HHHH eeee llll pppp uuuu ssss bbbb uuuu iiii llll dddd dddd oooo gggg pppp aaaa rrrr kkkk ssss iiii nnnn GGGG llll eeee nnnn dddd aaaa llll eeee
JOIN US FOR A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Monday, July 31 • 6:00 pm • Pacific Community Center
501 S. Pacific Ave., Glendale, CA 91204
Potential Dog Park locations being studied in South Glendale include:
Palmer Park • Community Garden and Glendale Community College • Garfield Campus Wednesday, August 2 • 6:00 pm • Brand Library
1601 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201
Potential Dog Park location being studied in North Glendale include:
Brand Park • South of the Tea House
Scan here for more information:
Escanea aquí para más información:
I-scan dito para sa karagdagang impormasyon:
ՍՍկկաաննաավվոորրեեքք աայյսստտեեղղ լլրրաացցոոււցցիիչչ տտեեղղեեկկոոււթթյյոոււննննեերրիի հհաամմաարր:
자자세세한한 내내용용은은 여여기기를를 스스캔캔하하십십시시오오.
For more information and to take the survey, go to GlendaleCA.gov/DogPark @MyGlendaleParks
Raffle give aways @ each workshop!
City of Glendale
Dog Park Feasibility Studies
2023
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Exhibit 1
Dog Parks are a unique recreation opportunity that serve community members and their pets, at times capitalizing on underutilized parkland and open space. Dog Parks function at the neighborhood and community park level and can be developed as an amenity at an existing park site or as a new park entirely.
Currently, the City of Glendale has limited available open space for the development of a new recreation site. Therefore, without significant land acquisition the City will have to explore the viability of whether an existing park site can be developed for the inclusion of a Dog Park and/or pursue development through a Joint Use Agreement.
On March 3, 2023, Glendale City Council approved hiring RJM Design Group to evaluate the feasibility of developing a dog park at three potential locations:
1. North Glendale,
Brand Park - South of the Tea House
2. South Glendale,
Palmer Park - Community Garden
3. South Glendale,
Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus
In pursuit of conducting the site evaluations and their suitability for a new dog park, RJM in concert with
City staff launched an extensive community outreach
campaign to solicit community input on the suitability for each site to host a new dog park. Two separate in-
person workshops were held as well as an online video
presentation and online surveys. The following illustrates the professional analysis for developing a dog park,
the results of the community outreach, and each site’s
suitability to host a new dog park.
Dog Park Design Elements
The purpose of a Dog Park is to provide open space for dogs to exercise and play while off leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their owners. While these parks are focused on accommodating dog play and interaction, it is equally important to develop comfortable and inviting areas for dog owners to gather and socialize. This dual design element further extends the use and function of these spaces.
Dog Park design is subjective. When Dog Parks are constructed, a key goal is to ensure a defined sense of place. For a site to be selected, the design of a Dog Park must first fit within the immediate surroundings of the community at a desired location. Due to the nature of Dog Parks, there is a possibility that local influences, adjacent land uses, and environmental factors may conflict with the day-to-day use of such facilities and limit the opportunity for a Dog Park. In addition to these design constraints, there are several recommended minimum qualifications for an existing site to be selected for inclusion of such a facility.
Exhibit 1.1 (Potential Locations)
Introduction
2 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Qualifying Elements
• To accommodate owners and their pets, Dog Parks should be large enough to house separately fenced dog areas for first-timers, small dogs, and large dogs. Separation of user-types promotes safe socialized play while minimizing potential for aggressive behavior and confrontations between pets. Typically, these spaces are divided with 4-rail lodge-pole fencing and steel mesh to provide separation and visibility. Inside, dogs can run freely on large, flat, open expanses of turf or be led by their owners on decomposed granite (DG) walking paths.
•
Dog Parks should have at least twelve to fifteen (12-15) parking stalls per acre (including ADA) On-site parking (non-street) serves community members that live outside of the 1/2 mile service area radius who may be driving to the site, rather than walking from their home. Parking promotes an opportunity for special events and City programming, while providing equal access to all visitors. •
Dog Parks should have access to utilities. Utility access and associated infrastructure support the functionality of amenities like drinking fountains, bottle filling stations, and security lighting. Supporting amenity infrastructure to consider include restroom facilities. The utilities also support critical environmental issues such as: odor control, water quality and hydrology management. Provisions for drainage and water treatment help maintain the aesthetics of a Dog Park while addressing associated health and environmental challenges.
