufficient as well as effective and efficient. It should be expected that the cost for third-party contracted services will rise in the future. Management of Contract Services Management. Continue to provide the necessary resources for the management and oversight of all third-party contractors that provide maintenance services for the City of San Luis Obispo’s parks and grounds. Update Work Plans Based on Maintenance Standards. SLO’s maintenance standards follow best practices as established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Still, the Department should continually update and customize the standards based on the park and recreation values of the San Luis Obispo community. These standards and need to be implemented regardless of whether work is performed by City staff or third-party contractors. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 13Executive Summary SUSTAINABILITY Design and Maintain for Energy Efficiency. Existing parks should be evaluated for their resource use and modified through changes in maintenance practices, material and plant selections. New parks should be designed for low energy use. Water Efficient Initiatives. Stormwater systems should be designed into parks, especially where there is room for treatment, detention and storage of stormwater. Working landscape features can be incorporated into existing and proposed parks to help filter pollutants and capture stormwater. Low water use planting and xeriscaping should be incorporated into new and existing parks where turf is not needed in order to decrease water use. Gray and recycled water systems should be explored and expanded. The details of these practices should be further developed in the Master Plan. Reduce and or Eliminate Chemical Use. In landscape areas, replace chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers with non-toxic treatments, including Low Impact Development (LID) practices for improving soil health. Use organic fertilizer with humic acid and mycorrhizea fungi PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS when possible. Support use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which focuses on pest prevention through biological control (such as the introduction of a natural predator), habitat manipulation, and modification of cultural practices including site monitoring, cleanliness, routine maintenance, installing pest barriers, physical removal of pests, and as a last resort chemical control. In facilities, replace chemical cleaning products with non-toxic alternatives. Select Low-Allergen Trees. The selection of trees that produce less airborne pollen will allow allergy- sensitive families to better enjoy City parks. One local resource for guidance on tree species may be found at https://selectree.calpoly. edu/search-trees-by-characteristics. Community Needs Assessment Preliminary Recommendations from WRT The PRC should review and discuss each preliminary recommendation (Attachment 1) and provide feedback to Staff. The PRC should determine if: 1. Additional recommendations should be included in the Community Needs Assessment; 2. Any recommendations should be removed from the Community Needs Assessment; 3. Any recommendation should be refined prior to inclusion in the Community Needs Assessment; and 4. The PRC needs additional information to provide direction on any specific recommendation(s). Public Workshop The PRC should review the themes, trends, and specifics identified in the Public Workshop Framework table (Attachment 2) and provide direction to staff on the following questions: 1. Are there other themes, trends, or specifics that should be included at the public workshop? 2. Are there themes, trends, specifics that may not be necessary to include in the scope of this public workshop? 3. Are there preliminary recommendations identified in the Draft Community Needs Assessment report that should be incorporated into a public workshop station for public input? 4. Should different colored dots be provided to specific age segments (i.e. 14 and under, 14 – 34, 35 – 54, 55 and over)? 85 From:Stephenson, Lindsey Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:09 PM To:Stanwyck, Shelly; Scott, Shawna; Hyfield, Devin Subject:FW: 2/6 Parks & Recreation Commission Special Meeting - Dog Parks Attachments:Off-Leash Dog Parks in the City of san Luis Obispo.pdf; Possible Dog Park locations.pdf This just received via online portal…City Clerk will post and send onto PRC. From: John McKenzie < Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:58 PM To: Christian, Kevin <kchristi@slocity.org> Cc: Stephenson, Lindsey <lstephen@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: 2/6 Parks & Recreation Commission Special Meeting - Dog Parks Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, I represent a newly formed group called ‘Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLODOGS)’. I have attached a couple of documents that have been prepared in support of enclosed dog parks within the City limits and incorporation into the Update. These documents have already been provided to the staff and consultant working on the Update. As we currently have no such facilities to accommodate an estimated 12,000 dogs within the City Limits, it is long overdue for the City to actively support such a facility. Given that we have 11 existing parks that have at least ½ acre of useable area (the bare minimum needed) that could be considered for such a use, costs could be minimal. In fact, starting hard costs could be as little as $40,000 as estimated previously by Parks and Recreation staff when the City tried to receive a dog park grant a couple of years ago. If you thought of this in recreational cost/benefit terms, this $40,000 would be potentially serving the 7,000 households in the City with dogs. However, I am also an advocate of dog parks being within walking distance (one mile) of the major residential areas, so I also believe the City ultimately needs to consider more than just one enclosed park. In looking at recent projects that have included dog parks as a part of their projects (Righetti, Avila Ranch), while steps in the right direction, have the following limitations:  Righetti – approved at only ½ the