Walnut Creek Needs A Dog Park

We are getting warmer

2006-10-17T15:22:00.000-07:00

I hate to jinx the whole thing. But it looks like we may get a dog park.

The problem is that the space is too small for the only city dog park. But least we are getting something and it is start. It is at the end of San Carlos drive as the street bends to left and heads toward the equestrian center. The top border of the park will be the canal trail.

After this site is finished we can focus on getting a location in Tice Valley/south end of Walnut Creek

Next goal - Fund raising. Everyone ready to open their pocket books?!

A light at the end of the tunnel?

2006-02-21T13:32:00.000-08:00

Well there could be some good news ahead.

Please support the cause at the following meeting:

Community Meeting to Evaluate a Dog Park at Arbolado Park

7 p.m. Tuesday, Feb 28
Walnut Acres Elementary School – 180 Cerezo Drive, Walnut Creek

This is the first meeting in a community-based process to gather input on a proposal to locate an enclosed dog park at Arbolado Park on currently undeveloped land. All interested parties are invited to participate.

Future community meetings will be scheduled as needed. Results of these meetings will be forwarded to the Park, Recreation and Open Space Commission for consideration.

Meeting minutes will be posted at www.walnut-creek.org

For questions, call Gayle Vassar, Community Relations Officer for the City of Walnut Creek 943.5899x189 or Kathy Wilkie, Public Services Department 943.5899ext 222.

Get into the Holiday Mood

2005-12-09T05:14:00.000-08:00

Happy Holidays Everyone!

The caroling is all set for Thursday December 15th. We'll meet at 7pm at the picnic table in San Miguel Park, off of San Carlos. Georgi will plan a route for us to walk through the neighborhood that will take about an hour and Nancy Carlin is working on someone to provide hot cider and cocoa for us when we get back to the picnic table. She has a guitarist /singer friend lined up to lead the carols and they are working on sheets of the words. People should come with a flashlight to read the word sheets. Nancy is hoping to be able to come up with a bow and jingle bell combination to put on the dogs' collars.

Making Progress

2005-12-09T05:04:00.000-08:00

Could it be true? It looks like there may be some progress in our goal for a dedicated dog park in Walnut Creek. WCDOG President Sandra Nakamura-Bush had a very positive meeting with representatives from the city. I will keep you all posted on our progress.

Canine Emergency Kit

2005-09-27T15:59:00.000-07:00

With the recent hurricanes this seams all the more important.

Emergency Kit for dogs
1. Papers in a protective cover
copy of license, proof of vaccinations, chip number, recent photo, brief description of pet’s personality and quirks, emergency numbers (vet, home phone-address, other emergency person)
2. Leash and harness
3. Food for 3 days (canned with can opener if needed)
4. Medications and directions
5. Water dish/bottled water
6. Stake out and line
7. Muzzle
8. Booties to protect feet/ cover any wound
9 Blanket
10. Calming medication
11. Plastic bags for clean-up
12. Have crate available if possible
First Aid Supplies
eye wash (saline) for eyes and wounds
neosporin
hydrocortisone cream
hydrogen peroxide--to clean and flush wounds and induce vomiting if animal has ingested poison
sterile gauze pads
gauze wrap-stretch if available
padded wrap (available where horse suppies are sold) or rolled cotton
ace bandage-to place over rolled cotton
scissors-small, for cleaning hair from wounds, or cutting bandage material
tweezers
crazy glue (to seal wounds and apply to abraded paw pads)
benadryl (break capsule and rub on gums)
1 mg. per lb. of dog, 2 x a day
aspirin
325 mg per 60 lb. dog, 2 x a day
splint with newspaper or magazines and tape
calming medication (don’t use if major injury)
any prescriptions
thermometer, normal 100-102.5

Extras
1. Small toy
2. Item (t-shirt?) with owner’s scent on it
3. Grooming supplies if used regularly (brush, comb, toothbrush)

My letter of response to PROS June Meeting Comments

2005-08-13T09:32:00.000-07:00

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.com

cc. Sandra Nakamura-Bush, Mayor Skrel, and Theresa Harrington

WC Journal Survery

2005-08-13T09:29:00.000-07:00

Thank you to everyone who responded to the survery. The dog park/equestrian issue got 33 replys out of 92 respondents.

Here are the results:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/counties/contra_costa_county/cities_neighborhoods/walnut_creek/12356177.htm

He is right! It is like Groundhog Day over and over again

2005-06-03T09:16:00.000-07:00

I thought I would share this letter that was printied in the "Walnut Creek Journal." This gentleman also sent the letter directly to WCDOG. He has really captured the issue in a nutshell.

Posted on Thu, Jun. 02, 2005

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Where is city's dog park?

