Saturday, May 1, 2010

POOCH’s 2nd Annual Dog Daze, Pacifica, CA, May 1, 2010

Co-sponsored with Pacifica Parks, Beaches and Recreation, this event includes:
  • Dog Demos
  • Dog Contests
  • Adoptions
  • Booths with vendors and fun
  • Raffle
For a Paws Cause: Help P.O.O.C.H. raise funds to build a community dog park in Pacifica. Suggested donation $5 at the door – a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.
When: Saturday May 1, 2010, 10 am to 4 pm
Where: Frontierland Park (Yosemite Dr. & Humboldt Ct.), Pacifica, California
For More Information:
Posted by Steve Sinai


Anonymous said...

Concern Citizen said

Do you really need a dog park? When this economy is getting worse. Did you read the public notice last week in the Tribune about this park.
How come the school district is not making any money?
Why we are supporting bad politics in this town.

Steve Sinai said...

"Do you really need a dog park? When this economy is getting worse. Did you read the public notice last week in the Tribune about this park."

- The purpose of Dog Daze was to raise enough private money to create and maintain a dog park. All the city's doing is making land available. (Although I don't know who's paying for the Environmental Impact Report.)

If you don't have a dog park, more people are going to run their dogs on the beaches, and the snowy plover fanatics will get all pissy.

"How come the school district is not making any money?"

- The school district turned the potential dog park land over to the city years ago, along with the school that became the Sanchez Art Center.

"Why we are supporting bad politics in this town."

- The commie-fascist enviro-hippie political machine has embedded itself into Pacifica politics like a metastasized cancer.

Pacifican said...

Pacifica has alot of dogs walking around go to Safeway and see the big momma's with the fat nasty kids in tow. With a shopping cart full of junk food and frozen food.

Then we have the dirty unkept hippies who look like they just woke up from a dirt nap.

Then we have the crazy cat woman who comes to city council in her ratty clothes, unkept hair and looks like she woke up in her 30 year old clothes. Seriously she looks like a bag lady and she gets up and say I want to fix Pacifica.I have all the answers listen to me...

Dogs need social interaction with other dogs just like how people do.

If you don't like it too damned bad.

Btw Pete Dejarnatt promised a dog park where is it???

Steve Sinai said...

In his last campaign run, Petey D. also promised to work to improve traffic flow on Highway 1. Now that the county's proposed a Highway 1 fix, Petey's nowhere to be found. I'm gettin' this feeling that Petey talks a lot, but he dont' actually do nuttin.

Kathy Meeh said...

Pete DeJarnatt sentiments are about the same as Jim Vreeland, Julie Lancelle and Sue Digre running this City-- into the ground. Good policy for Snowy Plovers, frogs, snakes, trails. Not so good for human habitat, but then does human habitat really matter? If so vote them out.

Dog Park? Most cities provide and maintain dog parks for citizen dogs. Citizens in this city struggle for everything on a do-it-yourself basis. Policy result of "no money" policy of the current city council.

Rocky Golub said...

Just to be clear on this subject, Pacifica does have an off leash dog park - i.e., Sharp Park Beach (from Clarendon on the north, to the Mori Point bluffs on the south, and with the berm bordering on the east). This dog park was voted on unanimously by the 2002 City Council (i.e., Mayor Barbara Carr, Cal Hinton, Maxine Gonsalves and Jim Vreeland; Pete DeJarnatt was an excused absentee). It was also approved by officials from San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. For unknown reasons, the approved SPB dog park was NEVER put on the consent calendar after it was voted in – a procedural formality that has yet to be adequately explained to me. The current Council claims that they never completed the process to formalize the dog park due to some type of staff oversight. Attorneys that I have consulted with assert that Council likewise never completed a requisite open process to reverse the vote of the 2002 Council. That process would require another Council vote upon completion of a formal public hearing complete with mandatory public notice and comment.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it could be successfully argued as defense to a leash violation citation at SPB that the 2002 vote is still in force.

Anonymous said...

