On Monday, September 13, Council will vote on this
project. We ask that people come
out to speak on behalf of this
item and or talk with or write to Council. Please attend this important
meeting
and just be a presence with a show of hands for the project. No need to
talk
unless you are so inclined.
POOCH and City staff have met
often with the tenants and gained the support of the three non-profit
agencies,
long-time public contributors on behalf of citizens. It was considered
that the
dog park would be an asset.
The
report
was
conducted and the
PB&R Commission made a unanimous recommendation for the Dog Park to
go
forward at the Sanchez site, as the report was favorable.
This particular site is good
for local business. This proposed site
is on the way or close to many “errand” destinations. Currently
when
folks
leave
town to use other dog parks, they
often have coffee or lunch, fill up their cars with fuel, shop and
spend money
near those dog parks and not in Pacifica.
I would love for people to be able to visit, live, and shop here
in
Pacifica while they also visit the dog park.
Keep the dollars in Pacifica.
We also find this site ideal
because it is easy to walk to and is truly a neighborhood
park. It is a safe- it is not too isolated and is ideal
for
people with
limited physical abilities.
The Impact Report, along with
thousands of successful dog parks across the country, indicates this
could be
an asset to the community. Pacifica,
usually on the forefront of many endeavors, is lagging behind as it is
just
about the only city on the Peninsula that does not have a dog park.
Thank
You,
Beverly
Kingsbury
P.O.O.C.H.
President
Pacifica
Organization Of
Canine Helpers
a
501(c)3 nonprofit organization
75 comments:
Arf, Arf, Arf!!
The dog feces will go directly into a coho stream -- let's find another location that will not kill the last of our salmonids.
Anonymous, no matter where the dog park is located, you'll complain about it.
Anon @10:57pm, the city did the studies, this is a good location, but nothing can be done about all that bird poop up stream.
The Sanchez Performance Center Dog Park study is on the city website if you're interested. As Barky @11:11pm says "be happy".
I am a dog owner. I have taken my dog to many a dog park. She's 15 now, so not many years left to enjoy the parks. :(
Question (so I fully understand): does the city bear any liability for potential injuries in said dog park? If its on city owned land, I would think there would be some instances where Pacifica might be brought into a lawsuit. Does Pacifica directly own the Sanchez site?
Also, would we pass any ordinances or are there any in place that would regulate the usage of the dog park to help prevent some injuries? Unfortunately, in this day and age, not every dog owner is a responsible owner. If Pacifica is or could be liable for the acts of a users aggressive dog, I'd like to see us use our resources with the city attorney to create an ordinance to address that.
Otherwise, I hope we do develop the site and create a revenue stream around it. Who wouldn't like a nice park to take their dogs and perhaps sip a beverage on a nice park bench while contributing to the local economy?
Heather:
California Civil Code
Liability of Dog Owner for Damages Suffered From Dog Bite
3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
Also, please read: Dog Park Liability and Insurance
And finally, one question for you Heather. How do you feel about Sharp Park Dog Beach which was voted on unanimously by City Council in 2002 and never allowed to officially materialize due to a procedural technicality by then Council members Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Lancelle and Digre?
Mr Clifford:
I would also appreciate a response from you regarding my previous question to Ms. Tanner with respect to Sharp Park Dog Beach. Thanks.
Explain more, Rocky. What was the "procedural technicality"? I'm afraid I am not as educated on this subject as you, but would like to hear your concerns.
I am not opposed at all to providing dog-friendly places. My concerns are where those impose obligations on the city we can't afford right now. I will definitely review the materials you provided for me.
What are the people who oppose the park/beach saying? I like to see both sides before I decide. I understand there are environmental concerns with the feces, but that is not swaying me. We have dogs in our town, we have feces. Is there another serious environmental hazard (i.e., encroaching on a native habitat) that isn't already affected?
Thank you for your comments, Rocky.
Some of the opposition is from neighbors who will be negatively impacted. There's also opposition from building tenants - concert hall, photography studio, artists - that the dog park use will conflict with their uses of the building by taking up all the parking and disturbing classes and other activities. If the site becomes a dog park destination, there will be negative impacts on the building tenants.