To the City Council members:

I've been a homeowner in Walnut Creek for over 18 years and have enjoyed our city immensely. I've never contacted the City Council before but felt very much compelled to write to you after reading the May 19 Walnut Creek Journal article about the dog park (or lack of). Walnut Creek has done an extremely good job of infrastructure planning and implementation: renovated downtown area, equestrian park, free downtown shuttles, skate park, new memorial outside City Hall, renovated City Hall complex, etc. But where is our Walnut Creek city dog park? The citizens have been trying to get a dedicated dog park for years and years now -- only to get delay after delay and run-around after run-around. This whole dog park fiasco reminds me of my recent remodel, which spanned two years. The contractor would promise to show up and do some work only to not show up. After contacting them, they said they would send someone over to perform a job and "not to worry, we'll get it done very soon." Round and round after promise, hope and disappointment we've finally completed our remodel. I wish the same could be said of the completion of Walnut Creek's dedicated dog park. This whole process seems like Groundhog Day all over again.

The only current place in Walnut Creek where dogs can be off leash is at San Miguel Park -- and then only if they are gone before 9 a.m. Wow, that's really great. Weekdays before 9 a.m. are nearly impossible for most of us. The last thing many of us want to do on Saturday and Sunday mornings is to get up at 6 or 7 a.m. in order to get out of San Miguel Park by the 9 a.m. closing time. This is not a solution.

After reading the article in the Journal, I agree with the WC DOG organization that the PROS commission recommendations are woefully inadequate. We need at least one large-sized, full-time dog park with grass and trees. How about the ball field in Civic Park? I am sorely disappointed in the total lack of progress in getting a full-time dedicated dog park in Walnut Creek. I don't know where to turn or who to ask for help in turning our dog park into a reality sometime within my dogs' (and my) lifetimes. It seems that with all the accomplishments that you, the City Council, have achieved over the years with considerable energy, effort, persuasion, expenditures and influence, that building a dedicated dog park would have been a cinch.
I guess not. I guess I'll still be traveling to take my dogs to the dog parks of our neighbor cities. Thanks to their efforts, at least I can take my four-legged friends somewhere to play.

Don Dudan
Walnut Creek

Tell me Why This Can't be a Dog Park?

2005-05-26T07:38:00.000-07:00

I raced home last night from work in order to take my dogs for a walk. The only option since there is no legal off-leash park in Walnut Creek. On our walk we pass by San Miguel Park. It is 6:55 PM. The sun is out. It is a beautiful warm evening. The tennis courts are full (as usual) with a set of ladies doubles and a set of men’s singles. Two teenagers were in deep conversation at the picnic tables. I proceed into the heart of the park, and there I am met with the site of absolutely nothing. No tots in the tot lot. No dribbles on the basket ball court. Not a sole using the lawn.

Why with the limited park resources in our city does the city allow this park to sit fallow most of the time? What a wasted asset! If the city REALLY wanted to build an economical dog park they would do it here in this park. Two more side of a fence up above in the turfed area and we would be done! But of course now I am being just too rational and logical for city politics!

City Council Needs A Wake Up Call

2005-05-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

City Council and Councilwoman Regalia need to wake up! Dismissing our group back to the PROS Commission is not going to work this time. We have tried for years to work with the PROS Commission with no satisfaction. It is time for this issue to be finally dealt with by our City Council.

Here is a copy of an article that ran in the Contra Costa Times:

Advocacy group feels dogged by city leaders
By Theresa Harrington
STAFF WRITER

After lobbying more than 10 years for a permanent dog park in Walnut Creek, members of the advocacy group WC DOG are unhappy that city leaders have not designated a site to meet their needs.

Frustrated with stop-gap measures, the group has formally rejected the city's plans to build a small dog area in the Shadelands Business Park and to have dogs share space with equestrians at Heather Farm Park.

In a letter to the City Council and Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission, the group has asked the city not to spend money on these short-term improvements, which the commission endorsed in February after several meetings.

Instead, the group has collected 400 signatures on petitions asking for a permanent dog park."We the Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group will no longer be muffled by 'future considerations' and Band-Aid solutions," wrote Sandra Nakamura-Bush, the group's president, in the May 12 letter.

Dog owners are "dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned" by the city's response to their previous pleas, because the 1-acre Shadelands site on Mitchell Drive near the Park and Ride lot is too small and the dirt Walnut Creek equestrian area is too dusty, Nakamura-Bush said.The sudden rejection of dog facilities by the group comes as a surprise to city officials, who thought the commission had come up with a plan three months ago that was agreeable to everyone.At that time, the commission agreed to maintain off-leash areas in open space in the city, retain morning off-leash hours at San Miguel Park, create the new off-leash area on Mitchell Drive, facilitate the shared use of the equestrian center and continue to evaluate off-leash dog needs and use."The last I heard, everybody was in agreement," Councilwoman Gwen Regalia said Tuesday. "We asked the PROS commission to deal with it, they have dealt with it, there was a sign-off. I would imagine if there's some concern, it would go certainly to the PROS commission and we may never see it."