Concern Citizen said

So Do you think we also need a cat park? Each time anything in Pacifica realates to PARKS.
Who do you think has to paid for it?

Enough is enough. When you go to paid for a building permit. Now there is a fee that you must have to park that goes straight to PARKS....
Now Do you understand my point. Stop thinking about PARKS AND PARKS. It is going to bring more homelesss, lazies and don't forget frogs and snakes.

Snoop Dogg said...

Puppy Haters out of Pacifica!

Kathy Meeh said...

Rocky, okay Sharp Park off-leash ocean dog park could argued but where are the sign designations, and what is the legal status? The process didn't complete.

Also, isn't Sharp Park Beach the location where dogs and people are most likely to die from undertow? And, wasn't there also a designated off-leash beach area further north at Manor below the cliffs with no access to get there?

These non-provisions occurred on the watch of this city council...the proven economically irresponsible "gang of 4" that can't govern, except for showing-up for photo ops, handing-out volunteer certificates, "feeling your pain" while doing not much productive for humans, and taking credit for citizen efforts and achievements (frequently volunteer efforts generally provide by cities, which are expensive and time consuming to citizens).

Question, why did this ocean dog park not complete, and why was that not made good by the existing city council? On the other hand, isn't there a better location for a beach dog park, and shouldn't that be a city goal? Is there a problem with dogs running on sections of State beaches?

Concerned citizen, when was that park fee pass through city council, or can such fees just be assessed without such minimum scrutiny? And, what percentage of cost or flat fees are you talking about?

proud councilman said...

That is the democratic process, that is why we discuss these things.

Anonymous said...

The Dog Daze event was so fun and lots of freebies! It was also very educational offering a lot of natural health and food items for dogs that you can not get in stores.

Steve Sinai said...

"That is the democratic process, that is why we discuss these things."

That sounds like an excuse for not accomplishing anything. We discuss everything to death in this town. Nothing ever gets beyond the discussion phase.

jimmy said...

Sinai, you are questioning greatness. I have been on the council for 12 years. Look at all I have done. This place was a shit hole when I came here now look at it. Trails, skateboard park, a beach parking lot for my surfer buddies.

I stay up nights thinking of all the good I have done for Pacifica. I served with heart and soul for 12 years.

Can you not see all I have done.

I denounce you for questioning King Jimmy!!!!

Kathy Meeh said...

Funny thing, I was outside talking to a neighbor this afternoon, and a lady passed the house walking a dog. My neighbor commented something like "walking the dog", the lady replied "first time, got it at the park yesterday" meaning she got it at the Dog Daze Pooch event. Mostly the dog was walking her, but she'll learn.

Steve Sinai said...

At least you didn't poop on me, King Jimmy.

Jules said...

"Nothing ever gets beyond the discussion phase."

Incorrecto Mundo! I have documented evidence that more often than not the next discussion phase occurs after the first one.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sinai "The commie-fascist enviro-hippie political machine has embedded itself into Pacifica politics like a metastasized cancer." You must be the only Republican in Pacifica and the rest of DINOs are glad that you are here. Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

In respond to City observer
Go to planning and engineering and tell to give you the paper regarding the fees.

That's all, you will see more surprises. My question is: Did everybody paid already how come this fees were not mentioned to the public?

Anonymous said...

Sreve Sinai "I'm gettin' this feeling that Petey talks a lot, but he dont' actually do nuttin"
You should read the San Bruno Beacon. You should join forces with Bill Baker to expose stuff in north peninsula cities.

King Jimmy said...

I poop on you twice Sinai.

Steve Sinai said...

"Steve Sinai ... You must be the only Republican in Pacifica and the rest of DINOs are glad that you are here. Keep it up!"

I'm a Decline-to-State who switched from Democrat six or seven years ago, because I thought the Democratic party was becoming as destructive and self-serving as the Republican party.

(If I was right-wing, I would have written "Democrat" party. And I would have pooped on them.)

Anonymous said...

Steve-I completely agree. Go for it. Of course u know DINO is democrat in name only

Anonymous said...