The dog feces will go directly into a coho stream -- let's find another location that will not kill the last of our salmonids.
Coho Salmon aka Silver Salmon have not been in Pedro Creek for the last 20 years
Nice try dog hater
OK, but if the land is owned by Pacifica, Pacifica has the right to decide what to do with it. A dog park ordinance could be crafted to work around the concerns of the tenants. For example, hours and days - so that they would not conflict with the times the concert hall has performances, for example. From my recollection, that is a multi-use spot and they have found a way to balance out each others needs before.
Nice to know the salmon won't be affected, unless they spontaneously regenerate.
So, what exactly is the complaint of the neighbors? How will they be negatively impacted? I find sometimes people fear because it is change, but they can't actually articulate a reason. If they are worried about noise affecting their sleep - wouldn't an hours restriction cure that? Parking? Alright, that could be a concern. We could fix that, though.
What I am trying to see is there a reason that makes this a no go for all involved, or is there a point where we can all find middle ground to make both sides happy? I like dog parks, but not if they create more problems than they solve.
Thanks for the input!
I strongly believe that having a dog park is going to create more problems.
1). It would disturb the privacy from people around the park.
2). Do we have the extra money to maintain it?
3). It would create nuisance to the residents. As we all hear on the news robbery is on the rise.
4) I strongly believe that someone would sue somebody. Maybe the city.
If you dont have big enough space for your pet or can't take them for a walk . Do not own a pet. The city should not waste money on creating problems. And by the way each time people mention parks the city of Pacifica automatically increases fees to any type of develop when the time comes to pay permit fees.
So please I share this due to my own experiences . I love animals i wish them well but our finances department in Pacifica are not wise enough to control and to manage expenses.
I wish the vociferous few on this blog would be intellectually honest about the issue.
On the one hand they decry construction of a trail for humans on open space and claim such trails don't bring in any outside visitors and their money.
Mention putting a dog park in our ever-dwindling open space and they're gung-ho, want the city to pay for it, maintain it, and claim it will bring in outside visitors and their money.
Uh-huh.
Funny how if you come to walk, the assumption is you won't spend any of your money, but bring your dog to come poop on city property and you'll be throwing your money at local businesses.
Or, you know, we might -- just might -- have room enough to... *gasp* ...accomodate both forms of recreation!
Heather asked: "What was the "procedural technicality"?
With respect to Sharp Park Dog Beach, I believe there was supposed to be a second reading through the consent calendar process in order to officially ratify the already passed ordinance. That was purposely not done. I know this to be fact because I and several others did every thing in our power with respect to Council and the City Manager to make it happen. They refused. There still remains a question whether the sitting Council had the legal ability to abolish this area by just doing nothing. I have been advised by some to abolish the Sharp Park Dog Beach the Council had to publically take up the issue via noticed hearing, and advise the public as to why (based upon hard data I might add) they saw fit to abolish the off-leash privileges at the site.
Heather said: "I am not opposed at all to providing dog-friendly places. My concerns are where those impose obligations on the city we can't afford right now."
Not an issue at Sharp Park Dog Beach. The City of San Francisco (specifically, SF Recreation and Parks Dept.) who owns the property, sent a signed letter to our Council and City Manager okaying the usage of their beach for a dog park. There would be minimal additional costs to the City since the property already had natural boundaries and poop bags were already provided for via dispenser at Clarendon entrance to the berm. There are no endangered/threatened species issues since U.S. Fish and Wildlife refused to declare SPB as critical habitat for the RLF, SFGS, WSP, Least Tern, etc.
So why would anyone be against it? As you can see by some of the comments here, open space is never to be used for anything other than building more habitats, wetlands and trails. Dogs just don't fit into that paradigm.
Heather, my only other comment would be perhaps you should independently become more knowledgeable on Pacifica issues as you run for City Council. As you can see, there should be specific answers to these types of procedural questions, but they are not forthcoming from the current Council or staff. This is so wrong on so many levels.
The way the dog park is supposed to work is that the city donates the land, and POOCH maintains it with volunteers. It shouldn't cost the city much money, and I'm sure the dog park has more tangible value to Pacifica residents than something like the city's global climate committee.
