Park plan allows dogs room to run
March 04, 2010, 03:57 AM By Bill Silverfarb
San Mateo opened up sections of four parks for dogs to roam off-leash Monday, although wet weather has kept the city’s Parks and Recreation Department from allowing the use of the fenced run at Los Prados Park.
Fitzgerald Field at Central Park, Chanteloup Field at Beresford Park and a fenced run at the Bayside-Joinville park are now available for dogs to roam off-leash in a year-long pilot program.
Parks and Recreation Director Sheila Canzian said the fenced run at the southwest corner of Los Prados Park will open when the rain subsides.
Read more...
48 comments:
I don't much about the "dog park issue" other than it's been bandied about for a while. Is there a specific site in mind for the park?
Last I heard the area near the Sanchez Art Center was going to be the dog park, but I haven't heard anything about it for what seems like a year.
The EIR is in process, plus POOCH is fundraising. Please attend "Dog Days" in Frontierland Park, May 1st. Hope to see you there.
Mary Ann
Wow, they need an EIR for a dog park?
Thanks for the info, Mary Ann.
Got an email from Jeff saying he'll be a Texas Senator before this dog park gets approved. The way Dog Parks are handled in San Bruno: 1) the city provides the space, 2) the city provides maintenance and upkeep.
Compare the "dog park" process to most everything else Pacifica. For example: Little Brown Church, our museum, our 21st century library.
On the list of priorities for city spending, where would you put the cost of maintenance and upkeep for a dog park? Even if it doesn't cost much, given the state of the city's budget, something would have to give to add this.
What would you choose to spend less on to pay for this?
Which park land would you choose to dedicate to this?
Why are you concerned about detailed issues outside your consideration unless you work in the city budget office at the level of such decision making Richard.
I would choose to have a city with at minimum "average" services. Advancement toward that end has not been happening here for 8 years. However, City council has funded several "pet projects", so why not this one for 17-22% of the population who are dog owners?
Now you want to put the "dog park" on park land, as in GGNRA park land--another great idea Richard! I'm sure GGNRA is waiting for your phone call suggestion.
Kathy, you were the one who posted the article that said, "San Mateo opened up sections of four parks for dogs to roam off-leash..."
If you aren't suggesting that dog parks use existing park land, where are you suggesting they go? I didn't suggest any particular area (GGNRA or otherwise). I was asking what you have in mind.
And why get into details? Because it's all too easy to wave around the magic wand of "the city oughta". I'm curious whether you have something in mind, or are just complaining. By the way, I'm not the only one wondering where dog parks might go. Bark Nuggets asked, too, and Steve didn't know.
Further, you want to add a service. That costs money. What would you cut?
You mention "pet projects" (I take it you didn't care for them). Would you start there?
If you're willing to demand services, it only seems fair that you might suggest how the city might fund it.
The last I heard was the DEIR was for the back east side of Sanchez School aka: Sanchez Artists Center. Actually Richard, the article above was posted by Steve Sinai, and it was a posted article not a professional opinion. You mentioned "park land", so I merely continued your thought.
In the land of no vision, the "magic economic wand" belongs to the city lead by city council for the benefit of all the people, 8 years = failure. Budget meetings will be held in April, you are welcome to ask your endless, meaningless, seemingly unformed questions then. Until a pro-economic city council is elected, there will be more of the same. Call that complaining, well okay.
The plan I heard last year was that the city would provide the land near the Sanchez Art Center. POOCH would then pay for a fence around the area and maintain the site. Mary Ann alluded to fund-raising by POOCH, so I'd guess they're trying to raise money for the fence.
If it was the city's responsibility to pay for maintaining the dog park, then I'd be against it until the city's financial state improved.
Steve, of course, we don't live in San Bruno, we live in Pacifica-- and this year we're broke, but then every year we're broke.
Except, here's some of the "okay to pay" expenses from city council: San Pedro trail (passed 12/08), $100,000, bike trail last spring 09, about $85,000. The ongoing 75% subsidy + free utilities at Sanchez Artist Center (over the life time expense, about $2 million). Free parking and surfer showers, skate park, senior center. Biodiesel project 4 years in the making plus aftermath, in total about $4-5 million. Beach front city hall 2 DEIRS $280,000, various other "studies" including cost to tax Pacificans (Measure D), priceless.
