HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2019 PRC Item 3 - McKenzie1
From:John McKenzie <
Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:58 PM
To:Christian, Kevin
Cc:Stephenson, Lindsey; CityClerk
Subject: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
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.
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,
2
John McKenzie
Friends of SLO City Dog Parks
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
805-441-5894
johnnimac@earthlink.net
10
Exhibit 1 – Generic Dog Park Layout
11
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