If the city was going to foot the bill for the dog park, I'd be opposed to it. I think Kathy is the only person who says the city should be paying for it. Normally I'd agree, but since the city is broke, the reality is that volunteers will have to pay for its upkeep.
I did a quick lunchtime read of the July 27, 2010 P.B.R.C. report on the dog park. Here are some things I noted.
The City Council approved the spending of $60,000 for studies and reports in Dec.2008 for the dog park at the art center.
Nine new parking spaces will be added to mitigate any parking problems.
The City will install a biofiltration system and the City of Pacifica Public Works Department will monitor and maintain this system. Cost unknown. [I did not see any cost projections, they may be there and I just missed them or they may be in other documents that were not part of the packet. Quick reads are not the best way to get information.]
It appeared that of the Linda Mar neighbors contacted, 50% were in favor of and 50% opposed to the dog park.
Noise will be mitigated by controlling the hours of operation from 7:00AM to sunset.
The Art Center board approved of the project.
I don't know how the individual tenants feel.
In general, I am in favor of the dog park, but until I get the information about the City's cost I will reserve final judgement. I have a called the Planning Director - he is looking for the information and will get back to me. I called Engineering about the monitoring and maintenance and hope to hear back soon. As soon as I know, you will know.
This just in: the biofiltration system will cost between $8,000 and $20,000 to design, and between $20,000 and $35,000 to build, for a range of $28,000 to $55,000 for the system. I still do not know what monitoring and maintenance will cost.
Thanks, Thomas. The $60K isn't a surprise, since that seems to be the standard cost for any study commissioned by the city.
This is the first I've heard of the biofiltration system, though. I'm curious about why people think that's needed. Why would the dogs do any more damage than local wildlife? I've also heard there's a homeless encampment along the creek, though I've never seen it myself. They probably contribute some fertilizer to the creek.
Tom, excellent follow-up, thanks for clearing the fuzz. POOCH and the city have put a lot of time into finding a suitable public location. The city completed the studies as Tom mentioned, and I believe POOCH will fence the area. The city has done quite a lot.
Steve, all I was mentioning is the way "dog parks" are valued, maintained and paid-for in most other bay area cities. And, from the study I made of San Mateo County and San Francisco, San Francisco is by far #1 in city parks and dog parks. I'm sure some of you think of San Francisco as "concrete paradise", that city has wonderful green spaces.
Please note: The feces issue is mitigated. Its a non-issue. Dyer Crouch said "but what if it breaks". Never know "the sky could fall in".
Steve makes a good point @4:46pm, plus the condition of the water coming from upstream.
Perhaps if we attach paint brushes to the tails of the dogs that visit the Sanchez park the City will subsidize the dogs as they do the other "artists" at Sanchez.
"This just in: the biofiltration system will cost between $8,000 and $20,000 to design, and between $20,000 and $35,000 to build, for a range of $28,000 to $55,000 for the system. I still do not know what monitoring and maintenance will cost."
This is the classic stunt executed by Council and enviro-friends to kill the project. Dogs have been going to that park and will continue to go to that park irrespective of the disposition of the "dog park". So let's just add a bunch of expensive stipulations and conditions to nix the whole deal. In the mean time, business as usual at Sanchez - dogs enjoying the park with or without leash, no fencing, no biofiltration system, and, most importantly, without incident.
Official City motto of Pacifica:
Pacifica - we love our frogs. We love our snakes. Oh dogs? We love our birds. We love our native plants...
Interesting discussion. So, is the biofiltration system necessary, or no? Any environmental friendly folks wish to weigh in? I'm all for keeping our impact on the habitats at a minimum (although I do often wonder if people would be willing to move their homes or land if a rare spider were found in their property line?), but also need to balance the cost. Realistically, the cost of the biofiltration system is someone's salary for a year (at the high end). If necessary, we'll need to cut that from somewhere else or charge something else to make up the revenue stream.
I don't buy that people will come to the dog park and increase traffic to our businesses. Mostly, my guess is, it will be local people, such as myself. I have frequently gone to Ft. Funston and SF dog parks (Stern Grove) and very infrequently went to any of the businesses nearby... mostly because my dog was in the car when I went into the businesses!
