Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Dog Park in Huntington Central Park - E/Edwards N/Ellis - L
09 — 0- bk) cam. . Council/Agency Meeting Held: M-04-OE -Deferred/Continued to: Y* Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk Signature oN A Ag61: No. 1W C uncil Meeting Date: May 6, 2002 Department ID Number: CS02-017 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Cr SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator G7� ( TJ � _ PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services c„ C-) SUBJECT: APPROVE LOCATION AND HOURS OF.OPERATION FOR HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK DOG PARK Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Per City Council direction, analyze alternative locations for Huntington Central Park Dog Park. Funding Source: N/A. All costs to be paid by Best Friend Dog Park Foundation. Recommended Action: Motion to: Community Services Commission Recommendation (Attachment 1) 1. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site with the following revised hours of operation on an interim basis until the former gun range site can be considered as a permanent site; and direct staff to explore the use of a sound barrier, such as additional vegetation between the Dog Park and Edwards Street and between the parking lot and Edwards Street, Small Dog Area Big Dog Area Big Dogs allowed in Small Do Weekda s 7am-8 m 8am-8 m 7am-8am Weekends 7am-8 m 10am-8 m 7am-1Oam and 2. Approve Best Friend Dog Park Foundation signing an operational memorandum of understanding before revised hours are implemented. Staff Recommendation 1. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site until the City Council selects an alternative site. 3 J Rt%.2UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIk,.4 MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 Alternative Action(s): 1. Relocate Dog Park to the proposed HCP site by the Gothard Street parking lot with the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. daily. Foundation to pay all relocation costs and sign memorandum of understanding before accessing site. 2. Relocate Dog Park to the proposed HCP site east of Goldenwest Street between Talbert Avenue and Slater Avenue south of the Shipley Nature Center, with the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:30'p.m. daily. Foundation to pay all relocation costs and sign memorandum of understanding before accessing site. 3. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current location with current City Council approved operating hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, and 10:00 &m.- to 5:00 p.m. weekends. 4. Close Huntington Central Park Dog Park Analysis: City Council directed staff to analyze relocating Dog Park to an easterly portion of Huntington Central Park (HCP) adjacent to Gothard Street, south.of the HCP parking lot on Gothard Street and the Park, Tree, and Landscape Maintenance Facility (Attachment 2). On January 9, 2002 the Community Services Commission conducted a public meeting to solicit community input regarding this proposed relocation. At that time, it was determined that additional information was required before a recommendation from the Commission to Council could be finalized. Since that time, staff has contacted the California Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife to evaluate potential impacts on habitat; worked with the city's environmental engineer to evaluate water quality issues at the proposed site; had the city's Geographical Information Systems (GIS) determine specific distances from residences, amphitheater, and bandstand as requested by the Commission; and, analyzed the sound impacts of a dog show on the eastern side of the park, south of Slater Avenue on homes, and endeavored to extrapolate what would be the sound impact from the proposed Dog Park site off of Gothard Street on the same homes. Subsequent to that study, staff has been directed to also analyze the undeveloped park land west of Goldenwest between Talbert Avenue ,and the Shipley Nature Center. Staff has performed the same type of analysis for this Goldenwest site. Attachment 3 is a comparative analysis of the current Dog Park site off Edwards Street and the two proposed alternatives. Current Dog Park Site Overall, the current location has worked well for Dog Park users since its inception in 1995, but there has been a noise impact reported by a few homes across Edwards Street. A sound study indicated that the street traffic resulted in a higher continuous decibel level than the noise from Dog Park. In addition, the study indicated that the noise level from dogs within the tract reached a higher decibel level than dogs 175 feet away at Dog Park, but residents' dogs barked much less frequently. Individuals from. two residences have continued to indicate that the only solution is to move Dog Park from its current location. Their issue is that the noise from dogs has a bigger negative impact on them then road noise., GARCA\02-017 Dog Park.doc -2- 4/25/2002 2:45 PM RF-QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIu.4 MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 NOTE: The Commission did discuss the fact that they, based on their site visits to the current location, felt the Dog Park noise was less of an impact on homes than road noise, but in an attempt to try to offer an additional compromise, suggested dual-pane windows for the residents. Staff discussed this with one of the residents who indicated they already have dual-pane windows and can still hear dogs barking. She also indicated the noise impact isn't just inside their homes, but also in their back yards. The Council-approved hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends have not met the needs of these residents for reduced noise levels. The Best Friend Dog Park Foundation (Foundation) has also indicated that the modified hours have had a negative impact on Dog Park users because the time is too limiting. This is especially true of dog owners who wish to take their dogs to Dog Park before and after work. The Foundation has also stated that donations, which finance maintenance of the Dog Park, have diminished since the shortened hours have been in effect. Donations have dropped an average of $1,000 per month compared to last year. Proposed Dou Park Site at Gothard Street The proposed site off Gothard Street is on a knoll, elevated above the main part of the park. The Foundation has indicated that this site would be acceptable and they would be willing to pay the relocation costs as long as this would be a permanent move. Without actually moving the dog park to this location, it would be impossible to perform.an official sound test. But-staff did evaluate the noise impacts of a dog show on the east side of the park and its effect on homes. Staff endeavored to extrapolate the noise impact from the proposed Gothard Street site on homes 800 feet away. Within the 800 feet between the proposed Dog Park site and the closest residence, there are also buildings on the Park, Tree, and Landscape Maintenance property and Verizon property that would block the sound. In staffs opinion, there should not be a significant noise impact on residents. Staff does acknowledge the fact that although there are shrubs on the west side of this site that would help to visually shield Dog Park from the main part of the park, the noise would still carry into the park proper on the west and south sides. This noise would have an impact on the public walking on the trail system primarily as they approach the bottom of the knoll near the Dog Park area. Based on the sound study at the current Dog Park, as well as staffs observation of a dog show on the east side of HCP, it is not anticipated that there would be significant impact from the proposed dog park on concerts or other activities at the amphitheater or bandstand. Note: It needs to also be noted that there are currently special events held on this side of the park that have a much greater impact on people walking in the park. These events include the Civil War Re-enactment and Scout Jamborees where there are several thousand people involved.. There are also weekend dog shows periodically conducted off Slater. The primary difference is that the special events are a periodic use and Dog Park would be a daily use so it would definitely have an impact on people as they approach Dog Park while taking walks GARCA\02-017 Dog Park.doc -3- 4/25/2002 2:45 PM RtQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIuA MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 through this passive area of the park. The city has received a petition with 132 signatures and multiple letters and Emails opposing this site. There was also concern expressed by the public regarding impacts on habitat. Attachment 4 is a letter staff received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife indicating that the entire eastern portion of Central Park, between Gothard Street and Goldenwest Street includes vegetated sections that are used by a variety of songbirds. However a California Department of Fish and Game representative also visited the site. Attachment 5 is a written report from the California Department of Fish and Game indicating that the use of 1.7 acres within the eastern portion of :Central Park for Dog Park would not have a significant impact on habitat. The only condition placed on the project by Fish and Game would be if there were dead trees eliminated or cut back, they would want the city to follow a specific process. This would not inhibit the operation of Dog Park at this location. Another benefit of relocating to this site is that the hours of operation could be expanded. The Dog Park could be open during normal park hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or as the Foundation recommends, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. Relocation of Dog Park would also help address ongoing antisocial activities in this specific area of the park and adjacent restroom. Included in this analysis is a report from Police Lt. J. B. Hume addressing the problems on this site and the fact that, in his opinion, this type of positive activity would help mitigate some of the illegal activities occurring at this site (Attachment 9). Proposed Dog Park Site at Goldenwest Street , The proposed Dog Park site would be approximately 1.5 acres in size,.:plus a 0.3-acre parking lot west of Goldenwest Street between Talbert Avenue and the Nature•Center, The proposed site is a relatively flat, dirt area of undeveloped park land. The Foundation has indicated that this site would be acceptable to them on an interim basis until a permanent site, such as the former gun range site, could be determined. They have also indicated that they will pay reasonable relocation costs to this location. Without actually moving the Dog Park to this location, it would be impossible to perform an official sound test. Staff did evaluate the noise impacts of a dog show on the east side of the park and its effect on homes that were 800 feet away. The distance.to the closest homes to the north of this site is almost 900 feet. The homes to the west of this site are 950 feet away. In staffs opinion, like the Gothard Street proposed site, there would be no significant impact on residents. The undeveloped 16-acre site was formerly used as an interim site for the disc golf course each year while their permanent site was prepared for the Summer Equestrian Classic. There will be no impact because the Summer Equestrian Classic has been cancelled. A representative from the city's Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the site and. saw no negative impact associated with ingress/egress to the site if a temporary parking lot were GARCM02-017 Dog Park.doc =4. 