The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2003-12-08 #Q I/ AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 8, 2003 ba TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Douglas A. Danes, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: "TRIAL" DESIGNATED CANINE USE AREA AT ARBOR PARK SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 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 (AYSO), 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 AYSO to not include the eastern 2 -acre section of land bounded by the drainage swale and the existing fence. It was also suggested that West Ed be contacted regarding the land just south of the 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 Public 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. Agenda Item 6 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 dog fountain? First, this entire trial 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 park 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 Niguel 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 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 permanent. 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 Mesa 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 charged for use of the area? During the meeting, a councilmember mentioned that the users of the dog area could pay for the maintenance just as AYSO 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 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 regarding fees for 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 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 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 AYSO 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 alternative 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. Prepare. • , 4 I I I I I 1 I for " 411 0 0 P I r Douglas A. P ancs, Director : ' c v orks /City Engineer iiii D / D PP ' d - 1 4 . J. 11B. 1. orski, City Manager Agenda Item 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. ❑ At no times are dogs allowed either on or off leash on the playing fields (i.e. soccer /baseball). ❑ Dogs must be on -leash within the parking area. ❑ Dogs must not be let off leash until they have entered designated fence area and the gate is securely fastened. ❑ Only dogs and humans are permitted in the fenced area. ❑ Keep gates closed at all times. ❑ Patrons are required to clean up and pick up after their dogs and waste receptacles are provided for and located within the park. ❑ Owners shall always be responsible and liable for their dogs. ❑ Up to 3 dogs per adult per visit. ❑ Valid license and current vaccines are required for every dog entering the facility. ❑ Any sick or aggressive dogs, puppies under four months of age, or dogs in heat are prohibited in the park. ❑ Use areas within the fenced areas that are most appropriate for the size of your dog. ❑ All smoking, food and dog treats, glass containers, alcohol, children's toys and sports equipment are prohibited. Agenda Item Attachment 4: Example of "Standardized" Facility Entry Sign Kau W e l c om e 41 . . � A. , ,{..} „,..•.!,... .;tFor everyone s enjoyment an of this facility, State Law and Seal B eac h Municipal Codes are enforced including 4 .' -> .' 1 '� " Hou Da wn to Dusk '” o Fires } • r r (excep in designa areas) " 'No Alcoho , •i' r h 'V .i.,,,,,,,..,,,,:.:-.- i If 1 " � A ''• Y 5s' P N O • C T t • . f $-' ,'7 ' ,`No Firewo (�6_....... No: Littering fir; - � � PwCV I1 POw ; z . I v f , } 1, i'._:•.-.,,-„.-: Special Events at this fac ility - may require perm a it. ' Thank You for your Coo ` For more in please call 431 -2527. ' ' _� { Agenda Item 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 Attachment 1: Vicinity Map t :c.---7-----;,,,---..............-- � c " 1�. `` .. . !�y. /** .+ t{ : Propo % A - '+ F, ;t , t E jy" ' y t , �/�� . °C canine - Golf Co urse F `�° ry .h la •� J [ i 'sir 1 - Y �, `t� sc ,, e a W . r ; ��:, PIa Field J[}'! = L Base . Area �.� k , � . _ ,`.. ■ N Farmlancl r F. Y F' . . S ri f. . y 1 aa d z .. � "5 / r . 1 * _ Y � � �� +rf�J r " - +, j � t\ s ., g i� l 0 7� ' j �4:'est Ed 4 ' t 4-. � ,. t ,r•y � / n. � l f t Vl e r� : = ' *. 'ea : - { !R . 3 ems».+ 4 ^crab _ .t n .,.'4 ' '''.4 ... ..-v- ..- .....'�.. a ` .. ' 11111 . 111 .� , VI� il�iil �_ � __ i� �� ii11�111�1 �1 1 1� 4 -� 11111 � Heather . "..• "„� _ _ E t uuii iu iii i uiiiup �' "_` = -= =� �1111�1111111111111111 a . �i 1111 _ . t 1., =� � 1�11111111 wi ;vrIi1:II;IouIIIoIIIuIIHu!, i f t F __.w - a - ��. � 1 �� 11111111 � 111 �► Agenda Item Attachment 2: Proposed Canine Use Area � ce Cate * �: it P 4 q•�,{��jN��f�1IW ." Y4 � Fxisttng Fence a j OR ' r • a +a. n , - .. ' r '4 ,t F" . � ,� c , � i..40 Ry (j� y , p ' y ' 4 . ICS t - 4 � j . . -.1 ;i •f 'x � � ,•A ` T • it 'VW.' e i , ty. s z ' $ ,. -.....v n. ilr" ' f - w ,0 ,.; �t5 -., °+,�* i4 � Access .Gate.:: � _ °C' y „Ate. Or f - Yom• '5 #,..4 � it a..#� ,-.[!. Agenda Item Attachment 5: Previous Agenda Staff Report Agenda Item