So, am I pro dog park? Right now, I am leaning towards yes because I feel Pacifica, as a whole, is a dog-friendly town. Why not show our pooches some love? If POOCH is willing to use volunteers to help maintain the park, what objection can we really raise?
However, my final verdict is still out pending the discussion of the costs of running the parks. Thomas - did it say how much it would cost to put in the parking spaces?
Also, anyone know if the tenants who are supposedly upset are considering moving? Do they pay any rent to the city for their space?
Thanks for the info, Rocky. I will look into the issue myself. You have definitely given me a lot of good information that will help.
I live in the Fairmont area of Pacifica. We are truly a commuter area, so most issues affecting the "valley" do not wind their way up here.
I find that talking to people helps really focus on the concerns of the citizens of Pacifica. Nearly everyone has something that really bothers them, or that they'd truly like to see done. I might not know every issue affecting Pacifica right now, but I am thoughtful in my approach and I do genuinely care that a person's concern is at least heard or dealt with to the extent I have the power to do that.
My main focus, if elected, would be to create jobs, support small and local businesses, and to revitalize the economy of Pacifica. Anything that helps us do that is fine by me. Anything that hurts us is only fine by me if it serves a greater purpose. We need things in our city that cost money - law enforcement, for example.
Anyhow, I might be green in politics and a little naive, but I want you to know that I care DEEPLY about Pacifica and what its citizens need to see us through the next several years.
I am always going to make decisions after I feel fully informed. As a lawyer, I am trained to ask for all of the facts first. I thank you for giving them to me, everyone!
This dog park issue has been going on since at least 2002. As far as I know, the beach at Sharp Park, Frontierland Park, the bluffs above Esplanade, and now Sanchez have been considered as locations for the dog park.
This is another example demonstrating how nothing ever gets accomplished in Pacifica. If practically everyone is "for" a dog park in town, why can't we get one built somewhere?
We can't sit around waiting for perfect solutions, because there never will be perfect solutions. All these types of decisions require trade-offs, and you're never going to make everyone happy. Unless someone else has a better location to offer, we ought to go ahead with setting up the dog park at Sanchez.
We've suffered long enough from candidates who say, "I'm for it....BUT...," and then use the "BUT" as an excuse to sit on their butts. They're the ones who accomplish nothing. I'll be looking for candidates who say, "I'm for it, and here's how I'll get it done." Even if they end up failing, at least they'll have tried, which beats the endless foot-dragging we get from Vreeland, Digre and DeJarnatt.
(Re: the comment about attaching paint brushes to dogs tails - I bet those paintings would sell better than anything else on offer at the Sanchez Art Center.)
Why the gratuitous slam at the art at the Sanchez Art Center? They have excellent, high quality shows there, often with well-known artists.
The tenants of the buildings (who pay rent to the city) include the Mildred Owen Concert Hall, Stephen Johnson Photography, Pacifica Credit Union, and the many studio artists in the Sanchez Art Center. Most of these tenants can't move because there is no alternative. And they have invested a lot of sweat equity and money to improve the buildings for their uses as concert hall, classrooms, studios, etc.
Come to the show opening this Friday night, Sept. 10 to learn some more about the center. Also check out www.sanchezartcenter.org and www.pacificaperformances.org
If you want to know more about why some tenants are opposed to the dog park, talk to Stephen Johnson www.sjphoto.com.
To take the dog metaphors probably a few steps too far, it seems like the artists are biting the hand that feeds them when they whine about space that is currently subsidized by the citizens of Pacifica.
Perhaps if it's so bad they could go pay full rent somewhere else.
"Why the gratuitous slam at the art at the Sanchez Art Center? They have excellent, high quality shows there, often with well-known artists."
When you look at the paintings, you can still see the numbers beneath the paint.
Don't mind Steve.
His notions of "high art" are velvet oil paintings of dogs playing poker and ships in bottles.
Regarding some of the studio tenants at the Sanchez Art Center who have been there for more than 10 years they have been benefitting from occupying public property with subsidies in exchange for community service hours to the Art Center, not because of sweat equity. While they have been paying rent well below market rates they also have benefitted from the city picking up the tab for studio utilities, a subsidy currently tallied at around $6,200 a year. These few tenants can and should move out of their studio's when their individual leases are up at the end of this year.
