Thursday, April 25, 2013

Dog park problems and possible solutions

Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff, 4/23/13.  "PB&R Commission approves dog park changes as concessions to neighbors."

So much permanent open space transferred outside Pacifica interferes with city civic planning.  Finding space for a dog park that will not cause conflict with neighborhood tranquility is another example.  Would GGNRA consider donating some land back to Pacifica?

I'm your best friend, give me a place to run free
From last week's city Parks,Beaches & Recreation (PB&R) Commission meeting, with study sessions to follow.

....  "The commissioners agreed to pay $4,500 for an irrigation system to water the surfaces of the dog park. Neighbors had been complaining of dust flying into their yards. They also agreed to hire a soundproofing consultant to evaluate potentially putting in soundproof fencing to shield the neighbors from the noise in the park. The consultant will cost $450.  
Sunday outside the dog park

They also agreed to have a city staff member, instead of a neighbor, open and close the park. And they changed the dates the park is open. In addition to Tuesdays, the park will now be closed on Sundays. The commissioners agreed to revisit when the dog park will be open again in six months. 

....  "I think we can come up with a good balance in the reduced hours," said Commissioner Cindy Abbott. "But I'd like to look at an alternate location not close to this one, but to accommodate other users. That would alleviate the problems here. Also, revisit the use of Sharp Park beach as an off leash area."    Read article. 

Reference -    City of Pacifica, PB&RDepartment, Agendas and Minutes. Meeting of  4/17/13, Agenda item, 8.  The minutes from the 4/17/13 meeting are not yet available. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Like Bernie said at council a couple times. The neighbors had their legal chance to go to council long ago and didn't.

Sour grapes. If they want a sound proof fence put in let them pay for it.

I think this is the Johnson guy stiring up trouble about the dog park. You know the guy who has his for profit business in the non profit art center.

Anonymous said...

The handwriting's on the wall on this one. Council will roll-over and play dead. Who's behind it?
Got some unhappy neighbors but somebody absolutely made sure to keep the pot boiling.

Really too bad because this is a good location for a lot of people. Flat access so it's easy to use especially for seniors and disabled, safe and visible and no punks hanging around like up at Frontierland, dog-owners in the neighborhood can actually walk to it, city-owned public property meant for public use.

Yes, the Dog Park's days are numbered. PB&R Commissioners backing away as fast as they can and you know this Council will roll over and play dead.

Lotsa luck up at Frontierland in the bushes with the punks or on Sharp Park Beach which ain't ever gonna happen. One step forward, ten steps back. Typical Pacifica bullshit.

Anonymous said...

It depends if Steve Johnson, has any friends on Council. This is the guy who screamed how he was buddies with Vreeland and the dog park at Sanchez would never happen.

Anonymous said...

I don't give a rip about Johnson (he's an ungrateful complainer)
I feel bad for the neighbors who have to live with the noise, flies and smell of dog shit. This was never a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Closed Tuesdays and Sundays? Pathetica. Absolutely Pathetica.

Anonymous said...

That place has long been an unofficial dog park with plenty of poop and flies all over the place. And hardly quiet and serene with zillions of noisy kids using the sports field or musical performances at the Performance Hall. Some of the stirred-up neighbors used it as their private dog park. It'll go right back to an unregulated dog park if the city bails. And it sounds like the PB&R Commission is back-pedaling fast and that's the beginning of the end. Council will not fight for it. This could have been a very sweet little neighborhood dog park, but then again, this is Pathetica.

You dog folk are about to be screwed again. Salvage what you can. Forget the neighborhood idea including Frontierland (they fought tooth and claw against it 6 or 7 years ago) and go for the gold! Sharp Park Beach would be a fabulous and accessible doggie beach and would bring people to Pacifica. And other than baggies what expense would there be? It was even approved as such by PB&R and Council 7 or 8 years ago. After approval, some behind the scenes council shenanigans let the idea die. It was rumored that a then-councilman objected to the idea of dogs chasing birds. We'll have none of that in Pacifica! I kid you not. The birds in question aren't a protected or endangered species and they hang out down at the south end of the beach.

Since dogs and their tax-paying owners are so unwelcome in the neighborhoods--even on public property--maybe it's time to get smart and go to the beach!