The commission made its decision about dog park alternatives after establishing a task force that included two WC DOG members, said Commissioner Tracy Murray, who was the task force chairwoman.

"I'm disappointed that WC DOG is not satisfied with the proposal," she said. "The task force worked really hard toincorporate the viewpoints of not only WC DOG, but other people in the community, and there were ample opportunities to present alternative viewpoints."

Dog owners at the San Miguel Park on Monday said they would love to be able to use that site in the afternoons as well as in the mornings, but neighbors have objected to their presence.

They would also like to turn the former ball field in Civic Park into a dog park, after the East Bay Municipal Utility District finishes work on a water pipeline there.

City leaders have tentatively said they would like to plant grass in that area, which is now dirt, and make it into a "passive" park next to an enhanced creek walk, after three portable Civic Arts Education classrooms are removed.

WC DOG members are also holding out hope for space in Heather Farm Park, even though the City Council has adopted a master plan that does not include a dog park there.

Nakamura-Bush said she would be willing to look for sponsors to help construct a permanent dog park, if the city can find a large enough location. Group members don't like the idea of the small park in the Shadelands, which is not big enough for large dogs, she said.

With more than 13,000 dog owners in Walnut Creek, WC DOG members say the city should be willing to accommodate them."I'm really upset that they are putting a skate park at Heather Farm Park," said Walnut Creek resident Sian Oblack, who often takes her pet to dog parks in other cities. "Everyone else seems to be taken care of. Why can't we have a park?"

2005-05-24T16:50:00.000-07:00

We want to play!

Join Walnut Creek Dog Owner's Group

2005-05-24T16:07:00.000-07:00

Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group (WCDOG) is a non profit 501(c)3 group. WCDOG, advocates responsible dog ownership, supports off-leash dog exercise, and serves as a local educational resource to the community. The members of WCDOG have been working closely with the City of Walnut Creek's staff and Park, Recreation, and Open Space Commission (PROS), in the development of off-leash dog exercise areas. To date, our efforts to work with the city to locate and build a viable, dedicated dog park have failed. We need your support to join with us to voice a message that is powerful and persuassive to our City Council.

By joining this group you are showing support for off-leash dog park locations within Walnut Creek, California. Annual dues are $20.00.

Our official address is:
WCDOG
1867 Ygnacio Valley Rd, #120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Visit our website at www.wcdog.org

Walnut Creek Dog Owners Reject PROS Recommendation

2005-05-24T15:43:00.000-07:00

We, the Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group hereby formally reject the proposal and package outlined in your agenda report dated February 7, 2005.

Whilst we appreciate the efforts of the PROS. Commission and the task force, we are dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned at the recommendations which we perceive to be short-sighted band-aids which in no way take into account the needs of the dog owners. We definitely do NOT believe that this is a far-reaching proposal. We do not want valuable funds spent and work to proceed on Shadelands and the equestrian center.

The Shadelands area would make a good small dog park, but a small dog park should be attached to a large dog park. At San Miguel Park we enjoy a 3-5 acre area (this is according to the previous Parks Superintendent Kern Hildebrand) The Shadelands area is much less than an acre! How could you possibly think this would meet our needs? An area that small could be a recipe for disaster, with small and large dog usage. The small arena at the equestrian center that you are proposing we should share with the equestrians is a dirt and dust filled area. How come the equestrian population have had a large dedicated area at Heather Farms for years, for maybe 33 events a year and yet 13,000 to 20,000 (PROS. Commission estimates) dog owners have only dawn to 9:00 a.m. public park usage at only one park in Walnut Creek? In reality San Miguel Park is mainly populated by dog owners from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. but it is used 365 days a year!

Many residents of Walnut Creek who own dogs live in locations with limited garden access. The open space is not a good option for many dog owners, due to foxtails, fears of coyote encounters and also due to dog owner health limitations.

After ten years of working with the PROS. Commission this proposal is VASTLY inadequate for our needs. Given the time and effort spent attending and participating in meetings and submitting detailed documentation it seems our input and opinions have been overlooked.

We the Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group will no longer be muffled by “future considerations” and band-aid solutions. We have wasted many years with a variety of PROS Commissioners and endured many false promises of “future consideration” “dog parks being included in a master plan” and “consideration in extending dog park hours at San Miguel,” none of which have come to fruition.

The process in working with the PROS commission has failed, and we now wish to present our case to City Council. The time has come for our voices to be heard. We have suggestions and solutions, programs and plans. We hereby request City Council to put us on your agenda so that we may adequately inform you of our needs and present a detailed package to hopefully bring about a Walnut Creek Dog Park.

Thank you, we await your response.

Sandra Nakamura-Bush
President
Walnut Creek Dog Owners Group