Any claim to some sort of ancestral ownership of their studio's due to sweat equity is simply delusional as the service hours to the Art Center are a condition of their leases. The handful of holdouts are not doing anyone any favors by prolonging the inevitable. They should move on both mentally and physically.
It should be noted that as the original tenants they have succeeded in creating a vibrant art community and a local tourist destination that brings in thousands of people from around the state each year. I couldn't do what they have done, and while I feel strongly about this issue I also feel they all deserve our respect and gratitude. However they do need to move on.
What, exactly, is a "biofiltration system"? How does it work? Why is it required? I don't think there's anything like that at Ft. Funston (the Disneyland for Dogs) or Stern Grove.
If the city can be absolved from all liability (Enter At Your Own Risk) let's get the Sanchez site open and deal with problems as they arise. We've waited long enough.
In yet another example of unbridled canine generosity, my dog Roscoe has offered to share his doghouse with any of the starving artists of Sanchez.
"Why the gratuitous slam at the art at the Sanchez Art Center? They have excellent, high quality shows there, often with well-known artists."
Connect the dots. Oh, wait - that's what most of the artists are doing already.
"What, exactly, is a "biofiltration system"? "
Sorry Paul. You need to check your copy of "The Enviros Handbook of Project Killing Euphemisms" for the correct definition.
No one is saying an Artist Center is not a good thing, but this is Pacifica: this city council with their "pet" projects, "friends", and funny arrangements.
City net income with another 10 year lease contract and/or extension to Sanchez Artist Center: $0. The city collects 25% of collected studio monies based upon a formula of studios. 75% of money collected from artists stays with the Artist Center management. All utilities (gas, electric, water) are paid by the city. Trash pick-up is "free" (ultimately paid by property owners). The annual studio cost increase 2.5% (estimate).
From Sanchez Artists management (not city management) artists are charged enough from my view. The arrangement is that new artists coming-in who share studios may keep their share of studio up to 6 years, if the "committee" of that organization agrees and approves (with 2 year review). These rules do not apply to those who had studios prior to about 2004, arrangements for those artists are grandfathered, and those artists may stay forever without review.
There was no actual contract in the 12/14/09 city council Agenda, when the Artist Center lease renewal for 2011 came back to city council. There had been opposition to this arrangement at a city council meeting prior, and what had been presented as a lease update appeared as a revision draft of the prior lease. City council solution: continue (delay) the lease approval and present no lease. The 12/14/09 City Council/Agenda is viewable on the city website. I think the prior attempted approval of this 2011 lease may have occurred in the last quarter of 2008.
One of the arguments used by the city (PB&R report) was that Sanchez Artist Center through the sale of art is a "city economic plan" (viewable in the Agenda Summary detail). No its not that, neither is a dog park, fits into a civic function, the category "our environment is our economy". From my view the city only should managing Sanchez Artists Center with all Artist tenant studio arrangements based upon equal criteria (no grandfathered special deals). And, probably the financial arrangement should be flipped: 25% of collected rents to the artist organization, 75% to the city. Utilities should be paid by the tenants, not the city.
Kathy and/or Todd,
Can you clarify what's going on at Sanchez?
The current 10-year lease is up at the end of 2010 and a new 10-year lease (beginning on Jan. 1, 2011) has yet to be negotiated/finalized?
Is this correct?
It's nice to be one of Council's friends. The only local businesses council has gone out of its way to support are the Sanchez Art Gallery and the biodiesel facility.
Mr. Sir, the lease was finalized 12/14/10 effective 1/1/2011 (see the city council agenda for that date), no actual lease was produced in that document however. The Artist Center wanted lead time for outside shows they said, and as mentioned they tried to put through the lease prior (I just don't have a fix on that date, and am not motivated to look further, seems like last quarter of 2008).
Todd, you said..."Regarding some of the studio tenants at the Sanchez Art Center who have been there for more than 10 years they have been benefitting from occupying public property with subsidies in exchange for community service hours to the Art Center, not because of sweat equity."