bare minimum size needed at ¼ acre, and is surrounded by eucalyptus trees (considered potentially poisonous for some dogs); also proposed to be constructed in the last phase potentially years away;  Avila Ranch – also proposed an enclosed park too small (1/4 acre); they also proposed another park at over ½ acre to be constructed in the last phase, which will be many years away; further, this project is on the edge of town not near any other residential and would require non-development users to drive. As a starting point, Laguna Lake Park appears to be a great candidate for the City’s first enclosed park. The Park has many underdeveloped areas, and the existing unenclosed ‘dog area’ has already established dogs in the area. The 2001 Parks and Recreation Element identified dog parks as an ‘unmet need’. It is still an unmet need. The newly formed ‘Friends of SLO City Dog Parks’ would like to work with the City to help raise funds for and help maintain any enclosed parks that are built. Based on all of these factors, SLODOGS passionately asks that your Commission support enclosed dog parks and making this a recreational priority, especially given how little money can directly serve up to a 1/3 of our population. 86 The attached documents provide additional details to support this cause and we hope that you can spend a little time reviewing this information before your meeting. Thank you, John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks PF-1 PF-2 PF-3 PF-4 PF-5 Priv-1 PF-7 PF-6 Potential Dog Park Sites –City of SLO (north half) PF-7 PF-8 PF-11 PF-10 PF-12 PF-9 Potential Dog Park Sites –City of SLO (south half) PF-13 PF-14 •PF-1: Santa Rosa Park; 001-031-028; 10 acres; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-2: Emerson Park; 003-515-001; 3.21 acres; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-3: Mitchell Park; 003-543-001; 3.06 ac; at least ½ ac. Available? No* •Priv-1: PG&E’s MGP Site; 0.82 ac; PGE deciding what to do with remediated property •PF-4 Meadow Park: 004-831-005; 9.84 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-5 Sinshiemer Park: 004-861-005; 41.8 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-6: Johnson Park 004-982-033; 4.6 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-7: Laguna Lake Park; 004-871-005; 310 ac; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (multiple 1/2 acres) •PF-8 Orcutt Specific Plan; ¼ ac. Dog Park approved (construct in final phase –years away)** •PF-9: Damon-Garcia Soccer Fields; 053-231-038; 23 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-10: Islay Park; 10.65 ac. at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-11: French Park; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-12: Avila Ranch; ¼and ½ ac Dog Parks approved (construct in final phase –years away)** •PF-13: DeVaul Park; 053-511-060; 3 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-14 Laguna Hills Park; 053-246-041; 3.4 ac.;at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •*Not enough area or other constraints to not seriously consider for dog park •** New projects w/ dog park included (to be constructed in final phases which may be many years away) Map Key (light gray locations not actively being considered; maps show gross available area) Selection Criteria •City-controlled-with the exception of one site (PG&E) •At least ½ acre of useable area (flat to gently sloping) available –maps show gross areas that appear available;dog parks should range from ½ to 1 ac.in size •Initial effort of unweighted pros and cons for each site has been provided and is subject to change as more information becomes available ______________ •The City of SLO has not yet considered any of the properties or ‘available areas’ provided in this initial effort •An overall strategy will be to identify how many parks, if any, should be pursued by the City to serve the existing 12,000 dogs, and that are strategically located throughout the City. Proximity to serve the most people within walking distance (one mile) will be an important consideration. Focus will be on residents, but some consideration may be given to non-residents and tourists that bring their dogs into SLO (e.g. more centrally located to main roads/large employment areas & hotels) PF-1 Santa Rosa Park –possible locations 0.51 acre area 0.58 acre area PROS: northern-most location, walkable to many homes, large parking lot, bathrooms, water, away from residences, some shade, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: Park well developed already and reduces existing picnic area Murray Street PF-2 Emerson Park –possible location 1.1 acre area CONS: near residences in quieter area PROS: walkable to many homes, downtown, street parking, bathrooms, water, good size, flat, some shade, city controlled Priv-1 PG&E MGP prop –possible location 0.82 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, downtown, street parking, water, good size, leveled dirt, in noisier area CONS: no bathrooms, privately owned –PG&E still determining ‘best use’ after remediation PF-3 Mitchell Park –possible location 0.35 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, downtown, street parking, water, flat, noisier area, some shade, bathrooms, city controlled, , all-weather surface CONS: Too small, disrupts symmetry and function of park PF-4 Meadow Park –possible location 0.75 acre area CONS: near some residences on one side, some slope PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, water, some shade, good size, bathrooms, city controlled South Street Meadow Street 0.4 acre area 0.5 acre area PF-5 Sinshiemer Park –possible locations PROS: walkable to nearby homes, parking lot, water, south area flat, noisier area, away from residences, bathrooms, city controlled, larger area if disc golf areas considered, north site has all-weather surface CONS: some slope for north area, barely large enough in north area; south area too small & needs all-weather surface Del Campo Blvd 1.25 acre area PF-6 Johnson Park –possible location CONS: near some residences on two sides, could displace recreational use (basketball court) PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, bathroom, water, some shade, good size, city controlled, all-weather