Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPC Agenda 2004-03-24 \ SEAL BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Meeting Place: City'Manager's Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (By motion of Commission) V. ORAL COMMUNICATION At this time, members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction ,of the Commission. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Commission cannot discuss or take action on items not on the agenda unless authorized by law. Matters brought before the Commission that are not on the agenda may, at the Commission's discretion, be referred to staff or placed on the next agenda. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, staff or the public request that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Minutes of February 25, 2004 (Approve) VII. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Permanent Canine Use Area at Arbor Park (Recommend) 2. Founder's Day Committee Planning (Discuss) VIII. MANAGER'S REPORT - Informational items IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURN (N~~ regularly scheduled meeting - April 28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.) The City of Seal Beach complies with Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Thank you. SEAL BEACH PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Minutes of February 25, 2004 meeting I. CALL TO ORDER Called to order by Chair. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: AnnaBeth Goering, Rickie Layman, Dona Smith, Shelly Sustarsic IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (By motion of Cpmmission) Agenda approved as submitted. V. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 28, 2004 minutes Consent calendar was approved as submitted. VI. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Founder's Day Planning Report . Assistant City Manager presented a brief overview of past Founder's day programs and activities and the materials provided to the Commission in its agenda packet. Based on the information provided, the Commission determined that Sunday, October 3, 2005 would be the date for Founder's Day activities. To ensure that carnival services would be available, the commission agreed that City staff should proceed with the advance reservation to secure the date and other amenities, and to use existing Founder's Day startup funds to make the 50% booking deposit. The following are ideas that the commission considered and were amenable to for the day's activities: a) Four-hour window, i. e. 11:30 to 3:30 p. m. b) At least two stages for entertainment so that there would be no lag time between acts because of setup, etc. c) Considering not having the parade or inviting one of the local clubs to organize the activity. d) Having a "Taste of Seal Beach" tentlbooth area. For the next meeting, direction was given to discuss: a) Setting a calendar for planning and fundraising b) Discuss fundraising activities and solicitation of volunteers c) Alternate meeting dates for committee planning. ]21-1 Agenda Item VII. MANAGER'S REPORT - Informational items 1. Introduction of District 5 Commissioner. Ms. Yotsuya introduced Dona Smith as the new commissioner from District 5. VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS None submitted. IX. ADJOURN Meeting adjourned to March 24, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA REPORT DATE: March 24, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission FROM: Mark Vukojevic, P .E., Deputy City Engineer THRU: June Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CANINE USE AREA AT ARBOR PARK SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Recommend that a dog park area be created within Arbor Park including a separate area for small dogs and that license fees be adjusted .as well as a separate permit charged for non- residents. . BACKGROUND: For the past year, the City has been considering a dog park within Arbor Park. This process started in March 2003, when this matter was brought to City Council. A site evaluation was performed by Public Works and subsequently on October 21, 2003 a community meeting was held with interested parties. The matter was then brought to the October 27, 2003 Council Meeting. The item was continued and placed as a public hearing at the December 8, 2003 Council Meeting. A copy of the staff report which details the size and scope of the area is attached as an exhibit. At the December gth, meeting, numerous people attended and were in support of this endeavor. City Council authorized a trial period for the area, and this matter was to be brought forward to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation prior to consideration of a permanent facility. Although it has been only three 'months, there have been very few issues and/or complaints regar4ing the facility. It would be timely for the Commission to consider this area for recommendation as a permanent facility. The Public Works Department estimates' an approximate budg~t of $10,000. There has been a request to place a small dog area within the park area. This would increase the budgeted amount by another $5,000 due to the additional fencing and separate gates for a total estimated cost of $15,000. It is hoped that community groups would raise funds and donate items such as picnic tables, once the park is established. /~~ , '. .... On page three of Exhibit A of the December 8, 2003 Council Report, a funding mechanism was discussed on how the park could be funded by potential dog users of the park through dog license fees. For a small increase of all dog licenses, the annualized capital cost of the facility Agenda Item Ii!!. - I and repairs of the turf