Site Support Elements
If a site meets the aforementioned minimum qualifications for a Dog Park, a number of site support elements should be present in the park site or included in the design to promote the overall success and functionality of the space. Dog Parks should be fenced from the rest of the park with neighborhood access and site circulation. A double gated entry/ exit vestibule leading to the separately fenced dog type areas can provide a transition zone used for staging and events. Seating and shade throughout the park can offer opportunities for socialization and respite, while dog waste stations, trash and recycling receptacles may assuage potential maintenance concerns. Security lighting and signage should also be of consideration.
Specialty Elements
Other amenities not specifically required in the design of a Dog Park are specialty elements like water play/therapy areas, agility training courses, special event spaces, and community spaces. Though dependent on the selected park site and city available funding, these amenities add value and programming opportunities and can be used on a temporary or seasonal basis.
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 3 Exhibit 1
Additional Considerations/Design Constraints
Design attention should also be given to the local influences, land uses, and other environmental factors including health, safety and welfare of community members utilizing the selected park site. Issues including noise, site grade, traffic/parking, and adjacent land use are important to address and will dictate how the design responds to such opportunities and challenges.
Furthermore, to ensure the longevity of a Dog Park, a prescriptive maintenance program should be developed. Regular care and rehabilitation will help extend the life of the design, amenities and materials. When areas of heavy use are in need of repair, closure to a specific zone should not affect other dog areas that remain open and in use. Such periods of maintenance and scheduled closures should also be considered in conjunction with specialty amenities and regular park maintenance.
Materials
Worth mentioning is also the variety of material types that can be used in a Dog Park, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Such materials include turf, synthetic turf, bark mulch, and decomposed granite. The use of these materials within the different dog areas (first-timer, small dogs and large dogs) may indicate zones of importance or special use, solve environmental issues and provide the best maintenance option. The prescriptive maintenance program should accommodate all materials, as there is no better or preferred option.
MATERIAL TYPES
Turf
Pro Most commonly used material. Soft surface. Seed or Sod options.
Con All turf can be subject to heavy use causing damage. This leads to requiring seasonal use to accommodate maintenance and repair needs. Therefore, dog parks with turf need more area to allow for closure for maintenance while maintaining operations. Depending on the type of turf, irrigation needs will also vary.
Synthetic Turf
Pro Does not need to be irrigated. Option for cooling/cleaning system. Options for antimicrobial backing to prevent odors, high flow through for drainage. Easy to clean. Year round usage.
Con High initial cost. Subject to areas of wear, turf fabric may need to be replaced. High heat retention material compared to natural grass.
Bark Mulch
Pro ADA accessible. Helps reduce mud puddles, craters, dust and dirt. Does not need to be irrigated.
Con Mulch can cause splinters. Also, some dogs will eat mulch, so a mulch that is not toxic to dogs is recommended, like cypress mulch. Moves easily, needs to be replenished with age, limited color options and difficult to remove debris and waste.
Decomposed Granite
Pro Very durable, can be stabilized, ADA accessible. Minimal maintenance involved.
Con Hard surface. Replenishment or repair needed with age. Even if stabilized, decomposed granite can form ruts if challenged by heavy rain or concentrated stream of water. 4 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Existing Dog Parks
Dog parks are often
referred to as regional
destinations. This is due
primarily to the lack
of available facilities.
As more facilities are
developed there will
become greater service
areas for dog owners to
utilize dog parks. When
developing new dog
parks, it is important to
maximize the availability
of such facilities by filling
in service gaps first. Exhibit
1.2a (Vicinity Dog Parks)
illustrates the existing
dog parks in and around
the City of Glendale. All
three of the proposed
dog park locations being
evaluated as part of this
study fall just outside of an
existing service area and
would help expand the
availability of dog parks to
residents.
The following pages
identify the specific
sites being considered
for a new dog park as
well as their potential
opportunities and
constraints.
Exhibit 1.2-a (Vicinity Dog Parks)
Existing Conditions
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 5 Exhibit 1
Existing Registered Dog Licenses
This map represents the approximate location of the number of licensed dogs in the City of Glendale.The number of registered dogs does not necessarily reflect all of the dogs in the city and only those registered with the Pasadena Humane Society as of 7/17/2023.