surface PF-7 Laguna Lake Park –possible locations 4.25 acre area 0.95 acre area 1.82 acre area PROS: good separation from residences, street parking/small parking lot, water, large areas to select from, bathrooms, easy access to leashed trails, existing dog use area w/ some amenities, city controlled CONS: no shade, some slope in one area, needs all-weather surface, potential conflicts w/ 1 or 2 disc golf stations, parking area should be enlarged PF-9 Soccer Fields –possible location 0.65 acre area CONS: no shade, water line needs to be extended across ‘creek’, not easily walkable to nearest residential area, needs all-weather surface PROS: good separation from residences, parking lot, bathrooms, noisier area, city controlled PF-10 Islay Park –possible locations 0.6 acre area 0.2 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, small parking lot, water, some shade, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: none Tank Farm Road PF-11 French Park –possible locations 0.6 acre area 0.6 acre area 0.3 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, water, good size, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: near some residences on one/two sides, no shade PF-13 DeVaul Park –possible location 1.5 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking, water, good size, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: potentially near some residences in quieter area, no shade; detention basin (may not be useable year-round) PF-13 Laguna Hills Park –possible locations 0.62 acre area 0.45 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, water, good size, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: near residences in quiet area, no shade; no bathroom, limited street parking 1 OFF LEASH DOG PARKS IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO – A PATH FORWARD PURPOSE The intent of this document is to provide the basis on which to establish successful, off leash enclosed dog parks within the City of San Luis Obispo. The document will discuss the existing and future demands, the human and dog benefits of such parks, identify key dog park elements, identify construction and material aspects, identify potential funding sources, and make suggestions for the City to consider as they move forward on dog park development. INTRODUCTION Dog parks have grown in popularity throughout the country as more people have pets and ask that communities provide recreational opportunities for them. The City of San Luis Obispo is no exception. Currently the City does not have any formal off-leash dog parks. The closest such park is found at the El Chorro Regional Park (Highway 1 across from Cuesta College) approximately 4 miles from the closest City limits. The El Chorro Dog Park was well thought out and is considered a model to follow. Wikipedia defines a dog park as: ‘A dog park is a park for dogs to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their owners. These parks have varying features, although they typically offer a 4' to 6' fence, separate double-gated entry and exit points, adequate drainage, benches for humans, shade for hot days, parking close to the site, water, tools to pick up and dispose of animal waste in covered trash cans, and regular maintenance and cleaning of the grounds. Dog parks may also offer wheel-chair access, a pond for swimming and a separate enclosure for small dogs.’ Many other cities and communities much smaller than SLO within the County have fenced dog parks (e.g., Arroyo Grande, Templeton, Cambria, etc.). Given the City’s population of 46,724 (2017) it is estimated that over 12,000 dogs reside within the City limits(1). Based on this large number of existing dogs, it is expected that there is a demand for more than one dog park within the city limits. The City’s 2001 Parks and Recreation Element identified enclosed dog parks as an ‘unmet need’. Other than starting a ‘pilot’ effort to allow dogs to freely roam in a designated area at Laguna Lake Park, the City has not focused its efforts or funding to establish a long-term enclosed dog park. The City does collect an in-lieu ‘recreation fee’ from certain discretionary projects to help offset their recreational impacts. However, very little to date, if any of these monies have been spent on establishing a dog park within the City limits. Enclosed dog parks are best suited on lands controlled by the City, such as public parks. The City has numerous existing public parks within the City limits. Many of these are well developed with specific uses already established and have limited areas to consider new uses. One exception is the Laguna Lake Park. This park includes large areas of undeveloped lands or underdeveloped recreational uses and has an established ‘dog area’ use. 2 In a preliminary effort to hear from the public about enclosed dog park locations, the City conducted a focused on-site/ web-based survey of park users and dog owners, and their preference of establishing an enclosed dog park within an existing park. This effort was associated with an unsuccessful bid in 2017 by the City to secure grant funding for dog park-related improvements. The survey identified Laguna Lake Park as the best choice for the City’s first enclosed dog park should funding become available. Several reasons for this selection are as follows: 1) Costs – underdeveloped land within the Park are available, eliminating the need to purchase new land; furthermore, the following infrastructure already exists: bathrooms, water, electricity, access road, parking, and benches; 2) Acceptance – if located near the existing pilot ‘dog area’, the use is already established and accepted; the closest residences are more than 1,000 feet away across Laguna Lake; as an established use, it is expected there would be substantially less objection, when compared to other existing public parks. Recently, there have been several large residential developments that have been approved or are under consideration (Orcutt Specific Plan, San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch) which will total over 2,000 residential units, or over an additional 1,100 dogs. There are another 13 smaller residential projects that will add almost another 500 residences. Two