The artist center is a cooperative, of course tenant service occurs for all tenants in activities of sitting the gallery, putting-ups shows, open studios, etc. This kind of activity occurs within artists organizations whether there's a specific building or not.
The studio rental arrangement with some tenants is grandfathered forever while others are reviewed every 2 years and these tenants must be out in 6 years-- on city property in any other city that might seems priority and discriminatory.
The biofiltration system or bioswale is the main mitigation for keeping the bacteria from feces and urine out of the creek at this site.
I know it does nothing for pollutants entering the creek elsewhere, but the idea is to not make things worse by developing this site as a dog park.
The Army Corp. of Engineers creek restoration plan and the federal Clean Water Act are the reason mitigations are needed.
I still have not heard back from Mr. Ocampo about the cost of monitoring and maintenance, or the cost of the nine parking spaces. As soon as I can get all the information together I will post it. As a dog owner who lives in Linda Mar I am in favor of the dog park. As a candidate who may be asked to balance the City's budget, I want to know what it will cost the City.
As an aside I don't think slamming the artist at the center is a good way to get them on your side.
"As an aside I don't think slamming the artist at the center is a good way to get them on your side."
I'm not sure it's any worse than slamming Peebles by suggesting he'd have sued Pacifica if given the chance; or suggesting that those who are for more economic development in town want to turn it into Daly City. Many of us on the blog are guilty of tweaking the noses of those we disagree with.
Mr. Sir, the lease was finalized 12/14/10 effective 1/1/2011 (see the city council agenda for that date), no actual lease was produced in that document however. The Artist Center wanted lead time for outside shows they said, and as mentioned they tried to put through the lease prior (I just don't have a fix on that date, and am not motivated to look further, seems like last quarter of 2008).
I understand now. Thank you.
Mr. Clifford:
As an aside, why not drop the "for City Council" from your post heading. It's becomming just a bit irritating to one of my sensitive nature. We all know you're in the race. A simple "Tom Clifford" would be much easier on the eyes.
Oh, and Tom, thanks for the information on the filtration system. I had thought that poop bags solved that problem, but I didn't consider runoff into a creek. Could the creek just be fenced off?
I am sorry to say, Paul, that the time to look at alternatives is passed. Both negative declarations and EIRs have a comment period. When that period closes and the document is accepted, that is all she wrote.
This has escalated to the highest levels of the Executive Branch:
Milwaukee Laborfest
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 7, 2010
"...And they're not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog in Pacifica. That's not in my prepared remarks, it's just -- but it's true." -- President Barack Obama
FACT!
Tom, I was going to take benevolent dictator. Gosh, now I will just have to take something not as catchy - World Empress? Goddess of All I Survey? How about a Dancing with Wolves-like title: Votes with Conscience?
So, Tom - is what you are saying that his debate has been merely theoretical? The new council will not have a say in this dog park?
My client will sell rights to "Dear Leader" for $10.
It's time for the dog park. Pooch has done a great job of advocating for this project and we could all learn some lessons from their well performed members throughout this process that will, I hope, be culminating in their favor come Monday. The mitigation swale is a solid solution and being a dog owner I know pooh will be picked up at the project site by each owner or volunteers.
And a note to the opponents that over use wildlife as a weapon... you need to pick your battles, and I mean pick one. You are delegitimizing wildlife concerns by banging that drum too much.
"And a note to the opponents that over use wildlife as a weapon... you need to pick your battles, and I mean pick one. You are delegitimizing wildlife concerns by banging that drum too much.".
From Todd's mouth to God's ears...
todd bray said...
It's time for the dog park. Pooch has done a great job of advocating for this project and we could all learn some lessons from their well performed members throughout this process that will, I hope, be culminating in their favor come Monday. The mitigation swale is a solid solution and being a dog owner I know pooh will be picked up at the project site by each owner or volunteers.
And a note to the opponents that over use wildlife as a weapon... you need to pick your battles, and I mean pick one. You are delegitimizing wildlife concerns by banging that drum too much.
The day has come when Todd Bray, started making sense.
Is the end really near?
POOCH has done an amazing job at organizing and getting this project pushed forward.
To "environmental activists," the dog park will offer a legitimate alternative to what is currently occurring: dogs running about and impacting sensitive areas such as snowy plover resting spots, etc.
