July 11, 2005
Neil Gerstner, Chair
Park, Recreation, and Open Space Commission
1666 N. Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
RE: Response to remarks made by PROS Commissioners at June 6, 2005 Meeting
Dear Neil:
I was shocked and dismayed to hear the comments made by Barry Slavin and Tracy Murray, Vice Chair, during the June 6th meeting. I felt that especially the comments made by Ms. Murray were unprofessional and uncalled for given the fact that she challenged the validity of my statements in a public forum that allowed me no recourse or public rebuttal.
I will address Ms. Murray’s comments first. Given that I am not restrained by a three minute comment, I will be able to fully defend my position I made under public comment. As our current President, Sandra Nakamura-Bush correctly stated, this is a subject that has long been discussed with PROS. In fact my first meeting as a PROS Commissioner in 1996 was on the subject of continued use of San Miguel Park for off-leash use in the morning. In January of 2000, as a grass roots effort, the users of San Miguel Park came together and formed the Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group (WCDOG). This group has become a 501( c )3, tax ID number 48-1260779. At this time the group started working on an Off-Leash Master Plan for the city. This plan was presented to the PROS Commission in October of 2002. In response to this plan, PROS formed the Off-Leash Task Force. I was a member of that task force. John Biundo, then current President of WCDOG, was also a member of the Task Force. With the formation of the Task Force, WCDOG was asked to allow the process of the Task Force to take place. Meaning, WCDOG would not come to PROS meetings on a continuous basis to keep pushing our agenda for a dog park. We agreed to support the task force process and step down from our on going presence at PROS meetings.
At the May 2003 PROS meeting the Site Selection Criteria, Priority Best Practices, and a matrix of current neighboring dog parks was presented by the Task Force. (At this time, Heather Farm was the primary location being considered for the dog park. First consideration was the land between the Equestrian Center and the canal. Through the Master Plan process for Heather Farm, this area was deemed not appropriate for a dog park and the focus shifted to considering the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) land across the street from the Equestrian Center. (Upon further discussions with CCWD that spot was reasoned as not financially viable due to the CCWD desire for the city to mitigate drainage issue prior to use.)
At the May meeting PROS authorized the task force “to continue to research and ultimately recommend a site(s) for a Dog Park within the City Limits of Walnut Creek. The Task Force will accomplish the following:
- Conduct all work with broad community/citizen input
- Complete prioritization of desirable attributes of a Dog Park within the City
- Complete site selection criteria
- Conduct site visits for potential locations in the City
- Evaluate potential sites by applying the site selection criteria
- Develop a short list (2-3) of best candidate sites
- Develop strengths and weaknesses of each of the short list sites
- Generate budget estimates for build out of facilities at short list sites
- Make final recommendations for review by PROS Commission Members"
The task force then reconvened under the new guide lines. In August of 2003, PROS scheduled a study session. At this meeting the concept of Shadelands started to solidify as a viable option from a PROS point of view. At the September Task Force meeting, Dan Richardson presented the analysis of the Task Force list of potential sites and recommended that PROS should begin a study of two potential dog park sites: San Miguel Park and Larkey Park. WCDOG held a membership meeting on September 6th to discuss recent events of PROS and Task Force meetings and appeared before the PROS Commission on September 15, voicing their worry that the members of WCDOG had concerns with the Shadelands location but were in support of the San Miguel and Larkey locations. At this meeting PROS approved a motion to begin public hearings and environmental impact studies on building out dog parks at San Miguel Park and Larkey Park.
At the December 2003 task force meeting, it was decided due to state budgetary cutbacks, to proceed with conducting just one EIR. The Task Force decided, along with city staff, to proceed with San Miguel Park (SMP). At this time the task force asked for WCDOG’s support in pursuing just the one location. At the January 5, 2004 meeting, WCDOG told the PROS commission that they understood the issues with the budget and supported the concept of pursuing just the SMP location for now. On January 24, 2004 WCDOG held a membership meeting in SMP to show the proposed layout of the dog park within SMP. At the January 27th PROS meeting, funding for a dog park was listed as a top priority by 6 of the 7 Commissioners. In April the EIR came back favorable for SMP. At the April 13 PROS meeting WCDOG continued their support of the SMP location.
On April 29th a public meeting was held with the Rancho San Miguel neighborhood regarding the building of the dog park in SMP. Prior to this meeting, WCDOG was asked by the Task Force to not have their members present at this meeting. WCDOG instructed its members to not come to the meeting. About 35 neighbors showed up, and approximately 25 commented. Ninety percent of the commentary was mildly to vehemently opposed to the park, as you might expect. At the same time the Rancho San Miguel Homeowners Group (RSMHG) strongly opposed the dog park as well. This one meeting changed the whole course of direction of several years of work. Prior to this meeting, John and I were led to believe that there would be a series of meetings to allow full and open public comment upon this subject. But this proved to not be true. The whole direction and focus of the Task Force change in response to this one neighborhood meeting!