of these projects include enclosed dog parks (one project proposes two enclosed areas for dogs). Review of these projects’ dog parks reveal that 2 of the 3 dog parks include inadequate features relating to their size, design and/or locations. It is apparent that there are no Dog Park design guidelines to assist City planners or their consultants to ensure any proposed park will be designed for success. The Parks and Recreation Department, as another example of the strong interest and need in establishing dog parks in the City, is currently considering a neighborhood request for a pilot dog park within the Sinshiemer Park. While next to large residential areas, this Park includes underdeveloped areas away from residential areas, and would appear to be a good candidate to establish an enclosed dog park. The City currently fines owners of dogs found off leash in public places over $500 per incident. Dogs not well controlled need legal enclosed areas to run. At the Laguna Lake dog area, the perimeter boulders have no effect on containment as dogs will chase balls or other dogs that go beyond these boulders, even those that are responsive to commands. Furthermore, the ponds that form in the rainy season beyond the boulders will draw the water-loving dogs beyond the boulders. As a side but related note, it is expected, as a part of the City’s update of the Parks and Recreation Element currently underway, the City will be reaching out in greater depth to more stakeholders on the issue of dog parks. (1) Based on national surveys, 35.6% of homes have dogs and of those households each has 1.6 dogs. Based on the 2010 census for the City of SLO there are 2.2 people per household. When applied to the 2017 City pop. of 46724, there are about 21,286 households. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that SLO has approximately 12,131 dogs. Put another way, for every 100 residences, approximately 57 dogs will be found. 3 BENEFITS TO ESTABLISH AN OFF-LEASH DOG PARK Establishing enclosed dog parks within the City will allow for the greatest number of dogs to freely roam and exercise in a safe and contained area. Many dogs, and their human owners, will benefit from having enclosed dog parks. The following is a preliminary list of these benefits: 1. Reduces the number of dogs that are let off leash ‘illegally’ in other public or semi-public areas, such as parks, schools and open space areas; 2. Directs and contains dogs within a public park, which will minimize conflicts with other park uses and users; 3. Dogs that are not yet controlled/trained, such as wanderers, bolters and puppies, have a legal and safe place to exercise; 4. Allows for the separation of large and small dogs; 5. Keeps dogs away from water bodies or ponded water that may be polluted or considered environmentally sensitive; 6. Provides for defined area to apply all-weather material (e.g. bark chips, mulch, grass, pea gravel, etc.); 7. Sufficient areas are provided for exercising, such as ball or disk throwing; 8. Provides an opportunity for dogs and humans to socialize; 9. Where concrete walkways are installed, it allows those with physical disabilities to use the facility and interact with their dog in a large yet enclosed area; 10. Where water tubs are provided, allows water-loving dogs to satisfy their desire to get wet; tubs would be emptied regularly to keep the water relatively clean thereby increasing hygiene and reducing mud. DOG PARK ELEMENTS A successful dog park requires that certain elements are given careful attention when siting a dog park, and then the types of improvements that are installed. There are preliminary considerations that should be looked at during initial siting of the park. Once the location is established, there are important design considerations that must be addressed. Lastly, Park rules and ongoing management/maintenance aspects must be addressed. The following is a list of those elements with a short discussion about each topic. As Laguna Lake Park (LLP) has been preliminarily identified as the best candidate for an enclosed dog park, italicized comments have been added to the end of each topic, as appropriate, to help identify adequacies and inadequacies at this location. However, each of these topics should be considered when considering a new enclosed dog park. Preliminary Considerations There are several factors that should be initially considered to determine the appropriateness or useability of an area as a dog park. This list should be used by planners and developers when an area is being given serious consideration for a dog park. Preliminary Consideration Laguna Lake Park comments Size: The recommended minimum size for City dog parks is generally between ½ acre and one acre LLP has large areas of underdeveloped parkland and could easily provide one acre Drainage: It is important that the site be relatively flat and have permeable soils LLP has areas near the existing ‘dog area’ that are generally flat and gently slope towards the lake; the soils are mostly clay and not very 4 Preliminary Consideration Laguna Lake Park comments permeable (all of the soil within Laguna Lake area is not very permeable); all-weather material would likely be needed to make the area useable year round Existing/Remaining Vegetation: Some shrubs and trees are considered ‘toxic’ to certain dogs, such as eucalyptus and oleander. If such vegetation already exists, either this vegetation should be removed, or locate the park boundaries an adequate distance to minimize potential impacts; if new landscaping is proposed, it should be screened to avoid species potentially toxic to dogs LLP has isolated stands of eucalyptus – there are plenty of underdeveloped areas that could be used that are well away from these trees Buffer from Existing Residential: the greater the distance from existing residential development the fewer conflicts or complaints will result; however, if a dog park is included within a new larger residential development, the homeowner will already know that a dog park is nearby prior to purchase The distance from the closest residences is about 1,200 feet from existing ‘dog area’. The established ‘dog area’ use along with this ample separation will minimize