Two GO bond dog parks voted to Council before the public comments arrived

If you read nothing else

• Both dog parks were approved and forwarded to City Council in a 35-minute special meeting.
• The 2018 GO bond question funded two acres of dog park; staff split it into two one-acre parks, Burn Lake and Rinconada.
• Combined cost for the two parks is $800,000, split evenly because the parks are the same size.
• Neither park is proposed with general nighttime lighting. All city parks are dawn to dusk, and Delgado said no staff exists to patrol after hours — Codes is called instead.
• The two public comments in the record arrived by email at 5:58 and 6:00 p.m., after both votes; the board could not reach the emailed inbox during the meeting.

Who was in the room

Public comment

Kept at length on purpose. Every point raised is listed, in the order the minutes record it.

Burn Lake Dog Park — GO bond project

Sreedevi Bhathala Mohanraj, Architect, Public Works, introduced Kelly Heyer, Senior Architect of ASA Architects, who presented for action.

Heyer said the dog parks are a subset of the overall parks and sports fields improvements that formed one of the GO bond questions voted on in 2018, which resulted in two acres worth of dog parks. It was decided to build two one-acre dog parks.

An aerial of Burn Lake as it exists today showed the soccer fields, restrooms, playground area, gravel parking area, and the proposed location for the new one-acre dog park, which will include large and small dog areas. Heyer reviewed the site plan, amenities, fencing, landscaping, paved parking and sidewalks, with examples of play equipment.

On schedule: finish design and construction document drawings for permits; once publicly advertised and a contractor selected, construction begins. A construction phase schedule — and the future opening date of the park — comes only after the contractor is on board.

Heyer said the same presentation was given to the public for input. Most comments asked whether the parks could include nighttime lighting so they could be used at night, and asked for some grass with lawn irrigation. She said comments were overall very well received and everyone seemed excited about the dog parks.

Delgado said the Parks and Recreation Department had not received any other comments and did not see anything in the ParksandRecadmin email.

Chair McClure asked what the considerations were for nighttime use and lawn. Delgado said all parks are currently dawn to dusk; there have been requests for lighting in the dog parks for evenings but there have been some issues. There could be security lighting but not regular lighting, though that could be changed. She reiterated parks are dawn to dusk and staff does not have anyone who could patrol in case of safety issues, and said it could be looked into if the board wished. McClure asked whether that would eat into the cost; Delgado concurred.

Schuller recommended shying away from asphalt in the parking area, and said that if nighttime lighting is not installed, the parking lot footings should not be heat absorbent. Heyer called it a great consideration and said the hardscape for parking, sidewalks and the paved areas for shade structures and the drinking fountain are concrete — a lighter material that will not absorb the heat. On the grassy lawn comments, she said additional irrigation would be required, and drip irrigation is proposed for the planting instead, with better maintenance and longevity. The ground surface is proposed as crusher fine, not grass lawn. Schuller expressed appreciation but said her concern is the parking lot area, as pets are getting in and out.

Rinconada Dog Park — GO bond project

The agenda item is headed "Rinconada Dog Park Go Bond Project — Tony Trevino, Interim Deputy Director, Public Works," but the minutes record Ms. Heyer as the presenter and never record Tony Trevino speaking or being present.

Heyer reiterated that this is a subset of the same 2018 GO bond parks and sports fields improvements, and that the two acres were split into two one-acre parks.

An aerial showed the location along Rinconada Blvd., close to the intersection of Rinconada Blvd. and Highway 70. Other facilities share the site — the existing Animal Services Center and its new addition.

Heyer said the park is approximately one acre and stressed that it is a public dog park, not connected to the Animal Services Center: no animal from the Animal Services Center will use this dog park, and no animals from the City or the public will share that space with the Animal Services Center.

She reviewed the site plan, amenities, fencing, landscaping, paved parking and sidewalks, and noted this dog park has a dedicated restroom structure. She said this park and Burn Lake are both ADA accessible between the parking lot, the shade structures and the restroom.

Cost and schedule were restated as for Burn Lake: $800,000 combined, split between the two parks, with the construction phase schedule and opening date to follow contractor selection.

Schuller again emphasized a non-heat-absorbing material in the parking lot for the cars.

Harrison asked whether, with this park closer to the street, there was any room for lights. Heyer said general side lighting is not included in the proposal; there is occupancy sensor lighting in the restrooms, and two unisex restrooms are provided in the structure.

Harrison asked how the dawn-to-dusk parks are patrolled when people come in after dark, and whether the existing dog park has seasonal hours. Delgado said there is no staff on board after hours, so if there are issues Codes is called. She said the current park is closed, that there is minimal lighting but not enough — not like at the ball parks — and that this is something to look at in the future.

Harrison asked whether, with the park so close to the street on Rinconada, there were safety concerns about dogs getting out of the car and into the fenced area, or dogs getting out of the fenced area. Heyer said there is a landscape buffer along Rinconada Blvd. to reduce that adjacency, and the perimeter fencing for both dog parks is a substantial six-foot fence. The landscape buffer will help protect dogs from exiting underneath the fence, with maintenance involved to make sure issues are addressed. She said this is why the exit and entry vestibules are directly adjacent to the parking area, and said that unfortunately there is no gate at the Rinconada entrance to contain dogs escaping from the car to the gateway vestibule — it is situated as close as it possibly can be to help limit that. The entry vestibule is also meant to be the buffer between exiting the dog park and returning to the car, and the space is used to leash the dog before exiting.

Chair McClure thanked Heyer for her presentations.

Public comment reached the board only after the votes

At adjournment, Harrison asked whether there was any other public comment from YouTube, or whether Administration could check for other emails.

Delgado said she was having issues checking the ParksandRecadmin email from her remote site, as was Nevarez, but could check and forward anything to the board after the meeting.

Chair McClure reached out on the record to a Mr. Ryan Armendariz through YouTube to see whether he would respond. Adrian Guzman noted there is about a minute delay between the meeting and the YouTube viewers.

Harrison said his concern was just that all public input was brought forward. He acknowledged the items had already been voted on, but said these are preliminary processes and there is still time to get comments to the appropriate people.

Chair McClure reiterated to YouTube that if Ryan could hear, he should send another email, and that the board would move forward with the motion. She asked Delgado to forward the email to the board when received.

Recorded votes

Left open at the gavel