The only city-regognized, legal place to walk your dog off leash in Pacifica is Esplanade Beach, not Sharp Park Beach.

Of course there is no longer any access to Esplanade Beach, nor is there a beach any more -- it's all riprap from the water line to the crumbling cliffside.

So there really isn't any place for off leash dog play.

As for the politics of it, well there are lots of us dog owners and we vote, so you figure it out.

Anonymous said...

The pathetic bottom line is this:
There is not one public place in the "progressive" City of Pacifica where one can legally play a simple, basic game of fetch with their best friend. Pathetic isn't it?

Now consider this:
The only dog park that is being offered up is in the extreme southern part of town. What will be the impact on traffic? The environment? Dogs outnumber children in Pacifica with the latest estimate at 10,000. What would be the environmental impact if the guardians of all of these dogs from all over town decided to drive their pooch to this one dog park? Remember, most conscientious dog guardians will take their dog out for exercise before and after work. What will this additional spike in approximate rush hour traffic have on the community/environment? Where is our "green" Council on this one? Didn't the disbanded Animal Advisory Commission recommend dog parks in northern, central and southern Pacifica? Perhaps the former AAC was more environmentally conscious than the current Council and the anti-dog Pacificans for Sustainable Development (e.g., Paul Jones) crowd.

This City is SO fucked up!

Sneaky Pete Dejarnatt said...

I got elected to the city council by promising a dog park. Hahaha.

I snookered the voters again.

Dog lovers call me 355-6777 ask for Pete

Pacifica Truth Police said...

Sneaky - I called 355-6777 as you suggested and all I got was Pacifica tech support in Madras. I told them the City was broken and needed help. The guy on the other end, I think his name was Pete (might have been Vreejay), told me to run Defrag, clear the cash and then reboot the City.

Chris Porter, General Manager, Recology of the Coast said...

Recology of the Coast had a booth at the POOCH event and I have to say I really enjoyed myself. A lot of happy people with all different size dogs..I even saw woman that had a carrier the size of my purse with two dogs in it! It was really a fun day...

Sneaky Petey D said...

I promised to improve traffic on Highway 1, too. Bwahahahaha!

sneaky pete said...

I promise not to fall asleep during the city council meetings, but please can you try to end them by 9 pm.

mike bell said...

Where'd that De Jarnutt $7,2oo,ooo reserve go? That wascally wabbit will say anything to get re-elected. Can't wait to hear the incumbant BS for this election cycle. Someone do Vreeland a favor and record him. He has a hard time keeping his stories straight.

Kathy Meeh said...

" Defrag, clear the cash and then reboot the City." Truth Police no one can match you with this story and comment.

Mike, the $7,200,000 was part of the part of the "savings account", only problem is we had to pay the $10,000,000 bills for this year = - $2,800,000.

City Accountant said...

Vreeland said it was $4 million, Pete said $7.2 million. Sue and Julie both had different answers.

Mr Bell, who gets the name on the plaque outside the dog park? Jimmy Vreeland or Sneaky Pete Dejarnatt??

Anonymous said...

the interesting thing about this dog park is that it is being foisted right up against the property's on the sanchez's eastern edge. the proposal calls for a walkway to be put directly next to a fence that goes along the property's on the other side of this proposed dog park. the report further states that the dog park will not create any odor, disease, noise, or traffic as people enter and exit the sanchez driveway. NO ONE has listened to the homeowners who are the one's that are going to HEAR the noise of the dog owners talking on their cell phones, listening to music in their cars (as they currently do from time to time), not to mention the property value depreciation this will cause for the homes that currently back to the sanchez. i'm not opposed to a dogpark, but it should be located somewhere else where it will not impact people's lives directly who want no part of it in their back yard - literally. think about it people - would you want your peace and quiet (one of the many wonderful things about living in this beautiful place) ruined because some want a place to let their dogs roam free? the dogs don't create the noise - the owners do. this is not fair to the homeowners that this will affect. i realize that most of you probably do not care about this, but you should since they are your neighbors.

Jeffrey W Simons said...