conflicts; furthermore, having a ‘dawn to dusk’ hours of operation will further minimize conflicts Water Source: Multiple sources of potable water should be made available (e.g., drinking, water tub filling, landscaping) The existing LLP ‘dog area’ already has a source of potable water; new connector lines may need to be installed depending on the enclosed area footprint Parking: Adequate parking needs to be provided There is limited existing LLP parking with the lots near the ‘dog area’ commonly full and overflowing; however, there are areas near the existing lots that could be converted to additional parking Shade: Dog parks should include some shade as desirable, but not heavily shaded to allow for grass growth (if used as ground cover) and for the ground to dry The existing LLP ‘dog area’ has two trees; as of several years, there were several other trees which have since died and been removed; perimeter trees could be planted around an approved enclosure footprint to achieve this objective (Plan could include a ‘memorial dog tree’ program to allow individuals to pay for such plantings) Use Conflict Avoidance: Dog park siting should avoid conflicts with other established recreational activities and sensitive areas, such as: children play areas and other recreational amenities, high use areas, natural areas and water sources, wildlife, trails, community gardens, and historic sites At the LLP, there are underdeveloped areas that could be used that would not conflict with any of these activities or resources; an in- season botanical survey may be needed to confirm that no sensitive resources are within an approved area. There is a disc golf station that may need to be relocated Design See Exhibit 1 for an example of what a basic dog park design might look like. The following is a preliminary list of key design features. 5 Design Consideration Laguna Lake Park comments Fence Height and Material: Common examples include galvanized or vinyl coated chain link fences, with a minimum height of 4 feet. Double gated entries to allow for dog owners to unleash the dogs in a corral prior to letting the dog run free are the norm; should be sized to be ADA compliant; service gates should be included to allow flatbed size trucks entry for maintenance/operations At the LLP, there is a black vinyl coated chain link ‘safety fence’ to keep the dogs from bolting in front of vehicles along the access road; single gates are installed near the bathroom; this type of fencing, if used for an approved enclosure footprint, would meet the criteria Surfacing: There may be multiple surface types including crusher fines or decomposed granite around the entrance area, concrete, grass, wood chips and/or mulch. For the larger areas, to minimize water use, mulch or bark may be the most likely material; ADA will likely require concrete walkways. Each type of material will have different maintenance requirements At the LLP, the City has introduced wood chips within portions of the existing dog area Separate Small and Large Dog Areas: Separation between small and large dogs should be provided; large dogs need more area than small dogs and should be provided between ½ to ¾ of an acre; small dogs should be provided ¼ acre At the LLP dog area, there currently is no separation Site Furniture and Other Amenities: Likely amenities could include benches, community bulletin board, a shade structure, storage building(s) (especially if volunteer group established to help on operational maintenance), trash containers and bag holders At the LLP dog area, the following amenities exist: several benches, bulletin board, trash containers and poop bag holders Signage: Signage could include one or more of the following: entry signs, rule signs, etc. At the LLP dog area rule signs exist ADA Access: Any design will likely need to comply with ADA regulations for access to the site At the LLP dog area, there are two handicap parking spaces next to the bathroom; no ADA walkways exist within the dog area Management Management Consideration Laguna Lake Park comments Staffing: City parks are already staffed by City personnel, and for LLP there is an existing ‘dog area’ already in use that is maintained by staff. See volunteer discussion below. If a dog park is built at LLP, there may be a moderate increase in use, but should not require additional staff for daily maintenance. As there will be new infrastructure, there may be a slight increase in maintenance activities. Having a controlled area for dogs to run may reduce rangers or other park staff needing to cite illegal off-leash activity outside of the dog park, or make it much clearer to users where off leash use is allowed. 6 Management Consideration Laguna Lake Park comments Fines: The existing citation program within the City would not change, unless City is interested in targeting specific rules, such as financial discouragement of owners that bring dogs aggressive or certain bad behaviors Not specific to LLP Entry Fees: No fees are collected to use any of the City Parks No change Hours of Operation: Dawn to dusk is common No change Use Permit: To help offset construction and/or maintenance costs, dog park permits (maybe as part of purchasing a county dog license?) could be required, if the City and County have a common interest in pursuing such an endeavor Not specific to LLP Volunteers: Volunteers could be involved with a dog park’s construction and/or maintenance and activity programming. Involvement of community members may increase acceptance of the dog park and help to minimize problems. Cal Poly’s Construction Management Division conducts class projects to design and build small projects, which could apply to some of the Dog Park Elements. SLOPOST currently maintains a volunteer group for its existing county dog parks and may be a source on how to best establish and retain a volunteer group within the City. The newly formed ‘Friends of SLO City Dog Parks’ or ‘See Spot Run’ could be potential volunteer resources Volunteer force should be pursued for LLP and any other new dog park established COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES Costs Most of the Park Elements identified above have associated costs to acquire, install and/or