4/25/2002 2:45 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIA MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 designated for the proposed Dog Park north of the Goldenwest/Talbert intersection. There is an existing curb-cut that will allow vehicle access from Goldenwest Street onto the undeveloped park. The only relative issue is the fact that-there is only right turn ingress and egress at this location. A permanent parking lot could be constructed on site for a cost of at least $75,000 (per Public Works Engineering Division), but a permanent improvement would have to be processed. This would include a modification to the master plan, environmental assessment, and preparation of plans and specifications. The cost of $75,000 would include only construction without grading factored into the estimate. Any potential noise from Dog Park could impact the public walking on the trail system to the west but the noise would not be great since this developed area to the west is already utilized for group picnicking and large events such as the Easter Hunt with over 5,000 participants. There are additional undeveloped areas and trees buffering this site from the existing developed park land to the west. Though having Dog Park located immediately south of the Nature Center is not an ideal situation, it could exist without any significant impact to the Nature Center habitat as noted in by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife report (Attachment 4) and a site visit conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game. There were public speakers at the April 10, 2002 Community Services Commission meeting who expressed concern about placing a temporary dog park at this location because it is approximately 100 feet from the Shipley Nature Center fence and 480 feet from the Nature Center building. Staff felt that this site could work on an interim basis for a 'couple of years because the Nature Center is going through a master plan and renovation program that will probably take the same amount of time to accomplish. Also, as noted above, two regulatory agencies did not see an issue with the proposed site. A primary benefit of relocating to this site at Goldenwest Street is the fact that the hours of operation could be expanded. The Dog Park could be open during normal park hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or as the Foundation recommends, 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. daily. Relocating Dog Park on an interim basis would not displace any other activity since this is undeveloped park land, which also greatly reduces any impact to the public. Former Gun Ranne Staff believes that the best location for Dog Park is the former gun range site where there would appear to be no negative impact on residents or park users. The site would be adjacent to the Sports Complex but there should be insignificant impact from dogs on an adjacent sports facility. The issues relative to the former gun range site involve timing and funding of the lead remediation (cost unknown). The city's consultant has not finished working with the State and County regulatory agencies to determine the final method or cost of remediation for lead on the former gun range site. The lead. remediation project is currently unfunded. If the former gun range site were determined to be the best ultimate location for Dog Park, staff would begin the master plan process to designate a portion of the site as a dog park and take it through the public review process and environmental assessment. The timeline for this process is unknown at this time, but should be available in a few months. Though it is GARCA\02-017 Dog Park.doc -5- 4/25/2002 2:45 PM MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 impossible to forecast, it is anticipated that it would be at least two years before this site would be available for relocation of the Dog Park. Conclusion As indicated above, there are pros and cons with the three locations. The primary concern is one of noise; though there is also.concern :relative to-potential impact on habitat at both alternative sites. There is concern about the impact on residents at the current location. -Staff feels that there will be no significant noise.impact on residents at either the Gothard or Goldenwest site due to the distance to homes. In reviewing public comments and the analysis on the usage of both alternative sites in Central Park, it is anticipated that there would be less impact to park users at the Goldenwest site. After consideration of all the issues, public comments, analysis (including the sound study), and site visits to all three locations, the Community Services Commission believes that the Dog Park needs ultimately to be relocated toa more-isolated location,.such:as,the former.gun.range.site. Until that can be accomplished, the Commission recommends that Dog Park remain at its current location on a temporary basis, but with modified hours_.of operation. Commission recommends expanding the hours at Dog Park to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but limiting the big dog area to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. All dogs would be allowed to use the small dog area from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. weekdays, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Commission feels that this would create a larger buffer between the dogs and residents to the east of Dog Park early in the morning. The distance between the small dog area to the closest homes is approximately 500 feet. Also, the perimeter fence of the small dog area is screened. Though the Commission feels that there is no significant noise impact now, this additional distance or buffer would significantly reduce any possible noise impacts. The Commission also recommended that staff look into the planting of additional vegetation on the park side of Edwards Street to provide an additional noise buffer between Dog Park, the parking lot, and the homes across Edwards Street. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(sl: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Recommendation from Community Services Commission 2. Site Map 3. Comparative Site Analysis 4. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Letter 5. California Fish and Game Letter 6. Sound Study 7. Noise Impact Memo 8. Environmental Impact Memos G:kRCAk02-017 Dog Park doc -6- 4/26/200210:31, AM MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-017 I9. I Police Memo RCA Author: Jim B. Engle G:\RCA\02-017 Dog Parkdoc -7- 4/26/200210:26 AM (20) May 6, 2002 -Counc..,Agency Agenda - Page 20 F-3. (City Council Approve Temporary Location and Revised Hours of Operation at Current Edwards Street Site for Huntinaton Central Park Dog Park— Direct Staff. I N to Study Area for Noise Mitigation —Approve Best Friend Dog Park Foundation �If Memorandum of Understanding ( . ) lV Communication from the Community Services Director informing Council that pursuant to City Council direction, alternative locations for Huntington Central Park Dog Park have been analyzed for recommendation to Council. Recommended Action: Motion to: Community Services Commission Recommendation (Attachment No. 1) 1. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site with the following revised hours of operation on an interim basis until the former gun range site can be considered as a permanent site; and direct staff to explore the use of a sound barrier, such as additional vegetation between the Dog Park and Edwards Street and between the parkin lot and Edwards Street, Small Dog Area Big Dog Area Big Dogs allowed in Small Dog Area Weekdays 7am-8 m 8am-8 m 7am-8am Weekends 7am-8 m 10am=8 m 7am-10am and 2. Approve Best Friend Dog Park Foundation signing an operational memorandum of understanding before revised hours are implemented. OR Staff Recommendation Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site until the City Council selected an alternative site. Motion FAILS to move to Goldenwest 3-4 (Dettloff, Bauer, Houchen, Cook No) Motion APPROVED as amended to.extend hours 4-3 (Winchell, Boardman, Green No) Small Dog Big Dog All Dogs allowed Area Area in Small Dog Area Weekdays 9am-7 m 9am-6 m 6 m-7 m Weekends 10am-7 m 10am-5 m 5 m-7 m ATTACHMENT #1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714)536-5486 TO: Hon o le or and City Council FROM: Nick omaino, Chairman, Community Services Commission DATE: April 24, 2002 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK DOG PARK Per City Council direction, Commission reviewed relocating Dog Park to two locations within . Huntington Central Park: south of the Park, Tree, and Landscape Maintenance Facility and Gothard Street parking lot, and west of Goldenwest Street between the Goldenwest/Talbert intersection and Shipley Nature Center. Both of these sites had pros and cons relative to the possible relocation of the Dog Park from its current site off of Edwards Street. The Best Friend Dog Park Foundation indicated it was willing to move to either site, but it needed extended operating hours. When commission