{{section.number}}d
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Dog Park Feasibility Study
1. Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report.
2. Motion approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and directs CSP staff to request proposals from design consultants to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for the approved dog park location(s) for subsequent Council consideration.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for December 5, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RJM Design Group has completed the evaluation of the feasibility of developing a dog park at three additional, potential locations, which include:
•North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
•South Glendale, Palmer Park - Community Garden
•South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus The Dog Park Feasibility Report consists of five elements; 1) Dog Park Minimum Qualifications based on size, accessibility, availability of utilities, parking, and transportation, 2) Existing Conditions, 3) Community Outreach campaign that included an online community survey, in-person workshops, an open-ended online feedback survey, numerous public announcements, 4) Site Assessment for suitability of a new dog park based on the minimum qualifying elements as well as the community’s input, and 5) Recommendation that due to the constraints of the three sites, no one site will be suitable to serve the overall demand of the community.
At their September 18, 2023, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, approved the feasibility study, and recommended that the City Council move forward with developing either Lot 11 or the Glendale Community College –Garfield Campus site as a dog park, and opposed the development of a dog park at Brand Park and Palmer Park.
2{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
RECOMMENDATION
That that the City Council adopt a motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and direct staff to request proposals from consultants to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for the approved dog park location(s).
BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2021, City Council asked Community Services & Parks (CSP) staff to explore the possibility of providing a dog park in one of the existing City parks or city owned open space areas.
On October 26, 2021, staff presented three city-owned properties as potential sites for a future dog park, namely Pelanconi Park, Brand Park and City Parking Lot 11. Upon reviewing the report, City Council removed Brand Park from the list for consideration and asked staff to conduct a community outreach for feedback on the following three sites for the development of a new dog park: Pelanconi Park, City Parking Lot 11, or Glendale Community College – South Campus (GCC), a temporary option that could be used until the college constructs a parking garage on the site.
On January 19, 2022, CSP staff held a virtual community outreach meeting, attended by thirty-two community members. Attendees were invited to offer their comments and concerns about each of the three alternative locations and dog parks in general. The vast majority of the comments were positive, expressing enthusiasm and support for a new dog park. Attendee feedback on location options preferred City Parking Lot 11 (25 votes), then Pelanconi Park (3 votes), and GCC Garfield Campus (0 votes).
On February 28, 2022, PRCS Commission provided staff direction to return to Council to ask for approval of a location for a new dog park development, with the recommendation for City’s Parking Lot 11 site, as well as funding to engage the services of a consultant to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for subsequent Commission and Council consideration at the preferred new dog park location.
On April 5, 2022, City Council approved City Parking Lot 11 as the location for a dog park and directed staff to engage the services of a design consultant to prepare design alternative and cost estimates.
On October 25, 2022, City Council asked staff to provide a report to utilize small unused portions of Palmer Park community garden and Brand Park to be used as dog parks.
GCC - Garfield campus was also viewed as a potential dog park site since the College had expressed interest in developing a park on their site in partnership with the City.
On December 21, 2022, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released inviting consulting firms to submit a proposal to provide landscape architectural professional services for the preparation of design and construction documents for a dog park at Parking Lot 11 and a 3{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
Feasibility Study of a Dog Park at the other three locations. A total of four proposals were received by the submission date.
On March 7, 2023, Council approved the hiring of a consultant, RJM Design Group, to evaluate the feasibility of developing a dog park at three additional potential locations and to held off on approving a contract to design Parking Lot 11 until the Dog Park Feasibility Study is completed. In May 2023, staff kicked off the Dog Park Feasibility Study.
On September 18, 2023, the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study was presented to PRCS Commission, with a recommendation to approve the Dog Park Feasibility Study and make recommendations on their preferred dog park locations based on the study and previous motions. The PRCS commission motioned to 1) approve the feasibility study, and 2) recommend that City Council moves forward with developing Lot 11 as a dog park and the GCC–Garfield Campus site as a dog park and opposing the development of a dog park at Brand Park and Palmer Park.