maintain. Some of these costs will be less, especially if dog parks are placed near areas where land has already been acquired or certain infrastructure already exists. An additional cost, especially when considering existing parks for an enclosed dog park, may be incurred to provide outreach to potential stakeholders, and considering their input relating to design and location. When new dog parks are included with larger new development, initial costs are commonly covered by the developer. In 2017, as a part of the City’s effort to obtain grant monies to help pay for enclosed dog park improvements, the City made a preliminary assessment that costs to install such an enclosure within an existing park (in this case it was at LLP) would be about $40,000. This cost did not include many of the ‘optional’ components not critical to establishing a functional dog park. The main factors that should be considered when budgeting for a dog park are listed below. Some of these items could be considered ‘optional’ or not necessary to initially establish a dog park, or may already exist within close proximity of the proposed dog park. However, the more of these elements that are included, the better the experience will be for a greater number of dogs and their human companions: • Contractor mobilization 7 • Construction erosion control • Site clearing costs associated with clearing and grading of designated location • Site storm water drainage improvements • Costs of surfacing with preferred materials (i.e. chips, mulch, stone dust, rice stone, grass, etc.) • Fencing costs to encompass entirety of site, along with gating (double-gated entrances, vehicle maintenance gate) or internal divisions • Walkway surfacing and bordering • Consideration of handicap access for project • Cost of water hose bibs and/or fountains to dispense potable water for dogs/humans • Landscape irrigation lines and control box • Consideration of electrical service and lighting • Dog and trash waste containers • Any amenities to be placed inside the dog recreation space (e.g., water tubs, etc.) • Landscape plantings within and around the dog park area • Costs associated with either natural or artificial shading inside the park • Vehicle parking and access to dog park • Signage • Bathrooms • Group area/gazebo/BBQ • Tables and/or benches • Information kiosk • Volunteer amenities (e.g., Maintenance shed, tools, etc.) Dog Park Plan – As a first step to get detailed costs, assuming that Laguna Lake Park remains a good choice for the City’s first dog park, the City’s Park and Recreation Department, with the approval from the City Council, should begin more detailed meetings and surveys with stakeholders and the public to define where an enclosed dog park is best suited within Laguna Lake Park. Once this is established, detailed costs can be better defined and should then be calculated. Once costs are known, key elements can then be budgeted, or outside sources (e.g., support groups, individuals, Cal Poly, grants, etc.) would be able to target and raise funding. This process should be applied to other City-owned parks (such as Sinshiemer) or compatible public lands to more easily allow for funding to be secured for specific improvements. Funding Sources Funding needed to establish the City’s first dog park could come from several sources. One helpful aspect of Dog Park construction is that once the design is approved, construction installation can be done in multiple phases, which would provide flexibility in spacing out the funding of improvements. Ideally, it would be preferable if the entire costs for one dog park (at LLP) could be included in the next City’s annual budget (which is happening now at the time of this writing) for recreational improvements. However, there are many other recreational demands of the City that have taken a priority over building an enclosed dog park, as is evident over the last 17 years when little has been done despite the City’s Parks and Recreation Element first identifying dog parks as an ‘unmet recreational need’ in 2001. Other potential funding sources are as follows: 8 Large Residential Developments Planning and Parks and Recreation staff should develop a checklist of new development location or size ‘triggers’ to help determine when a residential project is large enough or centrally located to include a new dog park or if a portion of in-lieu recreation fees need to be directed towards dog park improvements at a specific location. This may include the development of a ‘fair share’ fee and/or capital improvements program for dog parks within the City limits. If a ‘trigger’ is activated and an on- site dog park is proposed, the City should be prepared to provide guidelines on what elements are needed to make for a successful dog park and to take advantage of such opportunities when they arise. Grants As was done in 2017, the City should continue to pursue grant funding that is offered to establish and/or improve dog parks. As an example, should the City be awarded one of the national grants offered annually by PetSafe, $25,000 would become immediately available to begin improvements. Having an approved dog park plan would facilitate installing such improvements. Donations The City should work with and make it easy for interested parties and organizations who are willing to donate labor, materials and funds that can be specifically earmarked for dog park improvements. The ‘Friends of SLO City Dog Parks’ Facebook group has already started a GoFundMe campaign for such improvements. Cal Poly The City should collaborate with the Cal Poly Construction Management Department, as long as there is mutual interest, to find class projects that would design and construct some of the smaller elements of a city-approved dog park. Use Fee While not currently in place within the City, other cities do charge a ‘user fee’ in the form of a park entrance fee, or have worked with their respective counties to amend the dog licensing fee where a new small fee would be added for SLO City residents that license their dogs. This fee collected would then be transferred to the City for dog park- related costs. CONCLUSION Dogs are an important part of 1/3 of all households within the City. Dogs are