conducted a public input meeting on April 10, 2002, members of the community spoke in opposition to both alternative sites. The commission has toured the current site add both alternative sites. The vast majority of the commission has, on an individual basis, evaluated the noise impacts adjacent to the two homes off of Edwards Street as well as reviewed the sound study. The conclusion by the commission is that there is minimal impact from Dog Park relative to the street noise. Commission believes that with the relocation of the small dog section further east further reduces noise impacts. They feel that this current site should remain as the location for Dog Park on an interim basis until the former gun range site can be properly processed. Commission is aware that there are funding issues relative to the lead remediation and that the processing of a master plan and environmental assessment could take more than two years, but that the current site is better than the alternatives reviewed. There is also greater opposition to both alternative sites than the current location. Commission is recommending that the hours be modified as follows: After careful review of alternative sites, the Community Services Commission recommends that Dog Park remain at its current Edwards Street site with the following revised hours of operation on an interim basis until the former gun range site can be considered as a permanent site. Also, that a sound barrier, such as additional vegetation between the Dog Park and Edwards Street and between the parking lot and Edwards Street, be explored. Big Dogs allowed in Small Dog Area Big Dog Area Small Dog Area Weekdays 7am-8 m 8am-8 m 7am-8am Weekends 7am-8 m 10am-8pm 7am-10am Honorable Mayor and City Council Page Two Huntington Central Park Dog Park COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION VOTE: AYES: Gasparian; Manley; Rechsteiner; Roberts; Stahlecker; Steel; Tomaino NOES: Scandura ABSENT: Biddle; Ernst; Pogrund MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Minority Vote: Although Commissioner Scandura was personally in favor of keeping the present Dog Park location, he understood that the commission's direction was to recommend alternate locations. It was previously decided by City Council that the Dog Park hours should be reduced and a new location identified. He said that while the two potential new locations have drawbacks, he felt they were viable because City staff indicated the problems can be overcome and the Best Friend Dog Park Foundation is willing to pay the relocation costs. Commissioner Scandura said that consideration of the former gun range as a permanent site is premature because the cost and feasibility of soil remediation is presently unknown. NT:JBE:cvh c: ' --.Ray Silver `Ron Hagan 'Sib B. Engle ATTACHMENT #2 PROPOSED DOG PARK LOCATIONS J i Slater Ave. I J Palk... .. Tree 8 ' ® Restroorrs ® °I�ndedePe 0 11� Playgrounds p Park Bench 00 Proposed 00 o Gothard albert Lake Location (Meadow) Bard rdMRnema Shipley Nature Center Pd° • Adv re aek . Me round Lral ibrary I Central Park Dr. Propos 0 Talbert Ave. H+F IfH1i1 H+M*H-Wi Golden Locatio Un7..dWP d Area - -- Inlet Dr. JMBreakfast Dbc �} in the Park Goff Exis "°,® Huntington Lake Dog (� Park I=�� Loco i n Hang lo e M Umaiopad Noa Equestrian Cenntterrp�rllpll'tollrtt� I I II II II II I I Q' r 0 Urb bP ea uLfLILJu _ rC b14 m W _ Moaib Home Pork N HOM Tnue I{vrrv�mel V cc Undo.obpod A— '—M,1 L Ellis Ave. 8 r N HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK WEB 8 ATTACHMENT #3 COMPATIVE ANALYSIS OF DOG PARK LOTIONS Current Site Proposed Site on Proposed Site on HCP at Edwards Street Gothard Street Goldenwest Street Location Adjacent to Edwards St.; Adjacent to Gothard St.; West of Goldenwest St; south of Edwards St. south of Gothard St. between Talbert Ave. parking lot parking lot and Park, and the Nature Center Tree, and Landscape Maintenance Facility Park Land Undeveloped (prior to Developed park land Undeveloped park land Designation establishing Dog Park Dog Park ± 1.7 acres; parking ± 1.7 acres; parking ± 1.5 acres; add 0.3 Size/Parking existing existing acres temporary parking Accessibility Small dog section needs to Both sections accessible; Access from temporary be made accessible from parking lot has curb-cut parking lot will be parking lot; large dog ramp provided that is flat and section accessible; parking accessible; parking lot lot has curb-cut ramp will be dirt but wood chips can be added if needed for dust control Topography Flat section sloping up Sloping to south and Relatively flat area toward the south; west; basic area on top woodchip mounds have of knoll relatively flat. been added to create more varied topography Cost of Existing Dog Park; no cost Estimated $25,0.00 to be Estimated $3,000 to Relocation paid by Foundation; city $5,000 for temporary to assist with removal of fencing for new shrubs to create more temporary Dog Park open space and removal and parking of dead tree branches Distance to 175 feet— Large dog area 800 feet 890 feet to the north; Residents 500 feet—Small dog area 950 feet to the west Noise Impact • Some residents on the Staff reviewed noise Based on the west side of Edwards impact of a dog show review staff did on Street have complained on homes across Slater Slater Ave. for the about noise impact Avenue and Gothard site, there • Sound study indicates extrapolated impact should be no decibel level of cars on from dog park on significant impact due road is greater than dogs residents -- no to the distance from • Small dog section significant impact. homes at this GW relocated further from Petition and letters site. street to reduce noise received opposing this This side of HCP impact site— most relate to impacted already by • Park users have not noise impact on existing large group picnics, complained park users disc golf to the south, • This side of HCP annual Easter Hunt to impacted already by the west and other Scout Jamborees, Civil events War Re-enactment, and Goldenwest road dog shows noise impacts this • Gothard Street road site. noise impacts this site Comparative Analysis of Dog f-ark Locations Page Two Surrounding Park North: developed; parking North: parking lot, grass, North: Shipley Nature lot, open grass/trees, tot trees Center lot, restroom; event area East: Gothard St. East: Goldenwest (dog shows) South: grass/trees; Street East: undeveloped park; amphitheater (780 feet South: undeveloped desiltation basin; HCP from Dog Park) park, disc golf course Equestrian Center West: Bandstand (1,066 West: undeveloped South: undeveloped park; feet from Dog Park); park, grass, trees, and multi-purpose trails (future restroom, walking paths; picnic facilities urban forest) campground; event area West: Edwards St. (dog shows Environmental Water/Runoff: No impact Water/Runoff: No impact Water/Runoff: No Issues due to dry-use. due to dry-use. impact due to dry use. Foundation supplies Foundation supplies Foundation supplies doggie bags for the public doggie bags for waste doggie bags for the to pick up dog waste. pickup. public to pickup dog Habitat: No impact Habitat: CA Fish & Game waste Dept. indicates no Habitat: U.S. Fish & significant impact on Wildlife has indicated habitat; U.S. Fish & no significant impact on Wildlife concerned about habitat; CA Fish & bird habitat Game requested habitat assessment for potential nesting site of burrowing owls. Environmental consultant is in the process of making initial assessment ATTACHMENT #4 ZMENT OF', ua United States Department of the Interior rum•WrL"Ll" N Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office a 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad,California 92008 In Reply Refer To: FWS-OR-2757.1 MAR 2 8 'CCU Jim Engle, Director Community Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Proposed Dog Park Project,Huntington Central Park, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California Dear Mr. Engle: We would like to thank Mayor Cook, Councilwoman Boardman, and yourself for meeting with us on March 8, 2002, regarding public trust resources in the referenced proposed project area in Huntington,Central Park located in Orange County. Largely because of the extraordinary wildlife values present at the park and adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands, we have accumulated substantial data and information over the past 20 years relating in particular to the bird life that has been supported by the expansive habitats and vegetation within Huntington Central Park. We trust that this information will assist you in making local land use decisions and in conserving a regionally important wildlife area. Although Huntington Central Park supports a diverse array of breeding birds (Gallagher 1997) and substantial wintering bird populations as evidenced by the Orange County Coastal Christmas Count compilations (National Audubon Society 2001),the value of the park to migrating birds is extraordinary and apparently unprecedented, acre for acre,within our.office's southern California jurisdiction. A comparison of the migrant bird numbers and densities at Huntington Central Park with the large, wetland-dominated open space in the Prado Basin in Riverside County reveals the importance of Huntington Central Park to a variety of neotropical migrant songbirds (please see enclosure). Migration is a period of exceptional energy demands on birds, which can "...result in death and contribute substantially to future population declines..." if there is a lack of suitable stopover habitat (Moore et al. 1995). Unfortunately, migratory stopovers are being increasingly degraded and destroyed. It is our understanding that the City of Huntington Beach wishes to construct a new, fenced-off dog park facility within the boundaries of Huntington Central Park. The tentatively-proposed project site adjacent to the Gothard Street parking lot in the northeastern corner of the park contains a variety of tree species and relatively dense vegetation. Seventeen years of bird study in this and remaining eastern portion of Huntington Central Park have revealed that vegetated sections of this area are heavily utilized by a large variety of songbirds (please see enclosure). It is our understanding that vegetation would need to be removed to construct or operate the dog park at the Gothard Street site. .lim l ngic (f NVS-OR 2757.1) 2 By contrast, unvegetated or relatively sparsely vegetated areas on the far eastern side of that portion of the park west of Goldenwest Street_have, to the best of our knowledge, comparatively minimal bird use. In particular, we receive very few reports of bird concentrations or rare species in the area immediately west of Goldenwest Street that is bounded on the south by the Equestrian Center and on the north by the intersection of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. We therefore conclude that the construction and operation of a dog park in this area would have significantly smaller impacts to breeding, wintering, and migrating birds as compared to any well vegetated portion of the park currently subjected to minimal, passive uses. