The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRC Agenda Correspondence Item 2 - 09-06-20171 Purrington, Teresa From:John McKenzie < Sent:Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:04 AM To:Advisory Bodies Subject:9/6 P&R Commission Meeting - Parks and Recreation Element update Dear Parks and Recreation Commissioners, While the following detailed comments and suggestions may be a little early in the update process of the Parks and Recreation Element update (9/6 meeting), I believe they are important and relevant as the Commission develops an overall game plan and schedule for the update process. Current Conditions. The City of San Luis Obispo needs off leash dog parks. The City currently has none. Based on a national survey, 35.6% of all households own dogs. Of these, each household has an average of 1.6 dogs. Based on the number of households in SLO, there are currently about 12,000 dogs. Nearby communities, as small as 1/6th the size of SLO, have their own successful fenced dog parks. There are six other fenced dog parks in other communities within SLO county. New Development. Based on the City’s approval of the Avila and San Luis Ranch projects, the City is approving residential lots with very small or no yards. These two projects will generate about 700 new dogs. These projects include no conditions specific to dog parks. People will continue to have dogs with small yards or without yards. Based on the City’s actions over the last 16 years when the Parks and Recreation Element was last updated, the Recreation in lieu fees are not specific to, nor likely will go towards, any dog park improvements. The pending Froom Ranch proposes a dog park that is one-quarter acre in size and on a moderate to steeply sloped area. This would be woefully inadequate as a functioning dog park, as a fenced dog park should be at least one acre in size on relatively flat areas. Based on these factors, it appears the City has no guidelines or criteria of a functional dog park. The Element update would be the appropriate place to provide such guidance. Furthermore, there is no criteria on when new projects should be contributing towards dog parks. The 3 above-referenced ‘ranch’ projects will generate an additional 1,000 dogs and yet either, no conditions were included, or they propose inadequate measures. Also, these projects are forcing dog owners to take their dogs to a place large enough to allow their dog to run, such as a school or park (which is currently illegal, except at the inadequate dog area at Laguna Lake Park). However, if they are caught and cited by the City, they will be charged over $500. Unless this situation is intended to be a new ongoing backdoor source of city revenue, something has got to change. Laguna Lake Park. While Laguna Lake Park (LLP) ‘dog area’ is the only place that allows dogs off-leash, it was a ‘pilot’ project approved many years ago with no follow-up. It has many deficiencies for off leash use, and only a small percentage of dog owners will use it as is. However, LLP would be an excellent location to establish a fenced off leash dog park. It is currently not fenced and is unusable when wet, severely limiting potential use by dog owners. It also does not provide any separation between small and large dogs. Further, the most recent fencing and boulders installed appear haphazard with no apparent long-term considerations. Lastly, there are many walking/hiking trails within the Park. As there is a need and desire of the community to have off leash trails (See ‘See Spot Run’ Facebook group with over 200 members supporting off leash trails), LLP should be evaluated for such use, as it would complement a fenced dog park. This would be the time for the Element update to look at the trails within the LLP and other open space areas within city jurisdiction for off leash dog use. 2001 Parks and Recreation Element. Chapter 7 of the City’s General Plan addresses all aspects of the City’s Parks and Recreation responsibilities. Section 3.12 of this chapter identified the unmet Parks and Recreation needs. Item 8 identified special facilities including dog parks as one of the City’s unmet needs. Since its adoption of this part of the General Plan in 2001 no dog park has been built within the City limits. The Element update needs to address this shortcoming and provide a much clearer path on how to achieve this unmet need as quickly as possible. City Dog Park Survey. The City performed a dog park survey earlier this year. It is unclear on the extent of its outreach efforts and if the number of responses are adequate to use as a basis for long term decisions. It is important to note that of the 20,000+ households (7,000+ of these have dogs) within the city limits, it appears only a very small percentage were reached. Given that there are very successful dog parks in county communities 1/6th the size of SLO, an assessment 2 should be completed to determine how many dog parks the City could or should support. Friends of SLO City Dog Parks Survey (SLODOGS). The newly formed Friends of SLO City Dog Parks (SLODOGS) now has over 50 members and continues to grow. It is currently surveying its members on dog park-related concerns and desires within the City of SLO. To date, over 50% of its members have responded. Based on these initial responses, the following can be said: Laguna Lake dog area is lightly used (0 to 10 times a year) by a majority of dog owners, many existing dog area elements are inadequate or completely lacking, and there would be a much greater use if a fenced, off leash dog park were installed. Other survey details can be found at the Facebook’s group website: https://www.facebook.com/groups/254964818344047/ Update Needs/Action Items. Based on the previous discussion, the Parks and Recreation Element update should address dog parks in the following areas: 1) Provide a definition of a dog park (Wikipedia would be a good start) and include a minimum functioning size (probably about an acre) on level or gently sloping areas for use when a new dog park is proposed; 2) If it is not obvious that at least one fenced dog park is needed now, the City should conduct a citywide survey about dog parks, in the hopes of getting 10-15% survey response of the 21,000+ households within the city limits and their opinions about getting and/or using dog parks within the City; the recent dog park study was very localized and may not be an accurate representation of all dog owners; 3) Based on the above dog park definition, determine if and where such dogs parks could go within existing city parks, and other potential areas, such as within certain open space areas; 4) Determine how many dog parks should serve our City of 47,500; if more than one, provide criteria to spread them evenly throughout the City and within walking distance of larger residential areas; this should consider all foreseeable future city expansion areas; 5) Determine what size of new development should trigger inclusion of a new dog park (as defined above) in the project’s footprint; it seems like the recent ‘Ranch’ projects, with 500-700 new residential units each, could be a good trigger for such a requirement; 6) Review the Recreation in lieu fee and to what extent it could be amended to ensure a portion of this goes towards dog park acquisitions and improvements; explore other potential funding sources; 7) Review the off-leash citation process on its fairness and if it would be appropriate to have a reduced cost; maybe consider a tiered cost (such as the first one is low, and subsequent citations go up, etc.); should consider when such citation dollars are collected, they would go into a ‘dog park improvement fund’. Thank you for your consideration of doing more for our faithful companions. I hope your Commission will consider and incorporate the above suggested action items as it moves forward with its schedule for the Element update. I look forward to working with your Commission and city staff as the Update makes its way through the process. Sincerely, John McKenzie Founder of ‘Friends of SLO City Dog Parks’ (SLODOGS)