like children to many. A large percentage of these dogs (younger dogs, working dogs, puppies, etc.) have ‘extra’ energy where, if it is not expended, can turn into destructive habits or tendencies that can be directed at inanimate objects, other dogs and humans. It is very important that adequate public areas are available for these dogs to expend this pent-up energy. While walking a dog helps curb this energy, it may not satisfy younger and ‘working’ dogs. Nor does walking help much in the socialization of dogs. The City already has an estimated 12,130 dogs within the City Limits. The City has no long-term plan to address the needs of the City’s dogs. The existing ‘dog area’ at Laguna Lake Park is woefully deficient. In a normal rain year, this ‘dog area’ is only useable six months out of the year and without an enclosure it is only good for dogs that have strong bonds with their owners. It also does not provide the opportunity to separate the large and small dogs, which can sometimes be problematic. And with the recent City approvals and considerations of large new developments, many more new dogs are coming. While some consideration 9 of dog parks has been given with several of these large projects, 2 of the 3 dog parks approved or proposed do not meet some of the most important elements needed for a successful dog park. Next Steps The following measures are recommended so the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo and their dogs can enjoy an improved quality of life. It is encouraged that the City of San Luis Obispo: 1) Have its staff (Parks and Recreation Department) lay the groundwork to identify acceptable locations and the costs associated with establishing a dog park within the City limits through outreach efforts to stakeholders, as well as prepare an itemized cost estimate to identify the costs of the various components of a dog park; 2) As a part of its next annual budget, direct funds to be budgeted for specific key initial improvements, such as perimeter fencing; additional funding could be recommended in subsequent years for other improvements not previously funded, or accepted from outside sources for specific improvements; 3) Work with volunteer groups to help the City offset maintenance labor costs and to support fundraising efforts or donations towards dog park improvements; 4) Continue applying for grants, such as the one offered by PetSafe, to establish new parks, or provide funding for existing parks; 5) As a part of the Parks and Recreation Element update, continue to recognize dog parks as an unmet need and develop performance standards on when this need can be considered met; also, add a section or chapter to the Element that addresses the important items included above in this document; 6) Have City staff (Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments), as a part of its review of new development, develop a checklist or triggers of when new development is either large enough or centrally located to support a new dog park; further, should an ‘on-site dog park recommendation’ be triggered or offered up by a developer, staff should be able to provide guidance on key elements needed in the design of a successful new dog park. Off-Leash Trails. Another related but separate issue that the City should be working on with interested parties (including the ‘See Spot Run’ group) is the establishment of areas where dogs can walk with their owners off-leash. These dogs would need to demonstrate their successful ability to obey their owners. As this has many aspects not covered in this focused paper that would need detailed discussion with the City and interested parties, it is recommended that the City explore this issue as part of its update of the Parks and Recreation Element. Preparer’s contact information: John McKenzie 10 Exhibit 1 – Generic Dog Park Layout 11 87 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:09 PM To:Peter Winch; John Gibbs Cc:Stanwyck, Shelly; Stephenson, Lindsey; Hyfield, Devin Subject:Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element Update - Workshop Comments Attachments:Workshop Comments_091318.xlsx Hi Peter, Please find attached the worksheet containing all the comments from the Public Workshop. We will likely work with this to group/format/structure the information, but I wanted to get this to you once it was complete. You will see there is a tab for each Workshop station. I will follow up with you tomorrow, if you are in the office, regarding next steps and deadlines for the Survey Report and Community Needs Assessment Memo (and subsequent report). Thank you, Shawna Scott Senior Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org 88 From:Scott, Shawna Sent:Friday, July 6, 2018 10:28 AM To:Stephenson, Lindsey; Hyfield, Devin Subject:FW: Parks & Rec Update Attachments:Possible Dog Park locations.pdf FYI From: Scott, Shawna Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 10:27 AM To: Peter Winch <pwinch@wrtdesign.com>; John Gibbs <JGibbs@wrtdesign.com> Subject: FW: Parks & Rec Update Good morning, Please see attached, fyi. Thank you, Shawna From: John McKenzie < Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 12:46 PM To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org> Cc: Stanwyck, Shelly <sstanwyck@slocity.org> Subject: Parks & Rec Update Hi Shawna, I will be sending out the attached doc to my Friends of SLO City Dog Parks group on 7/5 to review and provide feedback. I tho ught I might run by you before I release for any 'fatal flaw' comments. If you were to provide any comments I would not indicate th e City has in any way reviewed this document as I understand the City would be going through a more deliberative process to bring in all of the stakeholders to find the most amenable sites. If the consultant is doing any dog park analysis of its own, you a re welcome to share with them. Thank you. John McKenzie Friends of SLO City Dog Parks PF-1 PF-2 PF-3 PF-4 PF-5 Priv-1 PF-7 PF-6 Potential Dog Park Sites –City of SLO (north half) PF-7 PF-8 PF-11 PF-10 PF-12 PF-9 Potential Dog Park Sites –City of SLO (south half) PF-13 PF-14 •PF-1: Santa Rosa Park; 001-031-028; 10 acres; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-2: Emerson Park; 