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the planning of future land use activities in Huntington Central Park. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence or you should desire further information, please call Loren Hays of my staff at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, (Karen A. Evans Assistant Field Supervisor Enclosure cc: 'California Department of Fish and Game, Region 6, San Diego Literature Cited Gallagher, S. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds: Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, California. 264 pp. Moore, F. R., S. A. Gauthreaux, P. Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1995. Habitat requirements during migration: important link in conservation. Pp. 121-144 in Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds; T. E. Martin and D. M Finch, eds. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York. 489 pp. National Audubon Society. 2001. American Birds. One-hundred First Christmas Bird Count. National Audubon Society, Washington, D.C. 666 pp. STAFF NOTE: Paragraph above indicates area analyzed to be west of Goldenwest, south of Talbert. The area staff presented to Fish and Wildlife for comment was actually west of Goldenwest, north of Talbert. Fish and Wildlife has been contacted to make correction and resend the letter. ATTACHMENT #5 STATE Or CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCESAGENCY GOTHARD SITE GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego,California92123 (858)467-4201 (858)467-4235 FAX February.26, 2002 Jim B. Engle Deputy Director Community Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Pre-Project Coordination for Huntington Central Park Dog Park Dear Mr. Engle: Per your request, the Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above-referenced project description dated February 12, 2002 and Department staff examined the project site off February 6, 2002. The Department is identified as a Trustee Agency pursuant to Californ 4 ia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for the . conservation, protection and management of the state's biological resources. The proposed project site is approximately 1.7 acres located in Huntington Central Park primarily south of the 50-space parking lot on Gothard Street. A smaller portion of the project would also extend to the west of the parking lot. This site is elevated over the primary park area, and is vegetated with turf grass, non-native ornamental shrubs and non-native landscape trees. It is primarily used as a transitional area between the parking lot and the park proper which is below this elevated knoll. The proposed project would be the development of a Dog Park. In order to incorporate a Dog Park facility, a chain link perimeter fence could be added. No living trees will be removed but there may be some dead branches removed to eliminate any potential safety hazards for the public or their dogs. There will also be a significant number of shrubs within the fenced area removed to allow room for the dogs to roam. Large shrubs will remain outside the perimeter fence to act a visual barrier between Dog Park and the remainder of the park down the slope. The site will be covered with six inches of wood chips that can be periodically replaced with new chips. The primary biological resources of Huntington Central Park are associated with riparian and wetland areas, and some avian nesting and foraging habitat in the canopies of non-native trees. In addition, some non-native trees within the park have the potential to support wintering groups of monarch butterfly(Danaus plexippus). At this time, the Department has no specific comments or concerns associated with the proposed project. Because the project site does not support native habitats or aquatic resources, Jim B. Engle February 26, 2002 Page 2 the likelihood that the proposed project would result in significant impacts to biological resources is relatively low. However, we do recommend that the project incorporates general measures to protect raptors and migratory birds that may be nesting on the site. The following general measure for trimming, clearing, or removing vegetation should be implemented within the project area as well as throughout the Park: If any construction(including clearing and grading), tree removal, or trimming occurs during the breeding season for raptors and migratory birds (February 1 - September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the affected trees and surrounding areas no more than three days prior to the initiation of construction, tree removal, or trimming to determine whether there are active nests within that area. If an active nest of a raptor or migratory bird is identified, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer shall be a minimum width of 50 feet (300 feet for raptors), shall be delineated by temporary fencing, and shall be in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active. .Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Brad Henderson at (310) 214-9950. Sincerely, Donald R. Chadwick Habitat Conservation Supervisor Attachments cc: Department of Fish and Game File San Diego ATTACHMENT #6 AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS 80 75 70; 65 Dogs 60 ! Cars 55 j 5U ' 1 1 NOTE: Graph does not indicate,decibel readings of dog barks coming from the neighborhood during the monitoring period. Average-level of readings from neighborhood dogs : 62.1 FREQUENCY OF READINGS Decibel Dogs. Cars Dogs Cars . Dogs Cars Dogs Cars. Dogs Cars Dogs Cars Level 81 & 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 Above 75-80 0 7 0 29 0 5 0 14 1 15 0 5 70-74 0 26 2 43 0 14 1 0 81 0 68 0 18 66-69 6 29 7 64 1 11 5 97 12 91 2 37 60-64 21 22 14 40 6 13 19 23 20 53 0 30 55-69 13 10 22 25 11 12 26 4 12 26 0 7 50-54 0 1 3 6 3 4 17 2 6 11 0 2 N/R* 7 1 9 6 3 0 14 0 19 4 12 1 TOTALS# READINGS TAKEN 47 96 57 217 24 59 81 221 70 275 14 101 EACH DAY June 30 July 1 July 2 July 2 July 3 July 3 7:30-11:30 am 4:30-8:13pm 7:00-8:10am 4:47-8:36pm F6.21-1 1:45a m 1:05-2:45pm * N/R indicates noise heard by surveyor but did not register on decibel meter(below 50 db). HB Municipal Code Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, makes it unlawful for noise levels to exceed 55 db in residential areas. Though there are instances where dog barking exceeds 55 db, it is not for a sustained period. Also, the level of noise generated by automobiles is at a consistently higher db level and more frequent. It should also be noted that the average level of noise from dogs within the tract of homes was of a higher decibel level than Dog Park (Dog Park average: 52.4 db vs residential tract average: 62.1 db), though the frequency or number of barks was less from dogs within the tract than barks from Dog Park. ATTACHMENT #7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES TO: Jim B. Engle FROM : Dave Dominguez DATE: March 4, 2002 SUBJECT: POTENTIAL NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED DOG PARKRELOCATION On Saturday,January 19,2002,I went to Huntington Central Park to observe a permitted dog show adjacent to the parking lot near Slater Avenue and Goldenwest Street. I did so in hopes of determining potential noise impacts associated with relocating Dog Park to the knoll area adjacent to Gothard Street. I did not use a decibel meter for my observation because road noise from nearby Slater Avenue would have created higher readings than the activity within the park. My intent was to focus on the impacts of barking dogs and how far that sound would carry into the neighborhood north of Slater Avenue between Goldenwest and Gothard Streets. The show.I observed included 50 plus Jack Russell terriers. Jack Russell terriers are a small breed with a high- pitched balk. Most of the dogs in the show were kept caged until it was time for them to participate. I first stood within ten feet of the event area where I noticed that the caged dogs barked almost continuously. The noise level was quite loud and rather intense. I then walked across Slater Avenue and listened from the comer of Duello Street and Slater Avenue(approximately 60 feet from the event area). Duello is the first street entering the quarter section east of Goldenwest Street. From this point,dogs were still audible at a somewhat annoying pitch; however,passing traffic drowned the dog barking out. I stood at this location for approximately ten minutes. I then moved further east to the cul de sac,which fronts Slater Avenue, and to the west of Lucero Street. From this point,the dogs could still be heard but rather faintly with a much less intense pitch. I also remained at this location for about ten minutes. Lastly,I moved to the cul de sac fronting Slater Avenue east of Flower Street. From this point,the dogs could not be heard. In conclusion, I feel that the dogs participating in the show impacted the residents near the corner of Duello Street and Slater Avenue,especially if they were standing outdoors. Impacts to the other two areas east of Lucero and west of Flower were insignificant and/or non-existent. EXTRAPOLATION OF SOUND IMPACTS Proposed Dog Park Site Relative to Dog Show There is a difference.between the sound impacts that occur at a dog show and the level of sound at a dog park. Dog Park averages between 20 to 30 dogs at a time roaming a 1.7-acre site. The dogs at a dog show are in cages and in a more confined space. Dogs that are penned or tethered tend to bark much more frequently than dogs running loose. Also,the proposed Dog Park site is over 800 feet to the nearest residence at the northwest corner of Slater and Gothard Streets,whereas the dog show is 60 feet from the closest homes. There are Verizon and Park,Tree, and Landscape Division buildings between the