Exhibit 1.2b (Registered Dog Owners)
6 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 7 Exhibit 1
Opportunities
• Approximately 0.9 acres or 39,205
square
feet of available open space ,
• Existing on-site parking lot with entry and
exit points,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
•
Existing restroom building,
• Fenced property between residential
and park area
Constraints
• Parking lot adjacent to site and will
require crossing an interior park road,
•
High potential for noise disturbance to
surrounding houses, and tea garden
without any available noise buffer.
•
Loss of the open turf amenity where the
dog park would be located.
8 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
South Glendale, Palmer Park – Community Garden
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 9 Exhibit 1
Opportunities
• Existing lockable fencing,
• On-site available parking lot,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
• Restroom building with shelter/
community space,
•
Existing utility availability.
Constraints
• Very small site approximately 0.1 acres
or 4,356 square feet of occupied park
space,
•
Variety of existing active recreation
amenities and features (playground, full
and half-court basketball, skate park,
multi-purpose fields, exercise stations)
proximity to passive recreation elements.
If the existing parking is to be utilized,
there is a significant impact to the park
interface with a patron getting to the
Dog Park as it would be far away from
the available parking,
•
Inclusion of a Dog Park could cause
displacement of community gardens;
the dog park could also be a conflicting
adjacent use to a community
garden, since food grown for human
consumption would be near animal
waste.
•
Controlled access will need to be
modified for new dog park amenity,
•
High potential for noise disturbance to
surrounding houses, and very little space
to develop adequate noise buffers.
10 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 11 Exhibit 1
Opportunities
• On-site available parking lot,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
• Non develop park land or park land
designation (could increase park
acreage),
•
Restroom availability (dependent on
negotiation with college campus).
• Water fountain and Restrooms will be
available during hours of operation (7
a.m. - 9:30 p.m.)
Constraints
• Less than adequate available open
space 0.5 acres or 21,780 square feet,
•
Parking is shared with college campus
students,
•
Access restricted to college hours of
operations (7 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.)
•
High potential for noise disturbance
to surrounding houses without any
available noise buffer.
12 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Community Participation
In pursuit of conducting the site
evaluations and their suitability for a
new dog park, RJM in concert with
City staff, launched an extensive
community outreach campaign
to solicit community input on the
suitability for each site to host a
new dog park. RJM Design Group,
in collaboration with City Staff,
launched a project website and
shared information about the
project’s background as well as how
participants could get involved in
the process. An online survey, two in-
person workshops, and a feedback
survey were developed to solicit
community views on the potential
sites. A total of 268 completed
surveys were collected Including 187
online, and 81 from two in-person
workshops. As illustrated in exhibit
1.3 (All Surveys) there was a good
distribution of surveys collected
throughout the community. Open-
ended feedback surveys were
also available for participants to
submit online at any point during
the process. There was a total of 105
Feedback Surveys submitted during
the outreach campaign.
Residents of the City of Glendale were invited to two in-person community workshops to learn about the Glendale Dog Park Feasibility Study process, and to participate in the survey.
Workshop #1 commenced on July 31, 2023, at Pacific Community Center (501 S. Pacific Ave., Glendale, CA 91204) in the Sycamore Room, from 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. This workshop focused on Palmer Park and Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus opportunity sites in south Glendale.
Workshop #2 commenced on August 2, 2023 at Brand Library (1601 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201) in the Recital Hall, from 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. This workshop focused on Brand Park - South of the Tea House
The following are the results from the outreach efforts.
Exhibit 1.3 (All Surveys)
Community Outreach
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 13 Exhibit 1
Community Announcements
The survey methodology is qualitative in nature seeking input from participants who chose to be part of the process. In efforts to make the survey available to as many people as possible numerous public announcements and notices were sent out to the community. Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements) illustrates the outreach efforts undertaken to inform the public of the project. The following are the results from the outreach efforts.
Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements)
No. Meeting/Activity Meeting/ Activity
Description
Meeting/
Activity Date
Engagement
Approaches
1 City Council Approving the Dog Park
Study contract and scope 3/7/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
2 CSP webpage for
Measure A funded
project, with community
survey, and translated
workshop flyers (English,
Spanish, Armenian,
Korean, Tagalog)
Information on Measure A
funded project N/A Information Sharing
(IS)
3 Poster about upcoming
workshops
Outreach for upcoming
workshops posted at three
park locations
7/14/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
4 Cruise Night Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/15/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
5 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/17/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
6 Dog Park Postcard/
Mailer
2,355 mailers sent to
residents within 500 ft
of potential dog park
locations
7/19/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
7 Summer Concerts - Todd
Stanford Country Band
Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/19/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
8 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/21/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
9 Summer Concert Series -
Dark Desert Highway
Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/26/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
14 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements)
No. Meeting/Activity Meeting/ Activity
Description
Meeting/
Activity Date
Engagement
Approaches
10 Verdugo Swing Society Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/27/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
11 Film Under the Stars Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/29/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
12 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
13 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
14 Dog Park Workshop #1
at Pacific Park
Community workshop
to discuss dog park
opportunities
7/31/2023
Dedicated
Participatory
Engagement (DPE)
15 CSP newsletter for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
16 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/31/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
17 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/31/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
18 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 8/2/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
19 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 8/2/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
20 Dog Park Workshop #2
at Brand Park
Community workshop
to discuss dog park
opportunities
8/2/2023
Dedicated
Participatory
Engagement (DPE)
21 Instagram post for
workshop
Update after Community
Workshop 8/8/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
22 Facebook post for
workshop
Update after Community
Workshop 8/8/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 15 Exhibit 1
Fourteen (14) attendees participated
in the evening workshop. RJM and
city staff shared an overview of the
Glendale Dog Park Feasibility Study
process, specifically focusing on
Palmer Park and Glendale Community
College – Garfield Campus opportunity
sites. Zachary Mueting from RJM
conducted the presentation outlining
what a dog park is, existing dog park
locations in the region, typical dog
park design elements, as well as
site-specific information such as the
opportunities and constraints of each
site. Workshop participants were then
split into groups to complete both an
individual survey and a group exercise
evaluating the opportunity sites based
on their unique viewpoints. The results
of the 7/31/23 workshop activities were
as follows:
Workshop 1
Exhibit 1.4 (Workshop 1)
16 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years and have large dogs (more than 25 lbs.)
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 72 trips a month.
•
Most of the participants visit dog parks beyond those closest to the city, with Griffith Park and Eagle Rock’s Dog Parks being the next most popular. •
Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.
Average years living in Glendale Owners with large and small dogs Survey Summary
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 17 Exhibit 1
Most important items at a
dog park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the topmost important items at a
dog park were Cleanliness / maintenance
(7), size (7), separate small dog areas (6) and
Location (5).
•
Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than
the three sites being studied).
18 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Group Site Feasibility
Summary:
The following graphic
represents the collaborative
(combined groups) effort
summarizing the participants
views of whether the
opportunity site was feasible
for the development of a new
dog park or not based on their
own views of the standard
dog park design elements
presented earlier.
Yes
No
Chart
Legend
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 19 Exhibit 1
Sixty-seven (67) attendees
participated in the evening
workshop. RJM and city
staff shared an overview
of the Glendale Dog Park
Feasibility Study process
specifically focusing on
Brand Park - South of the
Tea House opportunity
site. Zachary Mueting
conducted a presentation
outlining what a dog
park is, existing dog park
locations in the region,
typical dog park design
elements, as well as site-
specific information such
as the opportunities and
constraints of the site.
Workshop participants
were then split into groups
to complete both an
individual survey and a
group exercise evaluating
the opportunity sites based
on their unique viewpoints.
The results of the 7/31/23
workshop activities were as
follows:
Workshop 2
Exhibit 1.5 (Workshop 2)
20 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
< ¼ mile, ¼ - 1 mile, 2-5 miles, >5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years and have an equal mix of large and small dogs.
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 351 trips a month.
•
Most people do not go to dog parkes because either they do not live near a dog park, and because the already go to Brand park to unoficially recreate their dogs.
Griffith Dog park is the most often visited dog park (located outside the southwest border of Glendale)
•
Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.
Average years living in Glendale Owners with large and small dogs Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
Survey Summary
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 21 Exhibit 1
Most important items at a
dog park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the utmost important items at a dog
park were Cleanliness / maintenance (36),
shaded areas (20), size (19),Location (16),
parking (15).
•
Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than the
three sites being studied), as well as another
small group identifying they do not support the
development of a new dog park.
22 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Group Site Feasibility
Summary:
The following graphic
represents the collaborative
(combined groups) effort
summarizing the participants
views of whether the
opportunity site is feasible for
the development of a new
dog park or not based on their
own views of the standard
dog park design elements
presented earlier.
Yes
No
Chart
Legend
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 23 Exhibit 1
One hundred
eighty-seven (187)
online surveys were
collected during
the online survey
window. The online
survey was made
available to the
community from July
16th to August 13th,
2023. To supplement
the online survey, a
video presentation
was made available
on the project
website. The video
presentation largely
followed the same
presentation of the
workshops outlining
what a dog park
is, existing dog
park locations in
the region, typical
dog park design
elements, as well
as site specific
information such as
the opportunities
and constraints for
all three project sites.