There never has been any interest for the city to fund or maintain a dog park, not when this project began a few years ago-- or, years ago when an off-leash running area was proposed.
The trail funding, was that part of what someone mentioned earlier was Measure A funds? Could that have been used for a dog park?
Maybe we have different views on it, but
Cutting off free parking and the skate park would be really popular.
Providing land isn't free, but it does sound like the land near Sanchez is an asset the city has and is willing to commit to this purpose. If they've worked out a public/private partnership so it can happen even when resources are strained, that's a good thing, right?
Measure A money for Highway 1 was spent on trails over several years, however the money I mentioned above came out of the city general fund (operations).
No one suggest cutting-off anything, although from city council tonight looks like Linda Mar beach parking fees will happen.
This city simply needs more money to function. More land to function would also be helpful, but this city council apparently didn't think so and helped remove city land. As Mayor Digre said at her "State of the City" speech (1/16) "the more open space is better". Apparently 60% is not enough.
The city instituted a leash law about 8 years ago, but the other side of that equation: no dog park. Dogs need socialization and exercise, most dogs need an off-leash location where they can run and play. Considering the geography and size of this city, a few to several of these locations would be appropriate. Currently dogs do run and play off-leash on the beach, good for the health of the dog, but illegal because of the leash law.
Currently parks and expensive trails over miles of unproductive "open space" exist for humans, but no place for dogs. Again these dogs belong to tax paying citizens who live here, about 17-22% of the population.
Unproductive sure is a negative way to look at it.
Open space is good for people who use it. It's restorative, it's good for exercise (human and canine), and it brings in visitors (some of whom even bring their wallets). The Chron is constantly writing about our open spaces as destinations, like in this recent article.
Oh "open space" for canines? You might want to bring that idea into a GGNRA meeting. GGNRA = anti-dog.
The "open space" in Pacifica is unproductive. Now you may want to call mentioning that fact "negative", but even Marin county is smart enough to have farms or crops in their "open space". And, the unincorporated area going south to Half Moon Bay and beyond is a farming/growing area. Pacifica? Well we've got snakes that eat frogs. BTW, did you support the productive "open space" golf course?
Without money, this city doesn't function well enough. There are tons of examples, one that comes to mind immediately is that a woman almost died from electrocution a few months back because electric utilities in this city have not all been undergrounded, and a live overhead wire connected with her auto. She had enough sense to not attempt to get out of the car and called from her cell phone for help.
Open space can be a good thing, but sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. Land given over to open space doesn't really bring in much money. If it did, the city would be rich.
What we've done by allocating so much of Pacifica's land to open space is we've left too little land available for tax-revenue producing commercial entities that can contribute to the city's finances.
Land given over to open space doesn't really bring in much money. If it did, the city would be rich.
I'd rephrase that. If the city knew how to capitalize on it, the city would enjoy additional revenue.
Someone did a study in Half Moon Bay. They examined the economic impact of the people who came to watch birds out on the bluffs. If I can find a reference, I'll share it. But the point is this, the additional dollars spent in the city were well into the six figures. The revenue had gone unrecognized. The Chamber, having seen dollars attached to the activity, has been doing more to promote ecotourism to drive that revenue higher.
Will that save the city of Pacifica? I doubt it. But it can't hurt. Every little bit helps.
There are areas already dedicated to commerce that could be enhanced or flat out redone. Eureka Square is dwindling. Look at all that asphalt at Sea Bowl. We all know Palmetto could be more vital (more like Saratoga, like someone suggested earlier?). Traffic and parking at Linda Mar is hideous, and could be reworked to allow even more commerce. Pedro Point obviously has potential. And we all know that there's enough traffic that flows through without stopping that could be a boon if there were ways to entice drivers to stop and enjoy local businesses. There's also room to do more with the golf course, such as higher-profile tournaments.
If we haven't figured out how to make the most of what's already been done, why would we expect to do a whole lot better with more?
Some of the hand-wringing sounds like the Half Moon Bay downtown business association's current struggles. The economy is way, way down. Some of what we're seeing is bigger than this city of 40,000 people. Getting angry about the larger economic disaster isn't going to get us very far. That's why I keep pointing to local opportunities to do something this year.
Our town is beautiful. We don't need any change. We are wonderful. We have the ocean. We have trees. We have sand and dirt. Don't change anything. We are our economy.
