.
Feedback

Mission Viejo Dog Park Wags Forward

Bids will be collected for a new dog park on Felipe Road.

Some were wagging, others barked.

The controversial dog park plan first proposed nearly 10 years ago is moving forward for bidding following a Monday night city council decision.

A location just south of Gilleran Park was approved in January 2011 for a large dog area, a small dog area, a single dog area, a gravel parking lot for 42 vehicles, fencing and turf. With Monday's vote, the location will be walked with construction companies in January to aid the bidding process.

Here's how the vote went down:

In Favor Against Frank Ury Rhonda Reardon Trisha Kelley Cathy Schlicht Dave Leckness

Councilwoman Schlicht raised objections to the plan, including the possibility of rattlesnakes on the site that borders natural brush. She said she would have preferred repurposing existing city parks for dogs.

"We could have had a dog park months ago for less cost," she said.

Mayor Ury said the city used 10 criteria to choose the location for the dog park, including proximity to homes. He said other locations did not meet the criteria.

"An unbelievably long amount of time was spent looking at every park in Mission Viejo," he said. "No other sites exist that work. No other sites are going to work."

Inside City Hall dog park supporters outnumbered detractors. Several showed support by wearing blue t-shirts.

Here are some comments from the public:

  • "In the future I think we'll all be very proud of that park." Walter Halagarda
  • "The dog owners are asking for a facility that will cost over $2 million. It's an entitlement not in our master plan and it should not be paid for by taxpayers." Harry Lensik
  • "We have 47 parks for people. It's time to have one park for people who also happen to have dogs." Dan Avery
  • "I changed my mind about this dog park. In 2008 I had reservations, but today, no more." Sharon Cody
  • "Instead of sitting around blathering on your cell phones you could be walking (on a city trail). Everything this city has built has been double the cost, sometimes close to triple." Dale Sandore
  • "I'm kind of embarassed our residents are going to other cities for a dog park. That cost increase, there's a reason for it. It's not because we want gold-seated toilets or something." Anna T. Boyce

Now that bidding has been approved, here is a timeline for the dog park:

  • Dec. 14: Advertise for bids
  • Jan. 10, 10 a.m.: Mandatory pre-bid walkthrough at the site for potential builders
  • Jan. 22: Bids due
  • Feb. 18: Contract awarded
  • March 4: Construction begins (120 working days)
Sandra Stipp December 4, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Thank you to those who want the dog park. We have needed one for so long and now it is going to happen. Happy days.
Dan Avery December 4, 2012 at 03:30 pm
I'd like to say a great BIG thank you to the entire Sellers Family! They were terrific! Hunter wants to say thanks also: http://bit.ly/SK7bIt
LoveDogs December 4, 2012 at 03:44 pm
So excited the dog park finally got approved! Well done MV, we won't have to go to Irvine now!
Laney December 5, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I am so excited about the dog park! I have been taking my dogs to the Irvine and Dana Point dog parks for so long! It'll be great to have a place near home to take the dogs and get their energy out! Counting the days until it's finished!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Greg Raths announced for Congress
Shripathi Kamath June 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
"As a Republican, he will go head to head with our current incumbant [sic]" Wait, areRead More there no other contenders? John Webb on the Republican side might run, and then there was that Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang fella, who finished second. The more the merrier. The more diversity in the views, even better. I would like to hear from contenders how they would vote differently on some of the votes the incumbents have cast. Because all too often we have "an independent minded Republican" or a "progressive reformer" or "Heck, I am BATMAN himself" only to have disappointing regurgitation of ideology of what should not be done ("low taxes", "freedom", "family values", "apple pie, motherhood"). Not what will be done. And until we have that, corporate monies shall determine our representative. I mean I can imagine Mr. Raths voting for the 45th time to repeal Obamacare, but seriously, which vote that John Campbell cast would be different if Mr. Raths were in office? If 90% of the positions are the same, it looks like a remarkable coincidence that an independent thinker is so like the incumbent, does it not? Mr. Raths did offer an 'independent' idea endorsing civil unions but not gay marriage. Cool. Is he going to sponsor a bill for civil unions? Or simply insist on enforcing DOMA because "sanctity of marriage", "religious liberty". How about H.R. 1797? How about the Gang of 8 bill on immigration if it passes the Senate and comes to the House? Will his vote be different than that of Mr. Campbell's? That is the key question. But again, I welcome Mr. Raths entry in the field, we need more variety, and if we cannot get that, we at least need more people willing to run. Good luck to you, sir.
Gregory Raths June 19, 2013 at 05:30 pm
I've talked with both John Webb & Sukhee Kang and they have indicated they will not be runningRead More in 2014. I do welcome all entries into the 2014 race. GREG RATHS
Human Options' Cristi Dugger
Peter Schelden (Editor) June 19, 2013 at 09:29 am
Uncanny timing—this is especially poignant in light of this announcement:Read More http://alisoviejo.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/elder-sexual-abuse-caregiver-suspect-arrested
M June 19, 2013 at 07:32 am
Anymore info on this place? When I looked online the only location is vista, ca
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.