The results of the
online survey are as
follows:
Online Survey
Exhibit 1.5 (Online Survey)
24 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years with a few participants identifying they do not live within the city. The majority of participants own small
dogs (under 25 lbs.).
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants
of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 673 trips a month.
• Griffith Dog park is the
most often visited dog park (located outside the southwest border of Glendale)
• Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.
Average years living in Glendale Owners with large and small dogs Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
Survey Summary
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 25 Exhibit 1
Most important items at a dog
park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the utmost important items at a dog
park were Cleanliness / maintenance (141),
shaded areas (74), separate small
dog areas
(67), Location (44), and size (40).
• Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of
participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than the
three sites being studied), as well as another
small group identifying they do not support the
development of a new dog park.
26 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Group Site
Feasibility
Summary:
The following
graphic
represents the
collaborative
(combined
groups) effort
summarizing the
participants views
of whether the
opportunity site
is feasible for the
development of
a new dog park
or not, based on
their own views
of the standard
dog park
design elements
presented earlier.
Yes
No
Chart
Legend
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 27 Exhibit 1
Evaluating the survey data individually
and collectively allows for a deeper
analysis. The following results illustrate
commonalities among many
participants observed from participant
location data, responses to individual
survey questions, and group responses
regarding suitability for a new dog park
at the identified study sites.
Survey Summary
All Surveys
Exhibit 1.1 (All surveys)
• There is an equal split of large
and small dog owners among
participants. This would support
having a dog park designed with
both large and small dog areas.
•
In comparison to the reasons most
participants visit a dog park (to
let their dog run / to socialize),
Griffith Dog Park offers a large open
space to accommodate this desire
and should be considered in the
development of a new dog park in
the city of Glendale.
•
To assess how many people might
visit the dog park, participants
were surveyed on how often they
currently go to dog parks. Based
on the frequency reported by
participants of this workshop, there
is approximately a monthly dog
park visitation of 1097 trips a month.
Average years living in Glendale
Owners with large and small dogs
OUTREACH SUMMARY
28 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Would you support a dog park located in
Top 5 visited parks Frequency
Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
Reasons
• Griffith Dog Park is the most visited dog park. This facility is approximately 1.25 acres or 53,775 square feet in size with available parking facilities, temporary restrooms, areas for both large and small dogs, seating, shade, and a DG/ Sandy / earthen base material.
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 29 Exhibit 1
Most important items at a
dog park (top 5)
How far and how often would you drive to a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
• Participants are more willing to drive to a dog
park if it were closer to their home. Exhibit 1.6 (1
mile visitors) illustrates a 1 mile radius from the
participants identified location. Developing a dog
park in this area would be optimal in response to
the respondent results.
•
Among the topmost important items at a dog park
were Cleanliness / maintenance (184), shaded
areas (97), separate small dog areas (85), size (66),
and Location (65).
•
Many of the participants were supportive of a dog
park development on one of the studied sites. A
small group of participants were supportive of a
dog park development, however at a different
location (other than the three sites being studied),
as well as another small group identifying they do
not support the development of a new dog park
Exhibit 1.6 (1 mile visitors)
30 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Group Site
Feasibility
Summary:
The following
graphic
represents the
collaborative
(all surveys
and workshops
combined) effort
summarizing the
participants views
of whether the
opportunity site
is feasible for the
development of
a new dog park
or not, based on
their own views
of the standard
dog park
design elements
presented earlier.
Yes
No
Chart
Legend
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 31 Exhibit 1
One hundred five (105) Feedback
Comments were submitted
online from the community. The
feedback survey was designed to
be an open-ended opportunity
for participants to share their
thoughts and ideas outside of a
regular survey format. The following
represents the summarization
of the comments we received
online. It is important to note
that participants can comment
multiple times for the feedback
survey, and the 105 comments
received does not translate to 105
individuals submitting comments.
The following are some of the most
commented categories out of all
of the comments received.
Feedback Comments
Exhibit 1.7 (Feedback)
32 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
General Feedback Comments
Request of an Alternate Location: Some responses received present a nuanced perspective on dog park establishment. Concerns about the chosen location prompted calls for exploring alternative sites. Discussions encompass location decisions (Who makes them, Where other locations may exist), inclusivity in design and decision making, and environmental concerns on existing locations.