could be recovered. Since licenses are issued to only Seal Beach Residents, a yearly permit would need to be issued to outside users by the Police Department. The Police Department has provided the following comments regarding operation and enforcement of the park "Since the opening of the dog park in January 2004, Seal Beach Animal Control Officers have visited the park on a daily basis to meet with the public and answer questions. The overall response seems to be very positive, the public is impressed with the condition of the park and are hopeful it will be kept up. Several of those contacted indicated they appreciated the grass in our dog park instead of the wood chips used in other cities. Several owners of small dogs have asked if em area would be separated for their dogs. While no specific problems have been observed between large and small dogs, this is a recommendation we believe has merit. Animal Control Officers have found the greater percentage of those using the dog park are visitor from sUlTounding cities, i.e.: Lakewood, Bellflower, Long Beach, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Downey and Covina. Very few Seal Beach residents seem to be using the park and many Old Town residents still seem unaware that the dog park exists. ACO's are checking for animal licenses and reminding dog owners of the park regulations. In reference to the park regulations, staff has concluded that some additions and modifications are necessalY and will be working with Public Works to incorporate these changes into the Seal Beach Municipal Code. " Staffhas also had discussions with Mr. Rabin who is an advocate for the dog park, as well as the unofficial leader of the group within College Park East. He has also expressed an interest in a small dog park area. Considerations for recommendations to City Council: 1. Should a permanent "dog park" area be placed at Arbor Park? If so, should a small dog park area be included? 2. Should non-residents be charged to use the facility through a yearly permit? RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a dog park area be created within Arbor Park including a separate area for small dogs and license fees be adjusted as well as a separate permit charged for non- residents. Agenda Item_ Exhibit A: December 8, 2003 Staff Report Agenda Item _ . Exhibit A: December 8,2003 Staff Report Agenda Item _ AGENDA REPORT THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager ~ 0') ~I ~/ ) DATE: December 8, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Douglas A. Dancs, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: "TRIAL" DESIGNATED CANINE USE AREA AT ARBOR PARK SUMMARY OF REOUEST: The proposed City Council action will authorize the City Manager to implement a trial canine use area at Arbor Park for four to six months and adopt the attached resolution authorizing Budget Amendment No. 04-13 for the 2003/2004 fiscal year to transfer funds within the undesignated fund reserve. BACKGROUND: At the August 11, 2003 Council Meeting, a proposal was brought forward to grant a use agreement to Local American Youth Soccer Organization (A YSO), Region # 159. Council received comments from the public regarding the facility that there should be a place for dogs within the park. After discussions, Council reduced the area for use by A YSO to not include the eastern 2-acre section of land bounded by the drainage sw:ale and the existing fence. It was also suggested that West Ed be contacted regarding the land just south of~e facility for use. Subsequently, the City Manager's office pursued negotiations with representatives at West Ed to explore the potential of using the land east of their building for the purposes of a dog park. This option was not practicable for the landowner and the Pub~ic Works Department was directed to investigate a trial canine use area at the eastern portion of Arbor Park. After the site evaluation by the Public Works Department, on October 21, 2003, a neighborhood community meeting was held in the Council Chambers to discuss the potential for a canine use area within Arbor Park. Approximately 15 people were in attendance including the Mayor, the Parks and Recreation Commissioner from District 4 and the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The vast majority in attendance was in favor of the area but it was also explained by the Mayor that success would be dependent upon self-policing in regards to both animal waste disposal and keeping dogs off the playing fields. r \, r \.' ,e . ,;'},;~.:' ,.,' . ~ 'lV~,~~ Agenda Item Q .1'V/~/ \ cf1 ~ I The matter was brought to the October 27, 2003 Council Meeting. During the public comment period, both Ms. Pelegrenie of Los Alamitos and Mr. Adler of College Park East commented regarding the park. The item was pulled from the consent calendar and Council directed Staff to bring this matter back as a public hearing. Minutes from the meeting can be found as an attachment. A question and answer format follows that will address the issues raised at the Council Meeting. Why can't the boundary of the proposed area be enlarged? Where is the location of the existing water fountain in relation to the proposed dogfountain? First, this entire tri'al project was predicated on keeping the project cost as low as possible both during the trial and final stage. Consequently, this project is not going through a formal design process with engineered drawings and plans. For comparison purposes, another agency in Orange County recently estimated its dog p.ark to cost in excess of $60,000. The intent of this project was to keep it simple and low cost. Enlarging the boundary would have significantly raised costs due to moving the water