003-515-001; 3.21 acres; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-3: Mitchell Park; 003-543-001; 3.06 ac; at least ½ ac. Available? No* •Priv-1: PG&E’s MGP Site; 0.82 ac; PGE deciding what to do with remediated property •PF-4 Meadow Park: 004-831-005; 9.84 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-5 Sinshiemer Park: 004-861-005; 41.8 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-6: Johnson Park 004-982-033; 4.6 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (1/2 ac) •PF-7: Laguna Lake Park; 004-871-005; 310 ac; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes (multiple 1/2 acres) •PF-8 Orcutt Specific Plan; ¼ ac. Dog Park approved (construct in final phase –years away)** •PF-9: Damon-Garcia Soccer Fields; 053-231-038; 23 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-10: Islay Park; 10.65 ac. at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-11: French Park; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-12: Avila Ranch; ¼and ½ ac Dog Parks approved (construct in final phase –years away)** •PF-13: DeVaul Park; 053-511-060; 3 ac.; at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •PF-14 Laguna Hills Park; 053-246-041; 3.4 ac.;at least ½ ac. Available? Yes •*Not enough area or other constraints to not seriously consider for dog park •** New projects w/ dog park included (to be constructed in final phases which may be many years away) Map Key (light gray locations not actively being considered; maps show gross available area) Selection Criteria •City-controlled-with the exception of one site (PG&E) •At least ½ acre of useable area (flat to gently sloping) available –maps show gross areas that appear available;dog parks should range from ½ to 1 ac.in size •Initial effort of unweighted pros and cons for each site has been provided and is subject to change as more information becomes available ______________ •The City of SLO has not yet considered any of the properties or ‘available areas’ provided in this initial effort •An overall strategy will be to identify how many parks, if any, should be pursued by the City to serve the existing 12,000 dogs, and that are strategically located throughout the City. Proximity to serve the most people within walking distance (one mile) will be an important consideration. Focus will be on residents, but some consideration may be given to non-residents and tourists that bring their dogs into SLO (e.g. more centrally located to main roads/large employment areas & hotels) PF-1 Santa Rosa Park –possible locations 0.51 acre area 0.58 acre area PROS: northern-most location, walkable to many homes, large parking lot, bathrooms, water, away from residences, some shade, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: Park well developed already and reduces existing picnic area Murray Street PF-2 Emerson Park –possible location 1.1 acre area CONS: near residences in quieter area PROS: walkable to many homes, downtown, street parking, bathrooms, water, good size, flat, some shade, city controlled Priv-1 PG&E MGP prop –possible location 0.82 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, downtown, street parking, water, good size, leveled dirt, in noisier area CONS: no bathrooms, privately owned –PG&E still determining ‘best use’ after remediation PF-3 Mitchell Park –possible location 0.35 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, downtown, street parking, water, flat, noisier area, some shade, bathrooms, city controlled, , all-weather surface CONS: Too small, disrupts symmetry and function of park PF-4 Meadow Park –possible location 0.75 acre area CONS: near some residences on one side, some slope PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, water, some shade, good size, bathrooms, city controlled South Street Meadow Street 0.4 acre area 0.5 acre area PF-5 Sinshiemer Park –possible locations PROS: walkable to nearby homes, parking lot, water, south area flat, noisier area, away from residences, bathrooms, city controlled, larger area if disc golf areas considered, north site has all-weather surface CONS: some slope for north area, barely large enough in north area; south area too small & needs all-weather surface Del Campo Blvd 1.25 acre area PF-6 Johnson Park –possible location CONS: near some residences on two sides, could displace recreational use (basketball court) PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, bathroom, water, some shade, good size, city controlled, all-weather surface PF-7 Laguna Lake Park –possible locations 4.25 acre area 0.95 acre area 1.82 acre area PROS: good separation from residences, street parking/small parking lot, water, large areas to select from, bathrooms, easy access to leashed trails, existing dog use area w/ some amenities, city controlled CONS: no shade, some slope in one area, needs all-weather surface, potential conflicts w/ 1 or 2 disc golf stations, parking area should be enlarged PF-9 Soccer Fields –possible location 0.65 acre area CONS: no shade, water line needs to be extended across ‘creek’, not easily walkable to nearest residential area, needs all-weather surface PROS: good separation from residences, parking lot, bathrooms, noisier area, city controlled PF-10 Islay Park –possible locations 0.6 acre area 0.2 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, small parking lot, water, some shade, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: none Tank Farm Road PF-11 French Park –possible locations 0.6 acre area 0.6 acre area 0.3 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking/small parking lot, water, good size, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: near some residences on one/two sides, no shade PF-13 DeVaul Park –possible location 1.5 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, street parking, water, good size, bathrooms, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: potentially near some residences in quieter area, no shade; detention basin (may not be useable year-round) PF-13 Laguna Hills Park –possible locations 0.62 acre area 0.45 acre area PROS: walkable to nearby homes, water, good size, city controlled, all-weather surface CONS: near residences in quiet area, no shade; no bathroom, limited street parking