Safety concerns: Among the array of concerns articulated, a clear theme revolves around the safety and well-being of small dogs, particularly in light of the elevated presence of coyotes in the hills. A prevailing apprehension centers on the potential for recurring dog fights from careless dog owners. Some concerned about the possibility of dogs attacking humans. Some concerned about infected dogs spreading infectious parasites to parasite-free dogs.
Noise concerns: Comments reflect concerns about noise disruption due to dog park establishment. Some discuss the potential impact on the tranquility of the area, with worries about barking dogs and their effect on the peaceful environment. While recognizing the benefits of dog parks, opposition arises from concerns of noise disturbance and its implications for various park sites’ locations atmosphere. This emphasizes the balance required when integrating dog-friendly spaces within existing public areas.
Support for the development of a dog park
Responses exhibit a consistent pattern of support for the establishment of a dog park in the City of Glendale. Advocates emphasize the advantages of providing secure spaces for dogs, promoting positive socialization, and addressing the lack of available dog park resources in the city. Comments received indicate an understanding for potential locations, such as Brand Park and South Glendale, aim to ensure fair accessibility across neighborhoods. The emphasis on facilitating dogs’ natural behaviors and the eagerness for progress updates in development discussions are prevalent in many of the received responses. The comments gathered distinctly highlight a strong endorsement for the creation of dog parks across Glendale. This overarching sentiment stems from the recognition of a shortage of appropriate areas for dogs to engage in recreational activities and social interactions. This collective viewpoint emphasizes the necessity to establish dedicated spaces that cater to dogs off-leash needs and encourage positive engagement. This support is palpably evident in suggested sites like Brand Park and Palmer Park, both emerging as potential options to fulfill this purpose. Supporters underscore the diverse benefits that dog parks offer, including the cultivation of responsible pet ownership, the strengthening of community ties, and the provision of controlled settings for dogs to thrive.
Opposition for Dog Park Development:
Amid the comments submitted, a notable counter-narrative also surfaced, reflecting concerns and reservations about various proposed locations. These viewpoints highlight safety anxieties, including potential conflicts and the spread of diseases. Noise disturbances, increased traffic, and parking difficulties are additional apprehensions expressed by those opposed to dog park development. Furthermore, there’s an emphasis on the need to preserve existing spaces and activities, underscoring the intricate balance between accommodating dogs and maintaining the multifunctionality of public areas.
This oppositional perspective underlines the intricate considerations involved in shaping dog-friendly spaces that harmoniously coexist with their surroundings. These concerns emphasize the importance of a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process that weighs both the benefits and potential drawbacks of creating dedicated dog- friendly areas.
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 33 Exhibit 1
Since the analysis was completed, and the presentation made to commission on September 18, 2023, an additional 111 comments were received. A total of 216 comments were submitted by the end of this report. Stakeholders participants consist of 185 contacts.
The additional responses received after the initial survey analysis had been conducted revolve largely around concerns with the proposal of a dog park at Brand Park. There are a minor number of comments received in favor of a dog park at Brand Park, expressing a desire for a dedicated space for their dogs to play off-leash. Feedback comments identify that a local dog park would be convenient for local dog owners and promote socialization among dogs and their owners. The majority of the comments reference concerns and opposition to the development of a dog park at Brand Park. They state that Brand Park is already heavily utilized for various activities such as picnics, soccer, family gatherings, and reading. The addition of a dog park at Brand Park would detract from these activities. Concerns are also noted by participants about the impact on local wildlife and the proximity of the proposed dog park to residential areas and historic sites like the Doctors’ House and the Tea House.
Additional feedback included some more general comments. Some emphasize that there are other nearby parks, like Griffith Park Dog Park, according to the comments submitted online, that can serve the needs of dog owners. Other general dog park comments express concerns about potential noise, congestion, and cleanliness issues associated with dog parks.
Additional Feedback Comments
34 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
Design Constraints of Qualified Opportunity Sites based on RJM Site Evaluation The following site assessments for suitability of a new dog park were developed based on the required qualifying elements identified earlier as well as the community’s input on their desires and recreation patterns for visiting a dog park.
North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage
0.9 acres (39,205 SF). This
site barely meets the
minimum for a dog park.
Less than
suitable
Increasing the project
site will increase the
suitability for a dog park
at this location.
Access to Local residential access
exists via walkways offering
alternative transportation
modes other than
vehicular.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is a
large open turf field.