ANALYSIS_____________________________________________________________ Dog parks are a unique recreation opportunity that serve community members and their pets, at times capitalizing on underutilized parkland and open space. 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.
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.
For a site to be selected for a dog park, the design must first fit within the immediate surroundings of the community and ensure the safety and enjoyment of their users.
Qualifying elements for a dog park include:
•Size: 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. The general consensus is that a dog park should be at least one acre in size, but local dog parks range in size. •Site Infrastructure and Utilities: According to RJM, dog parks should have at least twelve to fifteen parking stalls per acre (including ADA parking). This is on- site parking (non-street) which serves the community that live outside of the 1/2- mile service area radius who may be driving to the site, rather than walking from their home. Dog parks should have access to utility infrastructure to support functional amenities like restrooms, drinking fountains, bottle filling stations, and 4{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
security lighting. Utilities to support critical environmental issues such as odor control, water quality, and hydrological management.
•Site Support Elements: Several 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, at least six-feet high, 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. There are several surfacing options as well, including grass, engineered wood fiber mulch, gravel, artificial turf, and decomposed granite, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. •Location: When developing new dog parks, it is important to maximize the availability of such facilities by filling in service gaps. Dog parks are often referred to as regional destinations, and as our community engagement reflects, are most often used when located within a 2-mile distance from a community member’s home. All three 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.
oActive Dog Licenses as of July 2023 showed a total of 5,089 and reflect that the majority of registered dogs are located in north and east Glendale.
Note that much of north Glendale is within a 2-mile distance from Crescenta Valley Dog Park.
Opportunities and Constraints of Each Potential Dog Park Site North Glendale, Brand Park – South of the Tea House
•Opportunities:
oApproximately 0.9 acres or 39,205 square feet of available open space. oExisting on-site parking lot with entry and exit points. oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oExisting restroom building.
oFenced property between residential and park area.
•Constraints:
oParking lot adjacent to site and will require crossing an interior park road. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses, and tea garden without any available noise buffer.
oLoss of the open turf amenity where the dog park would be located. oParking on-site is completely built-out, and often fully utilized by park users. •Mitigation:
oIncrease project area to increase suitability for a dog park. oDevelop visual barriers and noise buffers from adjacent uses. oAdding shade structures and/or shade canopy trees.
•Overall Rating:
oGiven the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no 5{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
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.
South Glendale, Palmer Park
•Opportunities:
oExisting lockable fencing.
oOn-site available parking lot.
oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oRestroom building with shelter/community space.
oExisting utility availability.
•Constraints:
oVery small site approximately 0.1 acres or 4,356 square feet of occupied park space.
oVariety 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. oInclusion of a dog park could cause displacement of community gardens.
Furthermore, the dog park could be a conflicting adjacent use to a community garden since food grown for human consumption could be contaminated by animal waste, increasing the risk of foodborne illnesses. oControlled access will need to be modified for new dog park amenity. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses, and very little space to develop adequate noise buffers.
oSignificant underground and overhead utilities in the area. •Mitigation:
oIncrease project area, which would require removal of existing amenities, (for example relocating the community garden and garden resources to another park).
oSome sound buffering options are available, such as terracing and increased vegetation, but will have limited effect because of small space. oWith significant underground and overhead utilities in the area, relocation of utilities could help avoid impacts to development of a dog park. •Overall Rating:
oGiven 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.
6{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
South Glendale, Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus •Opportunities:
oOn-site available parking lot.
oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oNon developed park land or park land designation (could increase park acreage).
oRestroom availability (dependent on negotiation with college campus). •Constraints:
oLess than adequate available open space 0.5 acres or 21,780 square feet. oParking is shared with college campus students.
oAccess possibly restricted to college hours of operations. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses without any available noise buffer.
oSite development would require negotiations and approval from GCC’s Board of Trustees for lease and future use.
oAdjacent to a childcare center.