proposed dog park site and homes. In evaluating a similar distance (800 feet)within the residential tract from the existing Dog Park, I could hear no noise emanating from the current dog park. Based on the above, I do not believe there will be significant noise impacts to the residents from the proposed dog park site. DD:cvh ATTAC H M E N T #8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ve LJ INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Jim Engle, Deputy Director of Community Services FROM: Geraldine Lucas, Associate Civil Engineer�►� i DATE: February 11, 2002 SUBJECT: RELOCATION OF DOG PARK Per your request, I have reviewed the proposed plans to relocate Dog Park to the Northwest corner of Central Park, just south of the Park, Tree & Landscape Yard. Based on the information reviewed, potential water quality impacts due to increased human and canine activity can be mitigated.by basic dog park best management practices. The following summarizes the issue or concern and what measures should be taken to minimize any potential impact. Polluted'.runoff - This will be minimized since the park will be a non-irrigated site with wood chips covering the dog play area. The natural site drainage is optimal for this usage since any runoff flows into a vegetative area to the southwest. The vegetated area will naturally reduce any nutrients, pathogens and solids.prior to discharge into Talbert Lake. Pet waste disposal - Free doggie waste bags will be provided and a sufficient number of covered trash receptacles will also be available. The trash receptacles should have a permanent lid to keep any rainwater from entering. It is also recommended that educational information be provided at the park to inform-the public about stormwater pollution prevention. Vehicle parking - It is anticipated that all vehicles will park in an existing parking lot. If additional parking is required, the lot should be designed to include stormwater runoff pollution prevention best management practices to address any potential pollutant discharge from the site (oil, grease, petroleum products). Should you have any questions or require and additional information, please contact me at Extension 8494. Cc: David Webb, City Engineer GL:jm Forest Floor Page I of 2 Dominguez, Dave From: Lucas, Geraldine Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:39 PM To: Engle,Jim Cc: Dominguez, Dave; Webb, David Subject: RE: Temporary Relocation of Dog Park to Goldenwest/Talbert(NW) Jim, I have reviewed the temporary location for dog park and basically have the same recommendations I had for the other location. Any polluted runoff with flow westerly through a vegetative area which will naturally treat the pollutants. I'm assuming free doggie waste bags will be provided with covered trash receptacles? In regards to the parking lot, will any grading be required? Or is it a matter of constructing a ramp along the curb? I do have some suggestions for the lot if grading will be taking place. Thanks, Geraldine -----Original Message----- From: Von Holle, Catherine On Behalf Of Engle, Jim Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 10:27 AM To: Lucas, Geraldine Cc: Dominguez, Dave Subject: Temporary Relocation of Dog Park to Goldenwest/Talbert (NW) Thank you for your input regarding the relocation of Dog Park within Huntington Central Park to the Gothard location. We have now been asked to evaluate another site. It is the undeveloped area within Huntington Central Park on the west side'of Goldenwest between Talbert and the Nature Center. This would be a temporary location. The proposal calls for a 1.5 acre park plus a 15,000 square foot area for parking. There is a curb-cut that will provide access off of Goldenwest onto the site. It has been reviewed by Tom Brohard,Traffic Engineer,who has indicated that the parking lot works from a traffic perspective. The intent would be for this to be a dry-use. No more than a six-inch layer of wood chips would be used on the Dog Park. There is also consideration, if needed for dust control, to also put some woodchips on the parking area. Both compacted dirt and wood chips would provide acceptable wheelchair footing. This site would be a temporary location until the former gun range site can be processed through the master plan and entitlement process as well as doing the lead remediation. 4/2/2002 ATTACHMENT #9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jim Engle, Deputy Director Community Services FROM: JB Hume, Lieutenant -' Police North Area Command SUBJECT: DOG PARK RELOCATION DATE: 01-25-02' 1 have reviewed the relocation plan for dog park in Huntington Central Park from a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CEPTED) prospective. I focused on the part of Central Park that includes the Gothard Street parking lot and the park area directly west and south of the lot including the public restroom located below the lot. I started by evaluating the crime element in this area of the park. I also considered what impact a positive park activity like Dog Park would have on the area. Hopefully this short evaluation will be helpful in determining the future of the area. The greatest law enforcement/public safety issue in the area is lewd acts committed by homosexual males. The parking lot, adjacent wooded areas, and the public restroom are well know gathering spots for these individuals to engage in a variety of lewd acts. This activity generally occurs during the daylight hours up until 10:00 PM when the park curfew begins. Over the past several years this department has received several informal complaints and reports of crimes. Vice Detectives have conducted several undercover operations in the area and have made many arrests. The location is so popular among homosexuals who engage in such acts that the location is posted on a web site titled "cruisingforsex.com" (see attached). Aside from conducting random undercover operations in the area, the Police department has also noticed that posting approximately twenty signs ("WARNING—This area frequently patrolled by undercover police officers— 647(a) P.C.: every person who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view is guilty of a misdemeanor.) and rigorous enforcement of the 10:00 PM park curfew has made an impact. That pretty much addresses the crime element in the area. The Police Department has no record or knowledge of any additional out of the ordinary or substantial criminal activity such as drug sales/use, acts of violence, thefts, or malicious mischief. For the purpose of this evaluation I did not conduct a statistical analysis of crime data for the area. I recognize that relocating the dog park to this area has several positive aspects to it. I would like to add anther one from a CEPTED point of view. Placing a positive element such as dog park in the area outlined in this memo would place considerable pressure on the criminal behavior that is presently taking place. The dog owners who would use this area would not stand for "their" parking lot, restrooms, and park space to be used for lewd acts. I would imagine that the impact would be the same as when the volleyball nets were installed along the south side of the pier.. When the nets went up a positive beach element took over and displaced the obnoxious element that gathered there daily. Rigorous enforcement by the Police and Lifeguards didn't work but changing the environment did. Certainly those who were displaced were forced to go elsewhere, but it is important to note that they didn't go as a group thus eliminating the problem. Would moving the dog park into this area totally eliminate the illegal activity discussed in this memo? I sincerely doubt it. The homosexuals who engage in this type of indiscriminate lewd behavior is persistent and very well organized. I do believe however, that no other areas of Central Park offer a more desirable location for them to gather. All the other parking lots in the park have he daily use and are adjacent to residential areas and/or high volume streets. Certainly all other areas in the park are less desirable. Your office may also want to consider thinning out some of the wooded area. Observing and being able to be observed will add to the overall safety and . security of legal park users. Virtually every lewd act occurs in the densely wooded areas or other locations that are out of view. RCA SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Services SUBJECT: APPROVE LOCATION AND HOURS OF OPERATION FOR HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK DOG PARK COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 2002 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Ma .and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance Approved by the City Attome ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement Unbudget, over$5,000 Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS;; REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff �( . Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial G>ity City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM _go- (Below SpaceFor r ' RCA Author Jim B. Engle ...,,HU,NT.I.,NG.TON.,.,.CE.NTRAL.,." ,,., C=D 2L PARK .... ... ... L -- r I i DOG PARK v C-.) .9 rj May 6, 2002 :. City Council ;Meeting .......... EXISTING AND PROPOSED DOG PARK LOCATIONS Propo d Gothold Locatloo Propo Goldem D M On ai Dog ill Park�1 c; Location.--- �i L M. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK LAFE COW UNICM-IONJ { f� !' CURRENT g M . SITE Ink P HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK a • 3 CURRENT SITE Facing northwest from inside Dog Park(south side elevated) A a' a' r 2 � Y d v 4 a p £ d P g` GOTHARD SITE . - Pa PIZ's_as rr � DO 00 L _Pr o ed Dog <=> Par I ocation trt Uatke. duyv) Bond and phttheater a Adv tore Pia:y rrstand Library Distance to Homes: 800 feet Distance to Library: 1,300 feet Distance to Amphitheater 780 feet Distance to Bandstand: 1,066 feet GOTHARD SITE North view from parking lot b ,t 3 i 4 14 ��.� a.A.s`� ci t � �,�C'' �fW �, F i'" 's.>�°t'� 5''"� NO srAAp ?.�t"S*s..4! ri At cj6� pau-=` F ��yyVV 4 r. NN Jh. F+' s t ' l � G={ - it .x.x d �; � »� .�� ��#7t"f t�Y G r 'k` ���r� x�-• +� RAN' �. • uasa p fy`"}yf ■ w ' ' •.mow Q.. Srl}1 ""�, �YE�'_'�"'^+ I �' _ S:,-^d e r F" ,�h i jr'c• t l t to qaL{. -rg, • r�x�,r �( a-.t�� • � t ti ,s° ,�? .fit � � .� .� • • -�3, �'`�,� �1�� r.;s i �$�,.�,�: ''�► � � ''d'�J�;`t j�,ers4"'r L� (t} �`�. .; , N� . �J..