Richard/Dick, the 8 year "our environment is our economy" experiment is over. It never worked, the city is broke, the city infrastructure is broke. Property owners don't want to pay the bills while your brain resides in dreamland.
why is Richard Saunders getting censored on the coastsider website? He had a comment really sticking it to that nitwit Scott Boyd about dogs causing hip injuries to elderly people. why would that get removed from the site???? who did you piss of over there dicky???
Call Pete Dejarnatt, he promised the dog park before the last election.
355-5777
It never worked, the city is broke, the city infrastructure is broke.
Take a look around. Pacifica is not some isolated island of disaster. Cities all over the place are broke. Half Moon Bay, for example. At least neither is as bad off as Vallejo.
The economy is in terrible shape. It's not all about Pacifica.
So, what's it going to be? Throw the bums out and build a supermall to save the city several years down the way, and ignore all possible ways to improve local businesses and city revenues now?
Richard, the idea of building the city's economy based on its environment has been around for decades. Nothing's happened. How long does it take for people to figure out it never will?
It's time to throw the bums out and build a supermall.
"Bad Dog", Pete DeJarnatt will be for Dog Parks again in 2 years when he runs for city council. He was for development 2 years ago (yes I kept his brochure)-- in 2 years he'll be for both development and dog parks.
Richard, the difference in our recession and those of other SM Cities is that ours is permanent. Alternative bright idea from Steve, "It's time to throw the bums out and build a supermall."
Parry, is Richard really getting censored on Coastsider? Richard, have you found Pacifica Riptide yet?
PACIFICA RIPTIDE
I read Scott Boyd's post over on Coastsider regarding his correlation between off leash dog parks and broken hips in the senior community. Either his comments were "a simple clerical error" or this guy is blinded by his hatred of man's best friend and his separation from reality.
Kathy, what I can tell you is that apparently my pen name is a popular one, and someone else used it to post on Coastsider. Unlike fixpacifica, where anonymity and pen names are ok, Coastsider requires real names. If fixpacifica wanted to change to require actual names, I'd be ok with that.
It's one thing to use a pen name. It's a time-honored tradition, and my choice of pen name has to do with that history. But what is a person doing when they try to pretend to be someone else?
Richard, I didn't post the "Real Richard" comment above. Good question you poise, "But what is a person doing when they try to pretend to be someone else?"
When this pie-in-the-sky "supermall" becomes a yet another collection of empty or decrepit storefronts ala Palmetto, Eureka Square, Pedro Point and Park Pacifica, what will be the next business scheme you pin all your hopes on?
Guess it won't be you big dog Bark! No place for you to "shop" even on our unproductive land.
Chase business and developers out-of-town, and allow this city to provide so few services people must go over the hill to shop, certainly to work (no business parks either)-- what do you expect? Maybe the plan is shop by internet, send the tax revenue back to Pacifica. Sounds like Measure D+.
Build it an they will come, including shop and play at the outlet "supermall". Don't build it and they won't come, its called "Pacifica".
Build it and they will come?
We built it: Palmetto, Eureka Squara, Pedro Point, Park Pacifica. These spaces are now filled with under-utilized, empty retail space. People aren't coming.
Why do we need a new shopping center when we currently have tons of vacant store-fronts?
You don't "Bark", all you need is more "open space". As Mayor Digre said at her State-of-the City Address (1/16) "more open space is better." There hasn't been energy at city council to bring-in economic development, so ultimate what you get is the "ghost town" Steve posted on one of his recent articles. No effort no positive affect.
And, Palmetto Avenue is a business strip with no anchor (s). Developing the OWWTP square block property for retail/commercial/mixed use business could help change that. Would a street scape alone accomplish that? No.
you're absolutely right, there's nothing that can be done to improve the business climate without building a big new thing.
or is there?
"Why do we need a new shopping center when we currently have tons of vacant store-fronts?"
Pacifica reminds me of a half-empty shopping center that everyone avoids because it's so depressing. There's also nothing unique in town to attract people here. You need a critical mass of business, including retail, to ignite a thriving business community. That's never existed in Pacifica.
An outlet mall similar to the ones they have in Gilroy, Petaluma and Vacaville would improve things on both counts.
The empty storefronts are more from bad management. You cannot ask for more rent when the economy is bad and you have empty spaces (Eureka Square) or have no way to let people outside of Pacifica know you exist (Palmetto), or have a city government that just doesn't care about bringing in or working with retailers (Trader Joe's anyone?)
