From:Paul Wellenkamp
To:City Council
Subject:Fw: Proposed Dog Park at Spyglass Park - Discussion item for 5/16 meeting Date:Friday, May 12, 2023 10:19:13 AM
Attachments:Letter to The Planning Commission RE Spyglass Dog Park application.pdf External Email
Dear Pismo Beach City Council,
Please see my previous email and attached letter to The City Planning Commission for their meeting on 4/25. I live directly next to the area in Spyglass Park that you would like to put the proposed dog park. I have read the recently resigned City Manager's appeal for the dog park and he is incorrect in his statement. No one in the Multi-family condos next to the park want a dog park and the homes in the Saint Andrews neighborhood that back up to Spyglass park do not want a dog park in Spyglass Park. The entire park is utilized everyday and weekend with baseball and soccer practices as well as kite flying and birthday parties and bounce houses. There were just two huge Easter egg hunts that used the entire park that I have video of and one was for the visually impaired kids in our city. Please review the entire letter attached. The area at Spyglass Park you are proposing is too small for a sufficient sized dog park and it does not satisfy the recommended spacing away from homes or play structures.
Please consider a different location that has sufficient space for an adequate sized dog park (see attached proposed park in my attached letter) most importantly, possibly two separate areas for large and small dogs to avoid dog fights and injuries. I am not against dog parks, but they need to be planned accordingly and set far enough away from homes that the noise from the dog park does not disrupt homes living in the area. 20ft from my home and from the play structure and condos is not sufficient. Ask yourself, would you like an insufficient sized dog park 20ft from you master bedroom slider with dogs barking and two steel spring loaded gates slamming all day, not to mention the smell that comes with the dog waste from the small dog park, both poop and pee. In addition, Spyglass Park has a very popular play structure that will be very close and increased dogs going in and out of the proposed dog park, possibly and probably off leash could increase the threat of dog bites and attacks on young children.
Please consider resending the appeal as it is not correct and Spyglass Park is not a sufficient sized area and does not provide sufficient space away from homes and a popular play structure to install a dog park.
Finally, please note that the appeal came from the City Manager, no member of the public appealed the City Planning Commission's decision to turn down the proposed dog park at Spyglass Park.
Thank you very much,
Paul
Paul Wellenkamp
146 Seacliff Drive
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Wellenkamp
Date: April 19, 2023 at 7:48:39 PM MDT
To: Lindsay Christiansen
Subject: Fw: Proposed Dog Park and Spyglass Park
Reply-To: Paul Wellenkamp
Good afternoon, Lindsay,
Very nice speaking with you today and thank you so much for your help.
Please see my attached letter for The Pismo Beach Planning Commission to review before their upcoming meeting on 4/25.
I also spoke with Aileen on 3/31 who informed me that the meeting on 4/25 is open to the public, but the new resolution for denial on the agenda is not open to public discussion or comment.
Thank you so much for forwarding the attached letter to The Planning Commission.
Have a wonderful evening and great rest of your week.
Thank you,
Paul Wellenkamp
146 Seacliff Drive
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Dear, Pismo Beach Planning Commission, and City Council Member, I am writing to you in regards to the purposed Dog Park at Spyglass Park located at 2539 Spyglass Drive.
This letter is to inform you that the project Resolution that was originally submitted to the Planning Commission was turned down by a vote of 4 to 1 at the meeting on 3/28/2023 because the projected Dog Park at Spyglass Park does not meet the Typical Dog Park Criteria. It is the Planning Commission's job to ensure compatibility with the site and neighborhood and on 3/28/2023 at their meeting, The Planning Commission voted and came to the conclusion that a Dog Park at Spyglass Park is not compatible in any physical design.