�S� � �" � ���'!,-' 2 • ttr�, V���,(1raa�l �y.r �r��r. .�r� , - �; '�r ettc ;. r „�F�.`<� � .��4 ?t � riy Yi� ASt.+F,,r_ �,_„t:-:. _ 1• • w ..i S1 .�3 1• Xi lc �1{�tl L�r r J �� '^^'ar P" 3 a • t���r l { :�^ 3h r,• Yr. t + ti�F r�dZ '� � y� 1' rs � 1 1p R i+, u a "dr r Ar 7txt ��y � .'��'�?���.�,�>��q� e`�r�� � l�k a,+, r r i I � t���ay� �•R'" �'*r' '�i y. ") b...i ��p�3`,,.,.�� .�s*�e."�"�w��•` ��s�`Y�� $r ; G+-� �� L F`� �y A`� c++F +Sjx'f M,M! z �.� � �' '^ 'got' a�'i.'�*• a �`r;phi �r � r ��s s:�t yr,,, . 1 tt+typ yr L 9 .� 48� r �, ft• i'9 s't. }. 31,7 v �cY w � �T i� Wit,•* aye - �} t .c`!? i s* •-*z�°' ,y.'� ' tkiItf {,"•z-'S', ., � ax;-�...� fir. : `�pt�rrt -r>__.as��>�.s•.•:•t�- .,Y Y II t } - :Y �•'1t � (" '`ray. "5. r y .p .sue :• F - _ � t a tea. —yam imi `` F`w m".' - mein= F;t . GOLDENWEST SITE Access on north side from Goldenwest Street n a' n= GOLDENWEST SITE Close to Goldenwest facing south r y f 10 Comparative Analysis of Dog Park Locations Location Current Site Proposed Site on Proposed Site on HCP at Edwards Street Gothard Street Goldenwest Street Park Land Undeveloped(prior to Developed park land Undeveloped park land Designation establishing Dog Park) Dog Park t 1.7 acres;parking existing t 1.7 acres;parking t 1.5 acres;add 0.3 acres Size/Parking existing temporary parking Accessibility Small dog area needs to be Both sections Access from temporary made accessible from parking accessible;parking parking lot will be provided lot;large dog area accessible; lot has curb-cut ramp that is flat and accessible; parking lot has curb-cut ramp parking lot will be dirt but wood chips can be added if needed for dust control Topography Flat section sloping up toward Sloping to south and Relatively flat area the south;woodchip mounds west;basic area on have been added to create top of knoll relatively more varied topography flat. 21 Comparative Analysis of Dog Park Locations (continued) Location Current Site Proposed Site on Gothard Proposed Site on HCP at Edwards Street Street Goldenwest Street Cost of Existing Dog Park;no Estimated$25,000 to be Estimated$3,000 to Relocation cost paid by Foundation;city to $5.000 for temporary assist with removal of fencing for new temporary shrubs to create more open Dog Park and parking space and removal of dead tree branches Distance to 175 feet-Large dog area 800 feet 890 feet to the north; Residents 500 feet-Small dog area 950 feet to the west Noise Impact 9 Some residents on the 6i Staff reviewed noise d•Based on the review west side of Edwards St. impact of a dog show on staff did on Slater Ave.for have complained about homes across Slater Avenue the Gothard site,there noise impact and extrapolated impact should be no significant H Sound study indicates from dog park on residents-- impact due to the distance decibel level of cars on no significant impact. from homes at this GW road is greater than dogs Petition and letters received site. opposing this site—most relate to noise impact on existing park users 22 11 Comparative Analysis of Dog Park Locations (continued) Location Current Site Proposed Site on Proposed Site on HCP at Edwards Street Gothard Street Goldenwest Street Noise Impact d Small Dog area H This side of HCP m This side of HCP impacted (continued) relocated further from impacted already by already by large group, street to reduce noise Scout Jamborees,Civil picnics,disc golf to the south, impact War Re-enactment,and annual Easter Hunt to the d Park users have not dog shows west and other events complained 0-Gothard Street road d Goldenwest road noise noise impacts this site impacts this site. Surrounding North:developed;parking North:parking lot,grass, North:Shipley Nature Center Park lot,open grass/trees,tot trees East:Goldenwest Street lot,restroom;event area East:Gothard St. South:undeveloped park, (dog shows) South:grass/trees; disc golf course East:undeveloped park; amphitheater(780 feet West:undeveloped park, desiltation basin;HCP from Dog Park) grass,trees,and picnic Equestrian Center West Bandstand(1,066 facilities South:undeveloped park; feet from Dog Park); multi-purpose trails(future restroom,walking paths; urban forest) campground;event area West:Edwards St. (dog shows) 23 ® J Comparative Analysis of Dog Park Locations (continued) Location Current Site Proposed Site on Proposed Site on HCP at Edwards Street Gothard Street Goldenwest Street Environmental Water/Runoff:No impact Water/Runoff:No impact Water/Runoff:No impact due Issues due to dry-use. due to dry-use. to dry use. Foundation Foundation supplies Foundation supplies supplies doggie bags for the doggie bags for the public doggie bags for waste public to pick up dog waste to pick up dog waste. pickup. Habitat:U.S.Fish&Wildlife Habitat:No impact Habitat:CA Fish& has indicated no significant Game Dept.indicates no impact on habitat;CA Fish& significant impact on Game requested habitat habitat;U.S.Fish& assessment for potential Wildlife concerned about nesting site of burrowing owls. bird habitat Environmental consultant is in the process of making initial assessment 24 12 Recommended Actions Community Services Commission Recommendation 1. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site with the following revised hours of operation on an Interim basis until the former gun range site can be considered as a permanent site;and direct staff to explore the use of a sound barrier,such as additional vegetation between the Dog Park and Edwards Street and between the parking lot and Edwards Street, Small Do_g_Area Bin Dog Big Allowed inAllowed in Small Dog Area Weekdays 7am-8pm 8am-8pm 7am-8am Weekends 7am-8pm 10am-8pm 7am-10am and, 2. Approve Best Friend Dog Park Foundation signing an operational memorandum of understanding before revised hours are implemented Staff Recommendation 1. Allow Dog Park to remain at its current Edwards Street site until the City Council selects an alternative site. 25 Alternative Actions 1. Relocate Dog Park to the proposed HCP site by the Gothard Street parking lot with the hours of 6:00 a.m.to 7:30 p.m.daily. Foundation to pay all relocation costs and sign memorandum of understanding before accessing site. 2.Relocate Dog Park to the proposed HCP site east of Goldenwest Street between Talbert Avenue and Slater Avenue south of the Shipley Nature Center, with the hours of 6:00 a.m.to 7:30 p.m.daily. Foundation to pay all relocation costs and sign memorandum of understanding before accessing site. 3.Close Huntington Central Park Dog Park 26 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: 09/05/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-031 GJ- ' a Gt'A47,,- o7 -4/u G� -6&0- /W r fh, Gr-elt- M I H t tM u wa �(�� b"Her 5 c re e--79 b et w ee&. 4-iw dos pa rK and 46e 6rs-- •t✓1,& 1 oh 46e Lue5f- ci r'A So k44+ 54 es Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied V City Clerk's Signa ure Council Meeting Date: 09/05/95 Department ID Number: CS 95-031 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION . � r SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS , SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administra C PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services SUBJECT: DOG PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK ' IFStatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment Statement of Issue: Due to public demand, there is a need to consider a location for a permanent dog park area in the city. Funding Source: Not applicable; community will raise the projected $12,000--$15,000 costs for permanent improvements. Recommended Action: Amend the Huntington Central Park Master Plan and designate the dog park area at its current trial location, east of Edwards Street, north of Ellis Avenue in the undeveloped portion of Huntington Central Park; ate— mi ' g-par-k-a n-tha w2 t and --smith skLes Alternative Action(s): 1. Select one of the alternative locations listed in the staff report for the dog park area. 2. Do not designate a dog park area in Huntington Beach Analysis: On November 9, 1994, the Community Services Commission approved a pilot program to identify a location in Huntington Central Park for a dog park. The site selected was east of Edwards Street, north of Ellis at the bottom of Edwards hill. This is an undeveloped section of the park, south of the developed park and parking lot. 0013478.01 -2- 08/16/95 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/05/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-031 This pilot program was a result of public requests including a petition from over 1,000 Huntington Beach residents. Edison Community Park had originally been evaluated as a potential site for the park; however, the commission recommended against that location although it indicated support of the concept of a dog park. The commission concurred with the idea of utilizing a portion of Huntington Central Park. Originally, the dog park was going to be evaluated as part of the Master Plan of Huntington Central Park and then developed with the other recreational amenities in that park. But because the community did not want to wait that long due to uncertainty of public funding, they again approached the city asking for a section of undeveloped land that could be utilized at this time. When commission recommended 1.5 acres at this site for the pilot program, it did indicate that the site would have to be developed and maintained with community donations and manpower. The community banded together into a loosely knit committee referred to as "Friends of Dog Park," and raised over. $5,000 of which a portion has been used to temporarily fence the area and provide the appropriate signs, doggie bags, etc. The dog park pilot program began in March. The program has proven to be extremely popular and well used by dog lovers. They would like to continue to use this site on a permanent basis. The three month trial period ended in June. Parking may be a potential concern. There have been letters from a few residents concerned about the parking and dogs off leash in the developed portion of the park. There has also been concern expressed by equestrians who ride on the horse trail that is located on three sides of the dog park because of the conflict between horses and dogs. Staff originally delineated five alternatives: 1. Leave dog park as is at its current location and in its current configuration. 