Anonymous said...

Thinking back to the vote that created this park Nihart and Digre were then on council and voted for it. Dejarnatt voted for it. I believe it was unanimous. I recall Ms. Nihart saying it would be an improvement to the unofficial dog park that was going on there. Ms. Digre had enviro concerns and those were answerd to her satisfaction. Maybe they'll show some backbone and fight for it for the people who use it. Even if PB&R doesnt'. Some of the problems can be fixed and could just be growing pains. Some of the problems are due to a steady propaganda campaign.

Cala said...

Prior to the opening of the Sanchez Dog Park, the PBR Commission committed to regular review of the park. As a result, the topic has been agendized at both study sessions and regular meetings of the Commission over the past year. Neighbors and dog park advocates regularly attend these meetings and voice their comments to the Commission. Those for and those (neighbors and others) with concerns about the dog park are about 50 / 50, as has been the historic pattern of comments since the quest for a dog park began over five years ago. The Sanchez Dog Park will continue to be on the agenda at future meetings; members of the public that would like to share their views – from all perspectives -- are encouraged to attend. (As stated at Commission meetings, a balance of approaches to remedy concerns and continued operation of the Sanchez Dog Park is my goal. For that reason, I supported the original reduction in hours, what was developed in partnership between the neighbors and POOCH. In the recent vote for further reduction of hours, I cast a nay vote.)

Anonymous said...

The campaign to close it will not end and it will probably close. Do you think any other neighborhood will welcome a dog park after this? This one was safe and accessible for dog-owners of all ages. Oh well, it was an unofficial dog park before and it can be one again.
The Sharp Park Beach thing needs to be looked at again but don't get your hopes up. This city can always find an excuse not to do right by residents and their dogs.

Anonymous said...

One sometimes wonders why we have become so cynical about politics and our government, especially the younger generation. How did we get to this point? Well, Sharp Park Dog Beach is the classic example. Although approved as a dog beach back in 2002 by all of the stakeholders (e.g., SF Rec & Park Dept. heads Elizabeth Goldstein and Dan McKenna, the unanimous vote of 2000-2002 Pacifica City Council of Vreeland, Mayor Carr, Gonsalves, Hinton (Dejarnatt absent)) somehow through political slight of hand by 2002-2003 Mayor Pete Dejarnatt, the actual authorizing ordinance never materialized. Hence, we have living proof that the actual recorded vote of a sitting City Council means absolutely nothing. Imagine the poor saps who worked tirelessly and defied all odds to get the necessary approvals to make this dog beach happen. Imagine one's shock that a single Council member can unilaterally reverse the unanimous vote of the other four all by themself without any public notice or hearing - inotherwords, absolutely NO due process. Pathetica, simply Pathetica...

Anonymous said...

POOCH made many promises, have they kept them?

Anonymous said...

@1000PM, True, every word of it. City attorney really earned her enormous salary for her advice on that one. Did Pete, who didn't want to see dogs chasing birdies on the beach, out-maneuver the other 4 who voted publicly for it or was the whole thing a set-up by some or all of them from start to finish? What arrogance!
Bottom line, this issue needs to be revisited asap if for no other reason than good, honest government and to right a terrible wrong. Maybe SF will no longer agree to the Sharp Park Dog Beach idea, but we'll never know til the question is again put to them. Wouldn't this be smarter than futzing around with the clearly inferior substitute locations like the Sanchez Art Center or Frontier Land or up in Fairmont? Hell yes! Make a lot of people and dogs real happy Council and get on it! You might even bring a few bucks into this broke-down city with visitors to a real doggie beach.

Anonymous said...

John Curtis, called Pete, and told him to make this go away. John Curtis, ran Pete, and Pete, Boasted to his hippie,noobee, and nimby base that he speaks to Curtis once or twice a week on the phone.

What a sad state when a life long mooch Curtis, gets to wreck a city.

Anonymous said...

Pete was overheard making the comment about "birds being chased by dogs on the beach". More than once. And he found a way to derail the thing. No doubt, with some help.
What's important is that current events highlight the previous council's egregious and unethical lapse in judgement. This council has an opportunity to make it right. And, knowing what was done, they have an ethical obligation to at least try.