Mr. Sir, yours is an extreme view. Protecting sensitive habitat is one thing, giving-up our lives to this end is quite another. I think some of you would not be happy until everyone tears down their houses and moves out of town making what was once Pacifica an open land space sanctuary for bug, critters and roaming wildlife endangered or not. However, the creek would still be subject to pollution.
I think you misunderstand me, Kathy.
I'm not saying that dogs are threatening wildlife, but if you are one to make those sorts of arguments, you ought to support the idea of a dog park.
A dog park will lessen a dog's impact on other sensitive areas (since they'll presumably be running around at the dog park and not at these other places).
"A dog park will lessen a dog's impact on other sensitive areas (since they'll presumably be running around at the dog park and not at these other places)."
This is a very naive statement. Does anyone really think that this one tiny park in the remote southern reaches of this town will even make a dent with respect to providing recreation space for the 10,000 dogs of Pacifica? If you do, I've got a Quarry in Pacifica I'd like to sell ya...
"dogs running about and impacting sensitive areas such as snowy plover resting spots, etc.
...I'm not saying that dogs are threatening wildlife..."
Then WTF are you saying?
Anon said: "The dog feces will go directly into a coho stream -- let's find another location that will not kill the last of our salmonids."
Cousin Silver Salmon said: "Coho Salmon aka Silver Salmon have not been in Pedro Creek for the last 20 years"
Right on, cous!! And I thought I was the only Red Herring in Pacifica...
Here is the information I promised to get:
City of Pacifica Cost:
Studies - $60,000 [Most but not all of this has been spent.]
Nine parking spaces - $28,500 - $30,000
Bioswale/filtration system - $28,000 - $55,000
Maintenance of bio-system - $1,000 a year
POOCH Cost:
Fence construction - $18,000 - $22,000
Where the city's money comes from:
Development Fees [Fees paid by developers when their projects are built and set aside for PB&R in separate account]
The money for the dog park is already budgeted.
In light of this information, I am in full support of the dog park as proposed.
Heather: In theory, the City Council could choose to not certify the Neg. Dec. and seek a different mitigation solution. This would stop the whole process. The consultants would be brought back in, costing more and taking more to time to complete this project. I certainly do not want that to happen, especially since a new solution could cost as much if not more.
This is a very naive statement
You're an ardent supporter of Propostion 19, aren't you?
Are you aware of the ongoing debate regarding dogs on Linda Mar State Beach and snowy plovers?
Only in your fever-dream would people refuse to take their dogs to the dog park and instead risk getting a $200+ ticket for letting their dogs run off-leash at a state beach a few blocks away.
Tom: totally with you. If its been decided, and money already spent, then rethinking it now is a bad plan. Let's get the ball rolling and move on to other things. Sounds like the city has done a good job of finding middle ground here.
"The day has come when Todd Bray, started making sense. Is the end really near?"
Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye!
"Are you aware of the ongoing debate regarding dogs on Linda Mar State Beach and snowy plovers?"
Are you aware that the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Service has very purposely NOT designated Linda Mar Beach as protected habitat for the Western Snowy Plover? Are you aware of the significance of that lack of designation? Let me help you:
Whatever one chooses to do with Linda Mar Beach, including allowing dogs to run free, will have NO impact on the recovery of the Western Snowy Plover. This is an important legal designation. It may not agree with your own personal designation.
I am in favor, however, of exclosure fencing in the northern dunes roosting area. This is as much to keep humans out as anything else and is a reasonable compromise.
Mr Sir asked: "You're an ardent supporter of Propostion 19, aren't you?"
Why, are you selling?
Mr. Sir, you might want to consider taking Todd Bray's sage advice.
Anonymous,
Why would you advocate fencing in the dunes roosting area if "whatever one chooses to do with Linda Mar Beach... will have NO impact on the recovery of the Western Snowy Plover?
Add this to your claim that a dog park won't draw dog owners away from environmentally sensitive sites (included ones mere blocks away).
You're quite full of contradictions!
Take it easy on the green stuff, Proposition 19 hasn't passed yet!
"Why would you advocate fencing in the dunes roosting area if "whatever one chooses to do with Linda Mar Beach... will have NO impact on the recovery of the Western Snowy Plover?"