Considerations should
be given to existing
programming on this
site as well as adjacent
programming elements at
the Japanese Tea House.
Consideration should be
given to noise and parking
availability.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Noise Buffer There are adjacent homes
that back up to the site
where the potential dog
park will be designed.
There is a fence with
vegetation, however
additional vegetation
and set back distance
will need to be added
to reduce noise from the
dog park. Additional noise
buffers should also be
considered between the
Japanese Tea House and
the potential dog park site.
Less than
suitable
Mitigation measures
would possibly include
developing visual
barriers and noise
buffers to the dog park
from these adjacent
land uses.
REPORT ASSESMENT
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 35 Exhibit 1
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Community desires: While the majority of feedback supported development of a dog park at Brand, numerous local residents did express that they did not feel that a dog park at Brand was appropriate considering the park setting, adjacent uses, and limited open space.
Overall rating: The Brank Park site, a popular regional park, has various recreational amenities and multiple adjacent programming environments (baseball, Japanese Tea House, and immediate adjacent residential area). These elements create a diverse passive and active park. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park, increase in traffic and park visitation, the Brand site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site however it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.
Restrooms There are adjacent
available public restrooms.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Parking There is adjacent off
street available parking. It
should be noted a parking
analysis based on existing
parking demands and
program levels have not
been conducted. It is
safe to assume additional
vehicular traffic will impact
the parking availability.
Suitable Expanding available
parking will help
mitigate the potential
increase in parking
demand.
Shade There is currently limited
shade. Additional shade
structures or vegetation
should be added to the
design.
Neutral Adding shade
structures and or shade
canopy trees can
mitigate the lack of
potential shade.
Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat
with a constant grade. No
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
36 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
South Glendale, Palmer Park - Community Garden
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage
0.1 acres (4,356 SF). This
site does not meet the
minimum for a dog park.
NOT suitable This site is built out with
recreation amenities.
Increasing the site will
require removal of some
of the existing elements.
Access to
Neighborhood
Local residential access
exists via walkways
offering alternative
transportation modes
other than vehicular.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is the
home of a community
garden area. Shade
shelter, picnic tables,
garden plots, and a
garden shed occupy
the site. There is also a
controlled access gate.
The site is accessible only
to city selected members
(those with keys).
NOT suitable Mitigation for displaced
amenities includes
relocating the
community garden and
garden resources to
another park.
Noise Buffer There are adjacent homes
that back up to the site
on two sides with the
furthest distance being
100’ between homes.
This distance does not
allow enough room to
adequately add in noise
buffers.
NOT suitable The potential site is
roughly 100’ at its
widest point. Noise
mitigation includes site
terracing and increased
vegetation to buffer
sound. The distance
required to effectively
reduce the sound is not
sufficient in this area.
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 37 Exhibit 1
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Community desires: The community responses to development and desire for a dog park at the Palmer Park site were favorable. Some community comments received were to limit the dog park to small dogs only creating a smaller than normal dog park.
Overall rating: The Palmer Park site, a popular community park, has various recreational amenities and multiple adjacent programming environments (skate park, basketball, multi-use field, exercise stations, and a playground). These elements create a diverse passive and active park site. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre), the limitation of no new parking, the distance one must travel through the park with a dog past non compatible recreational amenities, formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park in a very small area, as well as an increase in traffic and park visitation the Palmer Park site is NOT suitable for the development of a new dog park. An individual dog run may be possible to be designed in this area however will require the relocation or removal of existing community garden pots to accommodate the new facility. It should also be noted that growing food for human consumption may not be viewed favorably adjacent to a site that will have animal waste because of increased risk of foodborne illnesses.
Restrooms There are adjacent
available public
restrooms.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Parking There is adjacent off street
available parking.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Shade There are currently large
mature trees as well as
shade structures on site.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat
with a constant grade. No
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site. There are
significant underground
and overhead utilities
that may impact the
development of a dog
park.
Less than
suitable
Mitigation would
include relocation of
utilities / easements.
38 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage
0.5 acres (21,780 SF). This
site does not meet the
minimum for a dog park.
Less than
suitable
This site is located in a
newly built out parcel. It
is not possible to expand
the footprint beyond
the size it is now. No
mitigation possible.
Access to
Neighborhood
Local residential access
exists via walkways offering
alternative transportation
modes other than
vehicular.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is a large
open undeveloped field.