In May of 2004, Ms. Murray suggested to WCDOG Officer Lori Lustig that WCDOG should start a petition in support of a dog park. She suggested that the upcoming Human Race and ARF’s Animals on Broadway would be good venues for signature collection. In essence WCDOG was back to square one. But, by this time many decisions had been made based upon the expectations of the SMP or Larkey sites. The major issue being the Task Force had backed down from claiming a location for a dog park in the Heather Farm Master Plan. One neighborhood meeting had taken SMP out of the running, regardless of the fact that it is one of the most economically viable locations in our city. WCDOG tried to stay positive, but the course of events was frustrating at best. Most of all, the members of WCDOG never felt they had their opportunity for public comment on the SMP location. Many WCDOG members live within the RSM neighborhood. They did not participate in the one meeting in order to allow non-using neighbors their forum. This was based upon the information given at the Task Force meetings that more than one meeting would be held. John and I clearly stated our frustration on this matter at Task Force meetings.
In September of 2004, Ms. Murray instructed to me that it was now appropriate for WCDOG members to start coming to PROS meetings to voice their opinions under Public Comment. At the October 21st Task Force meeting WCDOG concerns regarding the Shadelands location was discussed in depth. During this time, the RSMHG continued their opposition to the SMP site. A public meeting was set for November 18th to discuss a new proposal for dog park locations. My issue with this meeting, and I openly stated this within the Task Force meetings, was its primary purpose to appease the RSMHG. It was not to have a city-wide discussion on dog parks. This is evidenced by the fact that only the RSM neighborhood was mailed notices regarding this meeting. While there was participation from areas across the city, this was primarily due to WCDOG efforts to get the word out about this meeting as well as misinformation stated by Gary Bogue in his column that the intent of the meeting was to discuss the discontinued use of off-leash in the open space. The notice of this general meeting did not site any specific agenda items. The proposal made at that meeting was as follows:
– Maintain current off-leash use in the Walnut Creek Open Space.
– Create a fenced off-leash area at the Shadelands Park and Ride facility located on Mitchell Drive. Open from dawn to dusk.
– Maintain current use at San Miguel {ark from dawn to 9 a.m. and explores extended hours
– Continue to explore shared use at the Equestrian Center in Heather Farm Park.
– Explore off-leash usage at other City Parks.
– This proposal is to be considered as a package.
Per the summary package that was put out by the city, the meeting was attended by 150 citizens. If you review the summary to the questions asked at the meeting, the summary to question number three asked at the meeting :”What is your reaction to the Task Force’s draft proposal designed to increase off-leash opportunities”, only group 7 specifically listed that they liked Shadelands as a destination location. The data will also show there was broad based support for the concept of the Shadelands location.
Now starts the black box period. At the next meeting I completely expected to be setting up the next public meeting to actually discuss the specifics of a dog park at the Shadelands location. Instead I was told the Task Force’s job was over and we just needed to make a recommendation to PROS. How can we truly recommend this location? I had previously told Tracy I would back the decision of the community. If after public review the public wanted Shadelands, then I would be its biggest supporter. But the public has not seen anything yet. The November meeting gave no details. No map, size of lot, nothing. Being born and raised in this city I feel a strong fiduciary responsibility to my fellow citizens. How can we spend this type of money on a location that has not been reviewed and discussed with its potential users? I can think of no other city project that has been conducted in such a manner with such a total lack of public input. If the city continues to build out this location, and no one uses it, it is not for lack of need. I have to seriously wonder why staff is so averse to holding a meeting to allow public comment. Could it be because they already have a sense that the users would not be happy with the size, shape, and location of this property?
This is why at the last meeting of the Task Force, I stated that I would not support the recommendation to PROS as proposed. Besides no formal review on the Shadelands area, the proposal now lacked the major package elements as presented at the November 2004 meeting. Ms. Murray stated that it was critical to present a unanimously backed proposal. I stated at this meeting that she could present a “unanimously” backed proposal and look good to PROS now and then receive the backlash from WCDOG in the future, or be open with presenting a proposal that had just the majority support of the task force. And for point of record, my support was conditional upon review of the final proposal to be sent to PROS. As I was traveling for work in Japan at the time, there is no record showing my actual support for the proposal presented to PROS.
PROS have made it clear that our only venue is to take our cause to City Council. We will do this happily. But, I was completely put off by the outright condescending tone used by Mr. Slavin and Ms. Murray. Just because you do not like our message or are tired of hearing it, does not allow for such inappropriate behavior.
As for Mr. Slavin’s remark and his “concern” with our turnover in officers; even the United States of America changes it’s President on a regular basis, just like PROS changes it chair every year. Per our bylaws, our officers hold one year terms. Conceivably over the course of WCDOG’s association with PROS there could have been 6 Presidents by now. We have had three. I do not see that as an alarming thing, but the sign of a vital and healthy group.
Hopefully, the city will stop the process and proceed with public meetings to discuss the Shadelands location. Walnut Creek is known for first rate facilities. I do not believe that a dog park in the Shadelands location could ever be deemed as first rate. It is not of an appropriate size to truly support city-wide usage safely. I look forward to continued discussions with the PROS Commission on this subject. I truly believe that we can come up with appropriate and economically viable locations within our city.
Regards,
Pamela Kan
2837 San Benito Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
925-584-0713
pak@bwc.comcc. Sandra Nakamura-Bush, Mayor Skrel, and Theresa Harrington