I believe the term "compromise" was utilized. Obviously your recent Evelyn Wood speed reading course has caused you to skip over important words which has diluted your reading comprehension. Not your fault. Also, are you disputing the USFWS designation of "non critical habitat"?
"Add this to your claim that a dog park won't draw dog owners away from environmentally sensitive sites (included ones mere blocks away)."
Again, poor reading comprehension skills exhibited per Wood Skip Over Syndrome. Please reread my comment. There is a blogspace help desk you can call if you need additional help understanding posts/comments.
"You're quite full of contradictions!"
You're quite full of, well let's just say provisions will be made for it at the new dog park.
"Take it easy on the green stuff,..."
See, there you go projecting again.
Would love to continue this, whatever it is, with you Sir but it's obvious this is going nowhere. Hey, were you captain of your high school debating team?
I had to google "Evelyn Wood" to find out what the heck you're incoherently rambling about: a speed-reading course introduced in the '50s.
Are you angry because your great-grandson hid your dentures?
Our conversation was destined for nowhere when you made the bizarre claim that a dog park would be of little use to the city's 10,000 dogs. I mean, that's a pretty deep hole you dug there for yourself with that one. I can understand that you got a little panicky when called out on it, gramps.
I happened to be out near Sanchez tonight, and found the area rampant with both dog owners and kids playing soccer and ball. There were even some artists exiting the building. Nobody seemed to be the least bit bothered by the attendance of the others. The area suggested for the dog park was not being used by anyone, and seemed far enough away from the hustle and bustle of everyone else's activities. Just my observations.
On a side note, I hope and pray everyone in the area of the San Bruno fire is alright. It scares me to know that our canyons are so dry during the summer/fall and one fire ball could really do damage to the homes in my parent's neighborhood. That's something I'd really like to focus on!
Mr. Sir 9/2@11:15am, I did misunderstand what you were saying, and thank you for your comments. About 8 years ago during the tenure of the existing city council (of course) the city started enforcing an off-leash ordinance, but at the same time did not provide running areas for dogs. Dogs need exercise as well as socialization, just as humans do-- so, that was another "boondoggle".
Heather makes a good point that co-existence happens (including dogs) currently on the city owned Sanchez Performing Arts grounds site. A fenced dog park as discussed is a better civic solution.
Congratulations to POOCH and all that work for this effort. We're going to have a dog park (passed at city council last night).
Please keep in mind POOCH is a volunteer effort, and they also continue to need contributions. If you can help find them on the internet at http://www.pawsitivethinking.com/id9.html
Congratulations to Kathy Meeh and her fellow POOCH organizers for putting forth an excellent show of support at last night's City Council.
I have some sympathy for the concern of the neighbors adjacent to the proposed fenceline and hope the impact her can be mitigated.
I do not have much sympathy for the arguments spearheaded by Stephen Johnson and others regarding business impact. He must remember his business is situated in a community center owned by the City and he enjoys taxpayer-funded subsidies.
It is a community center to be enjoyed by all and not controlled by a select few.
Congratulations again to POOCH.
Why is he getting taxpayer funded subsidies?
Because he's a friend of Digre, Vreeland, Lancelle and DeJarnatt, who like to think of Pacifica as some kind of artists' colony.
Anyone know what the vote count was? Did anyone vote against it?
4-0 with Vreeland absent as in not there
Thanks.
No Vreeland again, huh?
Are absent council members required to state why they're aren't present?
If so, what was Vreeland's stated excuse?
Maybe he forgot about the meeting.
The reason why Vreeland didn't show up was he got wind Tod had dirt on him once again.
Then Tod ought to take a shower.
Rumor has it that Vreeland has all his slick election photos produced by Johnson. Gratis, I would suspect. I'm also curious if that is a reportable in-lieu campaign contribution. Vree didn't want to cross Johnson or the artist community so the easy out is no-show. Interesting how Vree happens to be "not well" whenever there is any hint of controversy on the agenda. Would be a valuable exercise if someone wanted to check the agendas for his attendance record this year and match them up to the agenda items. We could draw some interesting conclusions.
Post a Comment