•Mitigation:
oIncrease project area, which will be limited because of the built-out campus. oDevelop visual barriers and noise buffers from adjacent land uses, noting that these buffers will reduce the overall size available for dog park use. oEnsure access to campus’ water fountains and restrooms. oSeek dedicated parking on GCC Garfield Campus for the dog park. oAdding shade structures and/or shade canopy trees.
•Overall Rating:
oGiven 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.
Community Outreach
In pursuit of conducting the site evaluations and their suitability for a new dog park, staff and RJM launched an extensive community outreach campaign to solicit community input. As part of the outreach process, City staff launched a project website and shared information about the project’s background in City newsletters 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 (some potentially duplicated). Open-ended feedback surveys were also available for participants to submit online at any point during the process. There was a total of 216 Feedback Surveys submitted during the outreach campaign.
Workshop #1 on July 31, 2023, at Pacific Community Center focused on Palmer Park and Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus opportunity sites in South Glendale. 7{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
Workshop #2 on August 2, 2023, at Brand Library focused on Brand Park - South of the Tea House opportunity site in North Glendale.
The following are the results from the outreach efforts:
•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/ socialize), Griffith Park Dog Park offers a large open space to accommodate this desire and should be considered in the development of a new dog park in Glendale.
•There is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 243 trips a month from the City of Glendale.
•Griffith Park 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.
•Responses to the question - Would you support a dog park located in:
•Participants are more willing to travel to a dog park if it were closer to their home, especially less than 1 mile.
•Among the top-most 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 studied), as well as another small group identifying they do not support the development of a new dog park.
As of August 23, 2023, 105 Feedback Comments were submitted online. An additional 111 comments were received by the September 18, 2023, PRCS Commission meeting
8{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
date, for a total of 216 comments. 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:
•Request for an Alternate Location: 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 at existing locations. •Safety Concerns: prevailing apprehension centers on the potential for recurring dog fights from careless dog owners or attacks from coyotes. 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 some of the proposed dog park area(s).
•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.
•Opposition for Dog Park Development: 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.
The additional responses received after the initial survey analysis revolved largely
9{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
around concerns with the proposal of a dog park at Brand Park.
Conclusion
The City of Glendale has more than 5,000 active dog licenses. With the limited availability of dog parks in the City, dog owners must seek out alternative locations for recreational activities with their dogs, especially in southeast and west Glendale. 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 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.
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. Under-developing can create a significant traffic and maintenance constraint reducing the ability for any one park site to manage the recreational demand. For reference, 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.
RJM’s and Staff’s recommendation is to develop at least two dog parks in the city to help meet and balance the overall demand for dog park resources since no single site that was evaluated can satisfy all the needs. Two dog parks would mitigate the potential maintenance drawbacks from developing just one site because the lack of available square footage at any of the three opportunity sites by itself may cause intense use and increased maintenance demands on that site which would be better balanced by developing multiple dog parks. The City could also continue to look for additional opportunity sites to meet community needs.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In May 2023, Staff kicked off the Dog Park Feasibility Study with RJM Design Group. An extensive community outreach campaign was undertaken to solicit input on the suitability for each site. In summary, a total of 268 completed surveys were collected, plus an additional 216 open-ended feedback comments, and 185 stakeholder contacts signed-up for ongoing updates on the project.
The extensive community outreach campaign included an online community survey, two in-person workshops, an open-ended feedback survey, numerous public announcements in City newsletters and notices including 2,355 mailers sent to residents within 500 ft of 10{{section.number}}d
4 6
3 4
potential dog park locations, as well as a table/booth to distribute information at Cruise Night and the Summer Concert Series events.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this report at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Appropriate environmental review will be conducted once project plans are prepared.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and direct staff to request proposals from consultants to prepare design and cost alternatives for the approved dog park location(s) for subsequent Council consideration.
Alternative 2: Adopt a Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and recommend staff to seek additional potential dog park locations for evaluation and to not seek dog park design and cost proposals at this time.
Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Joseph Gonzalez, Park Planner, Community Services & Parks Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1) Exhibit 1 – Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report