2. Leave the dog park at its current location, but eliminate the horse trail to the north and west of it, create minimum 20' wide buffer between the dog park and the horse trail on the south, and screen the south side of dog park so horses cannot see dogs. 3. Relocate the dog park on interim basis to the west of the new library parking lot on the undeveloped park proposed for a youth sports complex; and relocate at a future date to the west of Golden West Street at Talbert when that sixteen acre site is developed, including a new parking lot. 4. Determine another .dog park site outside of Huntington Central Park. (Example: Edison Community Park had been previously considered, but was rejected because of impact on surrounding residential development.) 5. Do not designate a location for the dog park. 0013478.01 -3- 08/16/95 2:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/05/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-031 Equestrian Trails, Inc. (ETI) supports the dog park (see attached letter). Mary Bell, EIT Trails Coordinator, indicated their support of Alternative 2. On April 26, the Huntington Central Park Equestrian Center.Boarders Committee conducted its quarterly meeting. The committee felt that, with a buffer area and the elimination of two sections of the horse trail as presented in Alternative 2, both activities (dog park and horse trails) could coexist in the park. This still leaves in question the issue of existing parking because the parking lot only contains fifty spaces. Ultimately, when the park is developed, the plateau area to the south of the dog park will include additional parking; however, parking could be an issue until it is developed. The Park Ranger was asked to survey the parking four times a day from Saturday, April 29, through Sunday, May 14. The following is the result of that survey: 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:00 PM DATE NO.DOGS NO.CARS NO.DOGS NO.CARS NO.DOGS NO.CARS NO.DOGS NO.CARS 29-APR.Sat 6 20 9 15 12 20 9 30 30-APR Sun 9 26 5 16 5 19 16 32 1-MAY 2 6 3 8 4 6 16 18 2-MAY 3 7 4 12 4 8 7 13 3-MAY 2 5 10 18 10 14 17 16 4-MAY 2 5 0 7 5 9 10 15 5-MAY 1 4 2 8 4 10 2 10 6-MAY Sat 15 48 18 28 7 18 12 24 7-MAY Sun 21 43 9 30 22 31 7 13 8-MAY 0 6 3 8 8 10 13 17 9-MAY 3 7 5 16 4 9 16 20 10-MAY 3 9 8 11 5 6 14 18 11-MAY 1 4 3 13 5 9 10 15 12-MAY 2 5 4 12- 3 7 2 10 13-MAY Sat 7 8 12 19 19 23 8 25 14-MAY Sun 1 3 30 7 28 16 32 7 29 The Community Services Commission conducted a public meeting on June 14 to solicit input and evaluate whether the dog park should.continue to operate in Huntington Central Park. It recommended a modified version of Alternative 2 that allows the westerly horse trail to continue to exist with the addition of a 20' buffer. This is the recommendation presented to City Council. The commission also recommended a 7:30 a.m. opening time on Saturdays and Sundays to minimize impact on nearby residents; staff will implement commission's recommendation. Environmental Status: Categorical exemption. See attached memo from Community Development 0013478.01 -4- 08/16/95 2:53 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/05/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-031 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number .................................__.......... _.............................................. 1. Location.map 2. Huntington Central Park Master Plan 9 3 Julie O s su i June 20 memo 9 4. Equestrian Trails Inc. June 14 letter 5. Existing Equestrian uestrian Trail 0013478.01 -5- 08/16/95 2:53 PM b _ r 0 EDWARDS STREET 'y 1 Ir GOLDEN WEST STREET 1 SLATER AVEWAE Land Use Designations Legend c �� Ll — Environmental Sensitive Areas A Amphithea,cr 1°", ;�R r Lmiled de dnpmen,,for puhl c au. AP Adren,.re rla.F.end L< �...• ..... :" -. -�:_ •�1 that does not ad DB Deailuti •<ruly impact on Basin •!���' identified uiemifiq ecological, • • ' HP Dam Recreation/Low Intensity Open spa ol—hetic features. ED Earthen 5 • - _. .� �: GP Gr•n Picnic cullurai }'��• !:f: ' .:; :�.- _ iitll P �' T, 1 • ,.C. _ Handicap Mar Am \ " ":: <•� �"`.Spacedeveloped for lose :f'': `.' `•.<`?:.. © lack Green 7:alure Area intensity or passive-type recreational P Parting cthi _ $, - '•=:' _ 1 aties. R Restaurant Recreation/Medium Intensity YS Youth Sheila open Span developed far • i . medium intentity or semi-active . - recreational saivitia. Recreation/High Intensity '- li lv_yt�vw 2v4_ ���Q 'i. . '"" "..'•.::..,.fit;•= Devdoprd,arm for high l.tatk• .,.,; - .,. t or acthr type recrestioital•ai itin. Thu designation includes structural �F - \ _ �.• \ I and/or support fscRities. 3 s �• O erations ag a1 �= .i. O P set A. TaltTe�t o land aside for maintenance/ • t y --b- .) ® operational facilities. r1. tt[ Symbols !. ..—. — - ,�` 07, • o ,�i. �t • a• Property Lim1 • '-�rf area " •� • {, �,. r • .+-'jT^ I — - ••• Primary Rtcreat;wud Trail v'1 ♦ - - •• •�>` -:: • 'L; - - - - a Therapeutic Riding CenlRw. (\2�\, �\ •�- •. /. ^�\\.i-� �'�' . PROPOSED DOG PARR .•. 1..1 : .�ii►•�••••• �-. :./` � Area�� � ,';::......��� ram, S TEIR A I> — r ( 1<1<It hl Huntington ; ^� ! r+r < ran ecA , g • Lttke s t' h:<:;:z.:. 1 u" 1 _ Transfer Stat' , ..w.w. • a- z. 1 4 1 Su ll y ♦ .,����.•\.` t � _ J> ,47� �F: • :�� \idler ^•i � / �3v r �f ��K_ � � t1¢ . ':�;:�« : ri Lake • i` i � 1 � 1 � - -�• • . t ;; ��'�, Picnic y • r .i._.l -j^, `-:•� �r• •/ fj, - --.i.il �^•+;- • _ -� I t eFrt�r7� ELLS AVE .... \ Master Plan of Recreation Uses CENTRAL PARK N u = S Uaaf(a/1 at(ani(Ntl 0' p 1t0" >00 aa0 Ilan al•a City of Huntington Beach, California (°°'•�°'�`"u=" MASTER PLAN 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jim Engle Deputy Director of Community Services FROM: Julie Osugi Associate Pl er DATE: June 20, 1995 SUBJECT: CEQA PROCESSING FOR THE PROPOSED DOG PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK The establishment of a permanent dog park facility at Huntington Central Park can be exempted from environmental processing under section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This section exempts"Operation, Repair, Maintenance, or Minor Alteration of existing public . . .facilities. . . involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing. . ." The dog park is to be located at the temporary dog park site which is located within the existing boundaries of Huntington Central Park. The proposed permanent facility is of a minor nature, consisting of the installation of fencing and landscaping to restrict a 1.5-2 acre portion of the park for dogs. The plan includes replacement of an existing trail to the north of the side of the existing temporary dog park through widening and formalizing (i.e., scraping) of an existing informal equestrian trail which runs along the south side of the existing temporary facility and planting of a 20 foot wide landscape area to provide a buffer between the dog park and the trail. The project will be served by existing parking and does not involve any grading or construction of any structures (other than the fence) or utilities. It is clear that the project is of a minor nature and will not have any significant impact on the environment. Please note that although the dog park is of a minor nature which allows it to be exempted from CEQA processing, it should not be construed that further segmentation of each of the subsequent park facilities would also be acceptable under CEQA. Planning still maintains that CEQA review which addresses the entire park master plan is the most appropriate process for the park and is concerned that separate processing of larger individual park facilities may be inconsistent with CEQA. If you have any questions on the above information,please contact me at extension 5274. xc: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Linda Niles, Senior Planner gAosugAdogprk.doc 47", Yom CENTURY RIDERS CORRAL NO. 100 P. 0. BOX 2303 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 02847 A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION Oodicatod to Equlno Loglilatlon and tho Acquisition ORGANIZED 1944 and Prosorvatlon o/ Riding and Hiking Trails June 14, 1995 Mr. Ron Hagan Community Seruices Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main 'Street Huntington Beach, CR 92648 RE: Equestrian concerns about the Dog Park in Huntington Central Park Dear Mr. Hagan: We in the Huntington Beach Corral of Equestrian Trails, Inc., understand that a few people who board at the Huntington Beach Equestrian Center haue raised concerns regarding the Dog Park in Huntington Central Park, west of the Equestrian Center. Rs we understand it, some riders feel that there is a serious conflict between the dog facility and the nearby equestrian trail We further understand that this will be discussed by the Community I Seruices Commission at its next meeting. We are writing this letter as long . time .representatives of the equestrian interests in the City to bring some other thoughts to your attention regarding this matter. The dog.facility is a welcome addition to the recreation opportunities .we haue in this City. It is not a problem to trail riders for the following reasons: L. Experienced equestrians will either soon accustom their horses to the nearby dog actiuity if they use the. adjacent trail, or they will use an alternate, trail. Our experience. indicates that this works quite well. 2. The perception some riders may haue that trail options are becoming limited is not accurate. Now that highway construction on Golden West is completed, the perimeter trail will be restored along Mr. Ron Hagan June 14, 1995 Page Two with landscaping improuements. This will allow the currently closed- off trail ends near Golden West to be reconnected. The long and arduous process of establishing a permanent trail system in the Park and the adjacent Quarter Section has been a success. This system offers outstanding trail riding opportunities to our citizens. Such opportunities haue been lost in most other communities in this part of Orange County as they,have developed. 3. -Hauin,g equestrian trails in Central Park -has always been with the understanding that °compromises would need to The worked out where trails and other appropriate uses of the Park are near each other. This is an example of that situation. 