From my perspective, there are several reasons why we are where we are with regard to a dog park, which is basically nowhere.
POOR STRUCTURE FOR PROBLEM SOLVING
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The first and most obvious reason is that the structure of the Parks and Recreation (PRC) does not lend itself to problem solving. I’m not picking on the PRC, as the same can be said for the Planning Commission and even the Council. Coming up with the best location for a dog park requires consideration of many factors, and these types of discussions just don’t fit well within the structure of the PRC. Between the staff reports and the structure of the PRC, there is another layer of problem solving that isn’t realized, and while this doesn’t necessarily come up every time, or even very often, in this case the rift between staff reports and Commission decision-making is too wide. Here is an ideal place where a working committee could do some creative problem solving in a few weeks, versus the tedious back-and-forth that has characterized the dog park debacle.
(Given how poorly the PRC is doing making progress on the Village Pond Park, there is obviously a need for an "Animal Committee" to take on these tasks. See my recent article on this subject)
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
OVERLY RESTRICTIVE SEARCH
Second, the PRC restricted their search to only city parks. There are many pieces of land in the City where a dog park might go. Some of the most promising properties belong to the County, Cal Trans, private owners, etc. Indeed there are several pieces of City owned property that are also attractive. None of these were considered. Why?
GIVING UP TOO EASILY
Third, having restricted their search to only city parks, the PRC spent several months finding out that putting a dog park next to residential homes will upset the people who now live in those homes. Kudos to the dozens of Lake Forest residents who besieged the PRC and the Council, insisting that their homes were too close to the proposed dog park. But not every city park is as close to residents’ homes as Darrin is (e.g., Borrego, Regency), so why does the search end there? Why indeed did it begin there?
MIX MATCH
Fourth, the PRC made the mistake of trying to squeeze a dog park for the entire city into an existing park that was more suited to be one of several dog zones in existing parks. Darrin Park was just not sufficiently big enough to serve as anything but an off leash dog zone for the area. Of course, this might not have lessened the furor created by the residents, but it would have made the PRC’s choice less defensible if Darrin were one of 3 or 4 dog zones going to be created city-wide. As the sole dog park for a city with nearly 80,000 people, it was a poor choice.
IGNORING THE OBVIOUS
Fifth, the PRC ignored the one park which was far away from any residential homes (ie., Borrego). It’s really unclear why they chose to ignore this park. One commissioner opined that several years ago when they wanted to put in a high density 80 foot light tower to allow sports play at night, surrounding residents who felt they would be impacted by the lights at night and the activity, objected. From that he reasoned that they wouldn’t want a dog park. I suppose it’s possible he’s right, but one would think they should find out first before dismissing the option in the park that was far better suited for a dog park.
Another commissioner worried about the parking, despite the fact that apart from school drop off and pick up times, and sports events, the current parking lot is rarely full, and when it is full, overflow parking into the Foothill Library area easily handles the excess. Yet no one got any data. Alternatively there is enough unused space next to the current parking area where a dozen new parking spots could be added to accommodate the extra parking spaces, if any, used by the dog owners. This would not only have served the dog owners, but would have been extra parking for everyone else. Yet this park was not chosen for further study.
Tomorrow I want to focus on what we can learn from what we’ve done (or not done) so far.