fountain and the design considerations it would have triggered. Additionally, a larger area would also increase the cost of the fencing required. The boundary chosen coincides with the drainage swale that already exists as a natural demarcation. There were concerns during public comment that the dog park was too small at only 2 acres. The Marin Humane Society recommends an ideal dog park be 1 acre \. or more and the dog park in Laguna Nigue1 is 1.1 acres and the one in Costa Mesa 2.1 acres. While it is always nice to have a large area, it is not necessary. The fence will be approximately 20' distance from the water fountain and the proposed dog water fountain would be another 20' from the fence for a total of 40'. Additionally, screening could be placed in the area that jogs around the water fountain. Lastly, the access to the area had always been planned to be "double gated," to prevent dogs from exiting accidently. How will maintenance of the area be handled? -. As mentioned in the previous agenda report, the Public Works Department will work with the City's landscape contractor to determine the impact on maintenance of this area. There is a current schedule for all the items mentioned during public comment including mowing every week during spring and summer months and every other week during the fall and winter months. Aeration occurs once a year and they fertilize twice a year. Agenda Item 2cF10> As with any areas used by dogs, the grass will tend to be worn away. Maintenance will be dependent upon the severity of the use of the area and recommendations will be brought forward to Council at the end of the trial period. The cost for re- seeding is 50 cents per square yard and re-sodding is $1.00 per square yard. Are the rules for the dog park final and/or sufficient? As mentioned in the previous agenda report, the Police Department provided the proposed rules for operation of the area and these are attached. These rules would be posted at the entrance into the facility. User 'compliance with these rules would be heavily weighed in the consideration of making this facility pennanent. Proper disposal of animal waste and controlling dog behavior will be important to the success of the park. The Police Department will monitor rule compliance and also evaluate the possibility of separate areas for the different size dogs and report back their recommendations at the end of the trial period. These rules are draft: and will be altered during this trial process. Examples of other rules from other parks such as Costa Mes8: and Laguna Niguel are attached. The dog rules were also discussed with the residents at the Mayor's community meeting. A claim was made during public comment that not enough people were contacted. Currently, there is no official group that represents the park and no way to determine people who live outside the City who would be interested in this issue. A notice of this public hearing was posted at the entrance to the park. At this time, the Police Department does not suggest any changes to the proposed rules but recommends adjusting as necessary during the trial period to see what will be most effective for the area. These rules will need to be codified into an ordinance at the time the installation is made permanent and can be considered by Council at that time. How can both residents and non-city residents be chargedfor use of the area? During the meeting, a councilmember mentioned that the users of the dog area could pay for the maintenance just as A YSO pays for the soccer field. Currently, the fee for dog licenses is $10 for altered and $25 for unaltered. The Police Department estimates that there are 1,200 dog licenses issued per year. An increase of $2 per license would generate $2,400 per year. This revenue could be used toward both maintenance and capital replacement of the field as well as issuing permit lanyards. By spreading the cost to all the licensed dog users within Seal Beach, it could possibly decrease incidents of dog use at parks or fields where they are not permitted such as Zoeter if people were willing to drive 10 minutes to the College Park East area. This fee could be altered depending upon the amount desired by Council to be charged to residents versus non-residents. Currently, all the City parks are open to . everyone but the fee resolution does charge lower fees to resident base groups for Agenda Item 3of~O field usage versus non-residents. Non-residents could be charged the $2 or up to $25, which is, the current cost a Seal Beach resident pays for its base dog license for unaltered dogs to obtain a permit lanyard to use the facility. This decision would be at the discretion of Council as to past policy for field and/or park usage for residents versus non-residents. The Police Department suggested a system could be developed whereby a dog use permit would be issued through the Police Department-Animal Control. A permit ID card would be issued for each dog and a fee paid for the year for use. A different color card would be used for residents versus non-residents. At the time of permit issuance for non-residents, animal control could then check that the dog has a license within another city and the proper vaccinations. For enforcement, the cards would need to be placed in the provided lanyard-neck ID badge holder while someone has a dog within the park area. The Animal Control Officer would check the park for compliance on a random basis. It is unknown at this time what type of burden this would place on the Police Department -Animal Control or if it would be problematic. It is recommended that any such system not be implemented during the trial period but instead be implemented if a