Phase 1A of the Essig Park project includes a 1.5-acre dog park fenced for large and small dogs. That project has begun this month, and some residents are unhappy about the design decisions. The town is reseeding the dog areas for grass, but the section under scrutiny is the walkway next to the fence, particularly on the small dog park side. The small dogs love to play with the big dogs and chase them back and forth along that section. The plans called for concrete during the design phase with consideration to maintenance, who said the current aggregate materials or grass would be too hard to maintain. The cement sidewalk is also a consideration for dog owners with mobility issues.
Resident and dog owner Myra Kennedy told me she was told by Town Council members since February that there would not be cement in the dog areas. She now feels betrayed.
In an interview, Deputy Manager Shane Stueckle said, “The path inside the small and large dog areas at Essig Park called for those walkways to be concrete. The original plans for the park called for those walkways to be concrete. In the winning bid, the project came in over budget, and as part of the town’s cost reduction efforts to bring that in line with the budget, the concrete walkways were eliminated and replaced with decomposed granite. That has been a maintenance headache for the park’s maintenance personnel since day one when the park was opened and operational. So, the plan from town staff’s perspective on the park maintenance side has always been that those would be concreted at some point.”
Stueckle added that the town council members had differing views regarding whether it should be concrete as they went through the review process.
The complaint owners have is that the concrete path will burn the small dog’s feet during the hot months. The Yucca Valley VCA Animal Hospital confirmed that burnt paws are a problem, and the dogs don’t always know they are being burnt. The hospital has seen many dogs with damaged pads and suggested owners get booties for their dogs. Since the aggregate can also be abrasive and add to the problem, owners must be educated and encouraged to protect their dogs from rising temperatures. The reseeding of the grass section will be a great relief, but residents are still looking for the areas next to the fences to be concrete-free.
According to Stueckle, the concrete inside dog parks is a standard design, and public agencies put concrete into dog parks for dog owners to enjoy while their animals are there. In addition, animals often dig up the fence line, trying to get from one side to the other, turning up the slats in the fence, and creating other maintenance issues for the park’s personnel. Stueckle added, “The town desires to cut back on what they call fence fighting because it causes problems for the park infrastructure.”
Kennedy said she had never seen or heard of a dog digging at that fence. She has also said she and her group have come up with suggestions to solve the problem, but the next day, after talking to Stueckle, the concrete pathway was being poured.
The concrete walkway is not the only design problem. The small dog park needs to be bigger for the amount of dog owners and dogs that go there daily.
Stueckle said, “I heard there were up to 20 [protesters], and about seven or eight came down here to our building, and we had probably a 45-minute conversation with them. And the two primary points of our discussion that they at least expressed to us was the fence line issue. And number two, the small dog park area is too small. And so, we’ve gone to the site and looked. We are evaluating a couple of alternative ways of enlarging the small dog park area to make it more accommodating for the number of people currently attending and using that facility. So that was that was the kind of the result of their coming down to the office on Monday morning and having a conversation with us and now us trying to figure out how we can make it a better and more usable facility for those for those small dog owners.”
It’s important to note that the Town of Yucca Valley encourages discourse, and public attendance at their meetings goes a long way. It takes time to change a design once approved. Changes cannot be arbitrary, and often, the issues will take comprehensive discussions and investigation before putting it on the agenda. The town’s focus is on making the best choices for the largest number of people. Stueckle has clearly emphasized that town staff cannot get involved with Governance.
In the case of Essig Park, there were opportunities for residents to express their opinions in meetings. Very few people came. Surveys were taken by town staff, and the consensus of concrete or no concrete came in mixed. Kennedy said, “they were told there was no concrete, so why go?”
At this time, the concrete path cannot be changed, but the town is working on correcting the problem of the size of the small dog park. Stueckle said they were working on it, and it may be something that can be accomplished with the current contractor. The Town seems generally interested in making the right decision and continuing to be open to public input. Myra Kennedy received an invitation from Stueckle through Doug Lothes, Administrative Assistant for Community Development and Public Works, to meet for 15 minutes on Monday morning at the park. Stueckle will introduce a “small concept” to the residents and receive their input. In Lothe’s email, he said it is still preliminary and an excellent time to receive their thoughts.
The more public participation the town receives as the project is being developed, the easier it will be to get a project with which most people are happy.