4. It may be that some. minor modifications to the dog facility would- be an asset: screening, along the fence line for example. These things can be easily worked out if necessary. Most equestrians are uery grateful for the excellent trail system we haue available to us. We would not want .you or other City officials to think that the equestrian community supports elimination of another beneficial recreation use such as the Dog Park. We do not -believe that is the case. I would be pleased to discuss this further with you or the Community Seruices Commission if you haue any questions or comments regarding the ETI position. I can be reached- at (7t4) 962-2045. Sincerely, Mar L. Bell Trail Coordinator ETI Corral 100 �'�1LJl.n.h+LrJ\.JW Q�/�L1tJU�.+v .� •�.--�L'%',�!.._r=.•�;�� legend " N00 EMSTWO EOUESTRIAH TRAIL SYSTEMW. I TALSE"'�LAKE•/ AS OF OCTOBER 19Ob 83 Jcm .� PROPERTY LINE OF CENTRAL PARK f � �-++��y,t ,l ')� , , '�!"•Q� / .O �.� AREA OF POTENTIAL ACOW&T10N POffT OF REFERENCE - " ^ . T/\�: -� ( T t&I' •Y J �s ` t _ I HI NTNGTON LAKE / ^-T I © � •'?` , .ac;���'.,�-.:'.;`-rycr' � is l\ • `� 00 \`ems:..::. U ____ • � tfit `F? ►EADOV/S* * *HORSE WOR D STARES ETA8lJM Mo FARMTAHLE ' *OCZANVEW STABLES EXISTING EQUESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM 1995 Mayor Leipzig City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C;;y r; 0;_r- RE: Dog Park Dear Mayor Leipzig: I would like to express my concerns about the dog park that you will be voting on next Monday,Aug. 21, and R's resultant, reduction in horse trails. I feel that there are better ways of having the dog park within the horse trail without eliminating any trail. The recommendation from the community services committee proposes to remove the horse trail on the north side of the park and move the entire dog park 20 ft. north. Why does the dog park,which can be located anywhere, need to displace any horse trail? That trail has been there at least 16 years, and from the information I got from Jim Engle,it was constructed with some type of grant money. What sort of legalities and precedent are involved with this conversion? There is a limited amount of area in which one can horse back ride in this city,and I feel that maintaining the establish trail system Is very important. The trail that is along the north side of the dog park provides some .of the best level,tree lined trail in the park. Also the trails are non-exclusive to horses,with jogger,cross country.runners,bikers and dog owners sharing the trails with the equestrian. The dog park proposal from the community services committee removes the trail from the north side of the dog park, but does it address improving the 'replacement" trail on the south side? That trail is not an improved trail but one that exist on the remnants of an old asphalt road. If the south trail Is to be improved in quality,to replace the removed north trail,who will pay for the regrading and the removal of the asphalt? The cost of this regrading should come from the dog park funds and not from city funds. At the community services committee meeting, much was made of the fact that P00 people signed a petition fro the dog park and they raised$5000.towards establishment of the park. I understand from Jim Engle that it will take between $10,000 to$12,000 to establish a permanent park. What happens if the dog community can't raise the funds? What if they can't maintain the park? What standards are required for the dog park landscaping and erosion control? These questions were not addressed at the community services committee meeting. Currently,the dogs.that use that park have completely denuded the vegetation. Since about 26%of the dog park is on a slope,what happens when it rains? There seems to be no aesthetic standard for the dog park It's not hard to imagine an old couch and a derelict auto to complete the picture. Also I've noticed that fewer people are using the dog park. When it first opened, one could find 20 to 30 dogs at a time using the park Now it is rare to see more than ten dog there with the average number more like 3 to 4. On a recent Saturday afternoon there where no dogs there from 1:00pm to 4:15pm. It is more common place now to see the park empty that full. Is the community showing a need for this park? Are the dog owners showing that they can support this? How can this park be self sustaining with reduced support? At the Huntington Central Park Equestrian Center were I board my horse, there are about 360 horses. These boarders spend a total of about$100,000 per month inboard alone there. I feel that the Page 2 Dog Park equestrian community, even though it's smaller than the number of dog owners, does have a big economic impact on this city. Lets not punish the horse community by removing horse trails. At the current moment, HCPEC is at the fullest it has been in years and the trails around the stable are on import reason it is. As a solution to the problems as I see them. I propose the following: 1) Maintain the trail on the north side of the dogpgrk. This keeps trail developed with grant money and it also provides the option of those who's horses are not bothered by barking dogs to ride in that area. 2) Move entrance to doa nark closer to entrance from parking lot, This provides less time for the dogs cross the trail. 3) Move south side of dog park 15 to 20 feet north. This eliminates a potential erosion problem for the slope in that area and provide a large buffer zone for the horse trail on the south side. A buffer zone that size,along the south trail,will be a safe alternative for those whose horses that might have a problem along the north trail with barking dogs. 4) Eliminate the proposed screened visible barrier on the south fence of the dog park. Horses general are more predictable when they have an opportunity to see 'danger" coming than to react to unknown sounds. 5) Regrade and remove asphalt from south trail. This provides a quality trail alternative for those trail users who may have problems with their horses along the confined north trail. B) EoblM ea_sthetic standard for the dog park. the dog park in its current location is very visible form Edwards Street and is in my opinion it is the worst looking section of central park. 7) Place signs reminding people about the leash law around the dog park., Since the Introduction of the dog park, many more unleashed dogs are In the area around the dog park, including the adjacent playground. These 7 point create a compromise that benefits dog owner tip horse rides tW all others who used the park. It maintains and improves upon the trail system. it provides safe alternative routes for the equestrian. It maintain the dog park in it's current location with a small reduction in total area which is more manageable for the do community both economically and environmentally. And my oompromised can assure that the dog park benefits more than one group. I urge you to please take a look at the proposal that you will vote on. Dogs can be anywhere in this city (Including their own section of beach).but we only have a limited area to ride. There Is no reason for one group to lose out to another group when a solution to benefit everyone is so simple. Yours truly, Jeff Lace 17151 Friml Ln. i Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i (714) 840-4476 (Home) (714)898-2776 (Work) HCPEC Stall K9&K10 WES - �. A v eLO Pc0 C CA.)Tft A L PA R.r ! 3 �u�y y' � PrdPosc� f �ar�� t3�►da��•es �• ° LA ICL v! - _ IA A i n P1GRYH TRAIL wtA1tj S-zo Pr 7-;;,A S irto P C Ir . In��p rENGt C�aI 7"'l�YL Psi K. -\ a �C V E L.a Pea i CCr)TRAL Pro fZbb t —1D 0& PA R Y+-- CflmVOOAJ I r y S61ZVI Po s W L PAp BaoupARiEs Hogs TRAIiaeis • a LA t�L: CKY 3L.oPI _rNA WSiTtory nrs ja l p, -SC 2 E•EAJ v rS O S W R, H I L L_ Sp��� rRA I L 46 .�. �,3c7o C r.EA)Ct 0-Ai 3e,uc LoPet� r �oMES C n1TRoAl..,. PAklo[ 3 � —1DDG PART—. CvRRZ,ENTL`/ }�oRsr- 7R+�i� ••• • N Q LAk "1 ?AR Wood TIt r"AtN A I La SL.cdPtF 't'!�FlI�SlTto �OCr Fes. Se olvin _.. .. WCTO o U AU 3F,V6 t_o P6 t,' Pi4 EZ.k1 CO PMf NT INSt WA D wp • Post-It"brand fax trL .nittal memo 7679 #"payee. 7 To C i ft C0 V V%C l From his F F (.,Acres ce. co. DeP• Phone# SYO �f76 $qSw .k City Council City of Huntington BeachJ: -' ��• �� U I Fax 536-5233 RE: Agenda item F-3 51995 Dear Ma or Councilmembers o` ° A y I C;I IY COc�?sl t�_ OF1=!Cc,- I encourage you to please review item F-3 for tonight's city council meeting. I feel that.the proposed elimination of horse trail along the north side of the dog park neither benefits the dog park or the equestrians who use the limited park trail system. When the dog park was first introduced, there was conflict with the horses using the trail system. In that first month of the dog parks existence, community services came up with the idea of eliminating the north trail in order to resolve the problem by removing the horses. Over the past 6 months, the dog park has become, for the most part, a non problem for the horse and rider who use that area. This has happened for the following reasons 1. Dogs and horses are more accustomed to each other. 2. Horse owner are more aware of their limitations. 3. Dog owner are more respectful of horse and rider. 4. Peak dog park use hours occur approximately around the HCP Equestrian Center feeding times. (i.e. fewer horses out on the trails at that time ). 5. Fewer dogs use the dog park in comparison to when it first opened. In the Huntington Central Park there is an extremely limited amount of dedicated equestrian trail to be used by the over 400 horses in this city. Currently the equestrian trail east of the HCP Equestrian Center has been removed for three years due to the construction on Goldenwest St. This means that the trails north and south of HCPEC now dead end at Goldenwest, which inturn limits their appeal in comparison to other areas of trail within the park. Right now, the best section of level trail with good footing (and tree lined) is the section proposed to be removed for the dog park. Please review item F-3. I feel that if the north trail along the dog park is maintained and a 10 - 15 foot buffer is placed between the dog park and the south trail, this would best serve the equestrians who use that area with out impacting the dog park users. Page 2 con't I've included in this fax the letter that I sent you in mid August giving greater detail to my thoughts including some comparison maps. Please give some consideration to this issue, for the equestrian trails are an extremely limited resource for Central Park and the loss of that section of trail would do a disservice to the community. Thank you for your interest. Yours truly, ,1 Jeff Lace 17151 Friml Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 840-4476 Home (714) 898-2776 Work HCPEC Stall K9 &K10 I