permanent park is approved. Does a decision need to be made regardingfeesfor this item? No. It is recommended that Council wait until the trial period is over regarding the area and the decision be made at the time Council desires implementation of a permanent facility. How much will it cost? If Council desires to utilize the eastern area specifically for dogs, it would cost approximately $3,500 for installing rented - temporary fence to enclose this area as well as provide trashcans, some low cost furniture, dog "bags" and a dog use water fountain connection. If after a four to six-month trial period Council desires to make this permanent, an additional $7,000 to $10,000 would need to be budgeted to install a permanent fence and complete facility. How long would it be until the temporary fence is installed? Upon Council approval, a fence would be installed within 3 to 4 weeks. When would enforcement by the Police Department commence? The Police Department has been monitoring the area to keep dogs off the fields. Once this area is fenced, the Police Department would strictly enforce that dogs are never allowed on the field areas either leashed or unleashed. Furthermore, dogs must be leashed at all times while on the parking area. Lastly, dogs are only allowed off leash within the fenced areas. Agenda Item If cfuo How would prospective user gain access to the park? Normally, users would use the front entrance off Lampson Avenue. During the heavy periods of use by A YSO soccer, the parking lot to the facility is sometimes closed due to the amounts of children in the parking area and arrangements are made for people to park within the West Ed facility and use an altematjve access gate. People using the dog area would also need to comply with this arrangement. What is the timeline if Council approves implementation of the trial "Canine Use Area "? As mentioned previously, it would take 3 to 4 weeks to install the fence. At the end of the trial period, recommendations would first be brought forward to the Parks and Recreation Commission for comment on the results of the trial period, any proposed fees, and the potential for permanent installation. The Commission would then forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration. City Council would then decide whether to make the park permanent, codify the rules into the municipal code, and change the fee resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The total proposed budget amendment increases General Fund expenditures by $3,500. General Fund Undesignated fund balance will decrease from $4,116,612 to $4,113,112 with the approval of Budget Amendment No. 04-13. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed City Council action will authorize the City Manager to implement a trial canine use area at Arbor Park for four to six months and adopt the attached resolution authorizing Budget Amendment No. 04-13 for the 2003/2004 fiscal year to transfer funds within the undesignated fund reserve. Agenda Item 5 C)F~D Attachment 3: Draft Canine Area Rules Success during this trial period depends on cooperation of the dog park users. Due to the potential public health and safety issues, failure to abide by"rules or reports by local youth sporting groups of animal waste, especially on the fields where kids play, may result in an immediate suspension of the trial period and a zero tolerance policy. a At no times are dogs allowed either on or off leash on the playing fields (Le. soccer/baseball). a Dogs must be on-leash within the parking area. a Dogs must not be let off leash until they have entered designated fence area and the gate is securely fast~ned. a Only dogs and humans are permitted in the fenced area. a Keep gates closed at all times. a Patrons are required to clean up and pick up after their dogs and waste receptacles are provided for and located within the park. a Owners shall always be responsible and liable for their dogs. a Up to 3 dogs per adult per visit. a Valid license and current vaccines are required for every dog entering the facility. a Any sick or aggressive dogs, puppies under four months of age, or dogs in heat are prohibited in the park. a Use areas within the fenced areas that are most appropriate for the size of your dog. a All smoking, food and dog"treats, glass containers, alcohol, children's toys and sports equipment are prohibited. Agenda Item , of ~ 0 Attachment 4: Example of "Standardized" Facility Entry Sign Agenda Item -, ~F~ () Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Proposed Dog Park Area 3. Proposed Dog-Park Rules 4. Sample Standardized Entry Sign 5. October 27,2003 Agenda Staff Report (No Attachments) 6. Resolution No. _Approving Budget Amendment No. 04-13. 7. Dog Park Rules from Laguna Niguel, Costa Mesa, and another sample format 8. Dog Waste Information 9. Minutes from the October 27,2003 Meeting Agenda Item ~ 6,F ~ Q Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Agenda Item ~ cF1~ >// 'J 'L ' Attachment 2': Proposed Canine Use Area !I . JJ- ... ~.:1:. : ..~ _Rill a 11_ 1IIi~1l .. ~ ... '1-- :: 'fill = Ii .I II" III. ..I .. III ..11 III __ III 1.::111 I_ 1111I ~.. I ~:I. .~ .. 'II' -: II- -.' CiI..... ..; :: & ._11I II. I ...... .1.. _...- - II . 11II11II - I II - II . .. IIII!II ..- II' .. - .-- I Ia IIiiI II . .. .1 - lIB .- B . DIll m - I:II:J - II -- II .,~ I::rI: IIIIIlo1ll II ~~ . 11III ~I- air Ii: ',II. I.. II III ... iii II , --; .11 n n'- I I ... , = .I" IIIlI . I - .. -.- . .... iii: .. Ill" ....l1 IIIIiII r-. .'. .. I.... IIlIIiII · -: ifiiII_II..IGI. II. . ........ 11.- . _ III 1\1I - . III _.... III!I. II .' _ ..... 1IIIl'lI ., ;; II . .. .IIIIIIIIIIII_ 11:I __ ' . / " / / / / " " " Agenda Item ~OcFijO