Spyglass Park is only 4 % acres and is a very busy park. The suggested location of the park is too close to residences (only 20ft) and the design for the park is too small (less than a % acre in size) to effectively accommodate off leash groups of both small and large dogs. In addition, the slope of the location will cause dog waste residue (and waste that is not effectively picked up) to be washed into a culvert at the park that drains directly into the ocean. That culvert drains into a couple of very popular surf spots on the Central Coast called Sewers and Saint Ann's which would cause tremendous health issues to surfers and beach goers at this location.
An alternate effective spot needs to be located within the City of Pismo Beach if the City would still like to build a Dog Park. A question to ask yourself, would you like your neighbor to have 10 — 20 dogs barking all day and playing, peeing and pooping 20 feet from your back patio? The noise ordinance for that must not be compliant. Not to mention the two spring -loaded gates slamming all day as owners go in and out of the Dog Park. In addition, the proposed dog park is way too small and will cause even more noise due to dogs not being spaced apart to be able to get along and sufficiently run and play off leash together. The reason to create a dog park is so dogs have sufficient area to run, exercise and play with other dogs off leash. A tiny less than a % acre dog park at Spyglass Park does not accommodate those needs.
Attached is a suggestion that much more efficiently and affordably accommodates the Typical Dog Park Design Criteria listed in Table 1 of your original Resolution.
Thank you very much,
,d,142C_ 7//(/
Paul Wellenkamp
146 Seacliff Drive
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Table 1- Typical Dog Park Design Criteria
Dinosaur Cave Park
Recommended
(typical industry standard)
Proposed
Dog Area
Separate Area for large dogs and small
dogs, Minimum of 1/2 acre, 40-100 sf per
dog
11 Acre Park with plenty of area to
accommodate the recommended
requirements (see attached map)
Use Buffer
50-200 Feet to residences, and avoid close
proximity to play areas, high use areas and
natural areas
** 11 Acre Park with plenty of area to
accommodate the recommended
requirements for buffers from existing
residences (see attached map)
Fencing
8' x 8' double gated entry for leashing, 4'
fence height
Double gate entry can be provided
Ground Slope
Reliatively flat (flatter than Spyglass Park)
Existing Ground is <10%. ADA is
accessibilty is already provided
Ground Material
Permeable soils, crushed fines in entry
area due to concenration of use, area is
large enough and dry enough that turf will
be more resiliant to overuse
Existing turf, ground conditions are NOT
commonly soggy because there is no
existing drainage to an existing culvert in
the park like there is at Spyglass Park
Accessibility
Per Building Code
ADA parking and concrete slope meeting
access requirements to potential park
location already exists at this location.
Parking
1 space / 10,000 sf of park area is common
rate for park areas. The City does not have
a parking rate specific to park use.
Approximately 85 existing parking spots in
the parking lot and approximately 55
existing parking spots down the North end
of the park (140 total spots) to serve the
play area, group reservation area, picnic
use, group lawn games (*no surfers at this
park). Much more parking
Noise
Municipal Code
Quiet hours within the City are 10pm-7am
with parks open dawn to dusk. **No
additional time limits will be required in
this location due to large distance buffers
from existing residences.
Lighting
No Standard
None
Amenities
Benches, water fountain, bulletin board for
operating rules, waste containers and dog
mitt holders.
Benches, operating signage, dog mitts,
waste containers.
Maintenance Responsibility
Volunteers, pay for use with gate code,
and city staff
City staff, dog owners
E€llV9l•9£Cnmied+seneatanesoul}looeidfsdewiwou-al&oo6•mmm//:sdp .••1- 1,_pq ; l''-• p /- 1u:•4. I. ti�..7.Pxr' gE .li o.:.coei:x s.i w` .w i 0.1.4w _e;e ui• V9fi:i Sngary / S3N;? M aa.ew
1 "a-A•34f1esOUlI
. eW ag. cos - 1aed sene3 anesoui a
2O ©eTeP eve ` EZOz0 ele de
0 0
-ne3 Jnesou!I
TITEriartalrin
eW ei6000 - sane mesouirui