Considerations should
be given to existing
programming on this
site as well as adjacent
programming elements
at the adjacent child
development center.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
Noise Buffer There are adjacent
homes that sit across
Acacia Avenue. There is
a tubular steel fence with
low vegetation, however
additional vegetation
will need to be added
to reduce noise from the
dog park. Additional noise
buffers should also be
considered between the
child development center
and the potential dog park
site.
Less than
suitable
Mitigation measures
would possibly include
developing visual
barriers and noise buffers
to the dog park from
these adjacent land
uses. These mitigation
measures will reduce the
overall size available for
dog park use.
Restrooms There are adjacent
restrooms as part of the
college campus.
Neutral Negotiations with the
use of the restroom will
need to be formalized
with GCC
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 39 Exhibit 1
Community desires: The community responses to development and desire for a dog park at the Garfield Campus site were favorable.
Overall rating: The Garfield Campus site has various multiple institutional elements including a college buildings and a child development center. These existing elements do not adversely impact a recreational environment. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity, increase in traffic and parking utilization the Garfield Campus site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site however it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Parking There is adjacent on and
off-street available parking.
Parking would be shared
with student parking during
class hours.
Less than
suitable
Expanding available
parking will help mitigate
the potential increase in
parking demand.
Shade There is currently no
significant shade.
Additional shade
structured or vegetation
should be added to the
design.
Neutral Adding shade structures
and or shade canopy
trees can mitigate the
lack of potential shade.
Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat with
a constant grade. Not
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site.
Suitable No mitigation necessary
40 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
The City of Glendale has more than 5,000 active dog licenses. With the limited availability of dog parks in the City of Glendale, dog owners must seek out alternative locations to recreate with their dog(s). While several dog parks are available within the region, they fall outside of the average desired travel distance a dog owner is willing to drive (based on participant data).
An overall analysis indicates commonalities in participant responses. •
There is an even split of large and small dogs owned by the participants. • The majority of participants visit Griffith Park Dog Park the most when visiting a dog park.
•
The majority of participants identify the top reason for visiting a dog park is to let their dog run and to socialize.
•
More participants will visit a dog park more frequently if it is closer to their home.
The below chart identifies the adjacent dog parks and their available square footage in relation to the opportunity sites evaluated in this report.
Final Recommendations
Adjacent Dog Park Facilities:
Proposed Opportunity Sites:
Name Address Area
(SF)
Large Dog
Area (SF)
Small Dog
Area (SF)
Griffith Park
Dog Park
4730 Crystal Springs Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90027
58,501
44,867
13,634
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
1100 Eagle Vista Dr Los
Angeles, CA 90041
37,897 37,897
Crescenta
Valley Park
3901 Dunsmore Ave
La Crescenta-Mon-
trose, CA 91214
47,044 31,276
15,768
South
Pawsadena
Dog Park
650 Stoney Dr South
Pasadena, CA 91030 22,432
16,378
6,054
Silver Lake
Dog Park
1873 Silver Lake Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90026 57,499
47,916
9,583
Name Address Area (SF)
Brand Park 1601 W Mountain St, Glendale,
CA 91201 39,205
Palmer Park 620 E Palmer Ave, Glendale, CA
91205 4,356
GCC-Garfield
Campus
1122 E Garfield Ave, Glendale,
CA 91205 21,780
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 41 Exhibit 1
There is a clear need for the city
to develop additional dog park
resources for the community. Due
to the site constraints of the three
sites evaluated no one site will
be suitable to serve the overall
demand of the community. A
typical one acre dog park has
a general capacity to hold 360
to 720 monthly visits. Based on
the participant data there is an
approximate monthly visitation of
1,097 (all survey data combined).
This is above the general monthly
capacity for a 1 acre dog
park. Under-developing can
create a significant traffic and
maintenance constraint reducing
the ability for any one park site
to manage the recreational
demand. The city should continue
to look for additional opportunity
sites that may meet the
community demand. Alternatively,
the city may pursue developing
multiple dog parks to meet the
overall demand. This option
also has potential maintenance
drawbacks but may balance the
overall load on any one dog park.
Mitigation measures have
been identified in the RJM site
evaluation. Implementing these
measures may improve the site’s
overall suitability. However, due
to their (all three opportunity
sites) lack of available square
footage, intense use at any
one of these sites will create an
increased maintenance demand.
Maintenance costs can vary
widely based on size, materials,
and usage, however basic
estimation of park maintenance
can be assumed at $1,500 to
$2,000 per acre per month.
Exhibit 1.6 (1 mile visitors)
42 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1