I am pleased that Pacifica is moving forward with a dog park. I understand your concerns as a neighbor, but keep in mind this is a site the city selected for the dog park. Actually, the initial site offered was Esplanade Beach, which we can now see would have been woefully inadequate to support a dog park.

When I ran for City Council, I was pushing for Lower Frontierland Park as the site for the dog park. Other than parking concerns, there was really no reason NOT to chose this site. Coastside Scavanger (now Recology) pays $75,000 per year for the remediation of this site, and the city has never used the money for Lower Frontierland Park. The methane issues make this site unsuitable for prolonged human occupation, but can allow (with mitigation) short term use like a dog park.

(Unfortunately, the case has been made quite eloquently that this current City Council has misappropriated the Lower Frontierland Park remediation funds.)

There is also a strip of property behind Sanchez Library that would have made a better site for this dog park, but as Jim Vreeland played Monopoly with the city properties (and ultimately did nothing with anything), this site was taken off the table because it was part of some "big idea" that will never come to fruition. Same thing with Lower Frontierland Park, there's no plan to do anything with it.

However having worked with POOCH for several years, I can assure you they are committed to making the impact of this dog park as minimal as possible to the neighbors. They will listen to and work with the neighbors to deal with their concerns.

A quality dog park may actually enhance your property values, but that means holding out hope the city can actually construct anything of quality.

Sick of complainers without answers said...

"i'm not opposed to a dogpark, but it should be located somewhere else where it will not impact people's lives directly who want no part of it in their back yard - literally."


Sneaky Pete said...

Haha I got re-elected by promising a dog park. Boy oh boy you Pacificans fell for my BS once again.

We keep making empty promises and you keep voting us in.

And you call me dumb!

Alex Trebek said...

1. Dog parks
2. $7 million plus reserve
3. Pro business
4. Pro Quarry development
5. Profitable eco-grease refinery
6. The checks in the mail
7. The government is here to help you
8. I won't come in your mouth

Which of the above pre-election promises did DeJarnatt not make?

Steve Sinai said...

I'll take "Improve our streets and Highway 1 for safety and to relieve traffic congestion*" for $7.2 million, Alex.

* This statement came straight from Sneaky Pete's 2008 campaign brochure.

sneaky Pete said...

You all know we might have had $7,000,000 if we didn't squander the money on attorney fees, consultants & studies(who listens to them) a bio diesel plant.

We might have had a tax base if we sold off the old waste water treatment plant. The quarry might have brought in a few bucks.

Oh the school site on Linda Mar Blvd. How much money do the taxpayers pay to subsidize that place. The artistes in there pay below market rent.

We sure pulled the wool over the tax payers eyes again!

Kathy Meeh said...

Sanchez Artist Center, zero net revenue. Its another economic plan for the city-- that's what was claimed at city council when that 10 year deal was passed through with something like 2 1/2% increases per year.

The artist who rent there pay enough, but the city only takes 25% of that money. 75% goes to the organization itself for administration, primarily to pay the salary of an administrator. Then the city pays all utilities (electric, gas, water, grounds upkeep)-- another sweet deal for "friends".

Ken Jennings said...

Alex, I'll take "tar balls" for 7.5 million gallons...

Cluster FOk said...

So do the hippies in Sanchez Artist Center pay market rent? How much is the monthly gas, electric, water etc? Has anyone looked into this??

Kathy Meeh said...

Of course, the analysis was on the city agenda when the contract was renewed a year early in December I believe. Look at the agendas on the city website, then the back Item detailed pages. PB&R presented the information.

The artists share the larger studios, even 3 or 4 in one studio (that's crowded), they pay enough for what they get. Again, the issue is the city collects only 25% of what the organization, and no utilities fees are assessed. That contract was set 1 year in advance for 10 years beginning 1/2011.

Another issue: discrimination.
The old tenants may continue to renew. The new tenants may only be renewed up to 6 years, and are reviewed by a committee every 2 years. Are all these contracts based on a similar, fair formula? Considering "different studio renewal strokes for different folks" my guess is of course not.