Dog Park – Right Idea, Wrong Place
by Dale Tyler

At the recent October 5, 2009, the City Council approved a dog park costing at least $258,000 at Oso Viejo Park by a 3-2 vote (Schlicht, Ledesma – NO). The entire council favored the dog park, but the location caused two of the council pause. At that meeting and all subsequent meetings there has been a significant community outcry against locating a dog park at that location. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the site have been overwhelmingly opposed as well as a number of users of the existing soccer field and trails at Oso Viejo Park who feel their use of the park will be restricted by the dog park.

In fact, locating a dog park at this location is contrary to the guidelines set out in the siting report. It stated that a dog park should not be located near a) residences; b) schools and c) existing youth sports fields, but Oso Viejo Park is immediately adjacent to all three prohibited uses. Yet, this item was introduced by Lance MacLean on October 5. What made this even more remarkable is that there was to be a public meeting about possible dog park locations the following week. Why all the hurry to get a dog park approved and sited?

One only need look to another agenda item for the October 5 meeting. Item #16, the certification of the petition to Recall Lance Maclean. Over 13,900 signatures were gathered demanding the recall and the item was to certify the petition. It passed 4-1 (MacLean – NO). Was MacLean looking to divert attention and possibly persuade dog park supporters to give him their vote? Whatever his intent, it seems to have backfired, as neighbors around Oso Viejo Park who were excluded from the siting process by various means, including a failure to provide proper notice of the dog park to be located mere feet from their homes are now quite angry with MacLean and the city. It just shows how out of touch MacLean, the city staff and the dog park committee were with the real needs of the community.

Lets talk about the $258K cost approved as well. Similar parks in other cities have been built for less money. Also because of the Mission Viejo “project inflation” policy, this park's cost will exceed $500K. Almost every project of any size planned and built by the city in the past 10 years exceeded 200% of the initially proposed costs. This is because the council and staff, nervous about public approval of new projects, low-ball items to get them passed, then raises the cost by adding extras frills and other expensive elements to what is already a “gold-plated” project. Consider the $500K toilet recently built in a city park. The toilet and structure cost more than many houses in the city. This dog park will suffer the same fate.

I think a modest, reasonably priced dog park would be a great addition to our city. While I am unsure about the proper cost of a properly sited park, in this location all that is needed is some chain link fencing with a double gated “airlock” to prevent escapes of non-leashed dogs as new dogs enter. My guess is less than 50K would be enough for this project. Given about 1,300 lineal feet of fencing and a few gates, plus running a drinking water line into the park area, that $50K seems more than generous. Projects don't have to be fancy to be useful, despite what the city staff may think. They need to learn that providing a useful facility is more important than making a shrine to their design skills and trying to win awards from other city staff.

However, as mentioned earlier, Oso Viejo Parks is the wrong place for the dog park. It is too close to the homes around it, too close to the middle school and to close to the sports fields. The only thing it has going for it is somewhat available parking. There are at least two other city owned sites that would be suitable. The first is at Lower Curtis Park, located at the city limits on Olympiad near LaPaz. This area is currently used as a storage facility for dirt and other debris. It is lower than the street and faces Ladera Ranch, so any noise would be directed away from the homes on the other side of Olympiad. There is no school nearby and the adjacent sports fields at Curtis Park are physically separated by a very steep embankment. The only problem is parking and disabled access. However, a small parking lot could be built at the bottom of the access road and there is street parking on Olympiad. The cost of the parking lot and paving the access road could raise the cost above that of the “fake” $258K proposed for Oso Viejo Park location, but I would estimate that an aggressive bid for doing the needed work at Lower Curtis Park would come in less than $400K, not counting the cost of removing the trash that has been illegally dumped there for years by city contractors and staff.

The other possible site is near the City Animal Shelter. That site is even better than Lower Curtis, with a small parking lot already in place and no adjacent homes, schools or youth parks. The parking lot is small and would likely have to be expanded to serve the needs of the new dog park and the existing animal shelter. Our City Animal Shelter is largely staffed by local volunteers that do a wonderful job of caring for animals abandoned by their owners or found running loose, possibly injured, in our city. These fine people give of themselves to help the animals get well and find new homes. The people of Mission Viejo owe the Animal Shelter volunteers a heartfelt “Thank You” for the work they do. Unfortunately, some of the city staff and a few self-appointed leaders of the Animal Shelter have taken a “I am Master of all I Survey” position and oppose a dog park near the animal shelter. Reasons given for this position are that animals injured at the dog park might be brought to the shelter for assistance, inadequate parking and possible upset to the animals housed at the Animal Shelter. The first seems quite disingenuous by the self-appointed leaders, given the stated intent to care for animals. I would have thought that having a place nearby for animals and their owners to recreate would be pleasing to the so-called leaders at the shelter. In fact, having a dog park next door would provide a place for the shelter animals to become socialized and a way for pet owners to get tips from volunteers on animal care. It might even be a source for more shelter volunteers as people see the fine work being done at the shelter.

Parking would likely need to be expanded to serve both the dog park and the shelter. This would raise the cost to something like the figure for Lower Curtis, but since an access road is already in place, the costs might be lower. If the city staff and so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter could somehow put aside their proprietary “we can't put a dog park near our shining facility” attitude and consider the needs of the community as a whole, they would see that either the Lower Curtis or the Animal Shelter locations make sense, with the Animal Shelter location being better due to opportunities for socialization with sheltered dogs, immediate help for injured animals, tips to dog owners from knowledgeable shelter volunteers and exposure to the animal shelter's facility and volunteers, possibly resulting in more volunteers and help for the Animal Shelter.

Finally, let me say that I never have and never will advocate for the Animal Shelter to be turned over to the County of Orange. I have been critical of the costs in constructing the shelter and additions over the years, because like every project in the city, gold-plated extras were added by Council, staff and the so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter. We could have had a facility that we could all have been proud of for much less than the citizens of Mission Viejo have spent to date on the Animal Shelter and because of that savings an even larger facility could have been built, if needed over time. The so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter have undermined public support for the very project they claim to hold dear by their greedy attitude. Nonetheless, there are many people who unselfishly volunteer their time to care for the animals and these people's work engender the support of the community.