My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
121996
ConejoRPD
>
Public Access
>
Archive
>
Board Meetings
>
Minutes
>
1996
>
121996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2016 4:51:09 PM
Creation date
8/15/2016 4:50:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board
Date
12/19/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Minutes 12-19-96 <br />Page 2 <br />It was moved by Berger, seconded by Holt, and carried <br />unanimously, 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar as <br />presented. <br />7. DEFERRED MATTERS <br />A. Authorization To Remove Triunfo Park From Consideration <br />As A Site For A Leash Free Dog Area And Discussion Of The <br />General Concept Of The Provision Of Such Areas <br />Sorensen highlighted the project's background and <br />relevant details, including its conceptual approval on <br />June 13, 1996, as part of the Capital Improvement <br />Projects, the involvement and support of the Park and <br />Park group, the polarization of opinion and opposition <br />to the Triunfo Park location, correspondence with <br />homeowners' associations in the area, the research <br />conducted by staff, the subsequent development criteria <br />identified, the application of the new criteria to <br />Triunfo Park, and the resultant conclusions reached. He <br />said that Park Planner Welty was present to answer <br />questions. <br />Summarizing, Sorensen said that staff concluded that the <br />site is not appropriate to the concept and staff is, <br />therefore, recommending that Triunfo Park no longer be <br />considered as a potential site for a "dog park". He said <br />that staff is seeking Board direction, the project <br />remains a priority B item on the Capital Improvement <br />Projects list, and it is staff's intent to present for <br />Board consideration and approval at a later date, <br />specific development criteria to help identify, with <br />greater clarity, the suitability of other sites for a <br />"dog park", if that is the Board's direction. <br />In response to Board inquiries, Sorensen said that <br />research indicates that "dog parks" are twice as busy on <br />weekends as during the week, "dog parks" are not <br />generally located next to residential areas, dogs <br />escaping from a fenced area is generally not a problem, <br />some noise problems have been reported, site acreage <br />varies, it is generally difficult to find acceptable <br />sites, a variety of ground covers are used, the average <br />"dog park" visit lasts one hour, staff is unsure at this <br />time if Edison Electric Company's "prudent avoidance" <br />recommendation regarding easements would be applicable <br />to a "dog park", and "dog park" usage is both a social <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.