I thought Trader Joe's was pretty clear that they were looking for larger markets than Pacifica can provide.
You can ask for any rent you want, and wait years for a sucker.
An outlet mall similar to the ones they have in Gilroy, Petaluma and Vacaville would improve things on both counts.
An Outlet Mall was proposed at Pedro Point Shopping Center years ago, but these people got run out of town also.
It's funny that you point towards Palmetto, Richard and Bark. The council's obstruction of the Houman project, which had already been unanimously approved by the PC and was completely in character with what we need to make Palmetto "more vital", is a shining example of how this council consistently joins forces with a few of their NIMBY buddies to stop all progress.
Reading up on the Houman project, I found a few resources
Council Rejects Flavia Maucci Compromise The comments have a lot of good information.
minutes of July 27, 2009 city council meeting That sure was a lot of public comment, many pages in the minutes.
The council unanimously rejected the appeal, affirming the planning commission's approval of the project. Why is that called obstruction?
And, as referenced during the council discussion of that item in July, Palmetto Avenue Streetscape Plan Approved
If you were really not involved with the project as were many who have commented, do you really think you can get the "feel" of what happened in the Houman project by reading things? It helps if you were "involved" rather than just a looky lou and a blowhard.
It beats ignoring the available information, doesn't it?
So if they passed it, why did Scotty call it obstruction?
I didn't say they denied it... I said they obstructed it. It took them months of continuations before they would deny the ridiculous appeal, which is council's standard MO.
As Sinai frequently points out, Pacifica doesn't pro-actively stop development; they prefer to inflict an agonizing death by a thousand cuts. That way, they and their apologists can pretend that they're actually trying to resolve our fiscal nightmare, instead of contributing to it.
Wasn't the Houmam project, which was really rather tiny with only two business spaces and three apartments, sent back to the Planning Commission 7-8 times over the course of a couple years? Including several instances where the Planning Commission had already unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project?
It was especially hypocritical considering the way all the council members made big promises about revitalizing Palmetto.
You'd think they were building a big outlet mall rather than their tiny project.
The Houmans worked with the planning department and planning commission for over 2 years before it was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. (A project like this would normally take about 14-18 months from permit request to starting construction in San Francisco) Pete Dejarnatt pulled the permit, then 5 days later Flavia Mucci filed an appeal. The City Council eventually voted to send it back to planning commission after a 1 month delay because the appellant was "unavailable" for the first appeal date.
(Imagine you have a court date to hear an appeal of a judgment that went in your favor, and the judge allows another 1 month delay because the person who appealed claims to be "unavailable". Seriously, that was it! She claimed she couldn't make the meeting.)
Then it was approved again by the planning commission before it came before City Council, then delayed again because Sue Digre wasn't present to comment, then finally approved.
So to answer Boyd's ridiculous assertion . . . all these delays cost the appellant . . . $100. They cost the developers (the Houmans) tens of thousands of dollars. I'm sure the hope was they would quit, and quite frankly having been involved with the process for almost a year, I have to give the Houmans enormous credit for sticking in there. But the bottom line is that despite the project being "approved", all these irregular regulatory delays cost them tens of thousands of dollars.
The thing to remember is the project as approved by the planning commission in January 2009 CONFORMED TO EVERY EXISTING CITY CODE for the development area and was also fit perfectly under the stated goals of revitalizing Palmetto Avenue.
I should note that the 2 biggest opponents to this project were John Curtis and Robbin Runneals, friends of council. What really got me riled up during the process was when Flavia Mucci nailed a sign to a palm tree in her front yard and put a flood light under it to bring attention to her appeal. You know, the same type of tree the hippies are trying to save in Vallemar.
Look who is back. Rotundo the great. How did the big mouth blog work for you?
Be over Pacifica. You moved to Texas.
Take the kids to the Park and buy them an ice cream.
Unfortunately Texas 2 step, you have nothing to say, whereas Jeff does. Thanks for your continuing detailed information and commentary Jeff.
As Scotty and Steve point-out the Houman project was small, yet what a hassle and cost at every turn to get approved in an area again (Palmetto Avenue) designated for exactly this kind of building.
If I only hit Jeff in the ankle with a mallet on moving day I could have kept him here longer.
Does anyone else wonder if Kathy Bates Meeh and Jeff where an item at one time?
Post a Comment