Lake Forest Pet Tales. Part 4 - Stumbling Blocks

For a while it looked like the dog park or zone was going to make it through the bureaucracy in record time. For a City that can take decades to get some things done, getting a dog zone up and running in a few months was probably more than should be expected.

(For those of you just joining us now, two decades after cityhood we still don’t have a senior center, an activities center, a civic center, a local animal shelter, a dog park, a stadium for our high school, a fully functioning synchronized traffic management system, etc. even while almost all of our neighbors have almost all of these amenities)

There appear to be several stumbling blocks. We’re going to take them on one chew at a time, but before we do, there is something that can be said for the long and winding road, so let’s pause.

In their frustration to find the perfect place for a dog park or zone, some of the members of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) looked at the larger picture of recreation needs for the people of Lake Forest. Commissioner Jim Rosenberg led the charge, suggesting that Normandale Park be transformed into a “Central Recreation Park”. In case you’re not familiar with Normandale Park, it is the undeveloped area across the street from Regency Park – a 10 acre site that is mostly hilly and (informally) used by dog owners, off-road vehicles, and remote control car aficionados.

With the need/desire for a community garden, a dog park, and the host of other recreational needs that are unavailable in the City, Rosenberg reasoned that the best solution might be to build a central area, not unlike the sports park concept. The other commissioners were quick to endorse the idea, with the caveat that it will take some time to study the idea, and making Normandale a suitable site will be costly. It’s definitely worth studying, but unfortunately it doesn’t solve the more immediate needs in front of the PRC. Hence, the prevailing idea, at the moment, is long term planning for a “Central Recreation” area that could include a full sized dog park, and a much smaller and more modest dog zone or two in the interim.

COMPETING RESOURCES

There is only so much money and the list of ways to spend the money is long. The Mayor is hot to trot with an indoor soccer arena (despite the fact we’re spending $40 Million on a new sports park), a new group is enthusiastically barking about a Community Garden, Councilman Herzog wants to look at filling the gap near Portola, the Village Pond Park is a disaster waiting to happen, etc. So the idea of spending $1 Million or more on a dog park has to stand in line with the other demands. And the additional problem of finding a space big enough to put a 3 to 5 acre dog park adds to the problem. Hence, many of us advocate a dog “zone” which can be added to any of a handful of existing parks with no problems at all.

LACK OF CLEAR CRITERIA

The Commissioners recently reported back on their assessment of 9 existing parks where a dog zone(s) might be built. The ratings were all over the place. Ratings of Rancho Serrano, Pittsford, Regency and Tamarisk Parks ranged from 1 or “worst” to 5 or “best”, which is as far apart as they could be. Only slightly better, with a range of 1 to 4, were Cherry and Montbury Parks. IOW, there was enormous disagreement on 7 of the 9 parks. This indicates that the criteria being used are not sufficient to produce reliable results, and without reliability one cannot achieve validity, without the intervention of pure chance.

Instead of simply going out and “looking” at a Park, the commissioners should go with a prioritized checklist. Here’s my own version which they can feel free to copy –

Mandatory

1.  In a park of sufficient size that the addition of the dog zone doesn’t redefine the nature of the park.

2.  In areas of that park that are not now being used for any other purposes (e.g., volleyball, picnics, basketball, decorative plantings. etc.)

3.  Adequate parking (preferably dedicated, off street)

Highly Desirable

4.  Close to high concentrations of known dog owners.

5.  Away from residential housing (the farther the better, but don’t worry, dog parks generate less noise than schools, playgrounds, sports fields, community pools, etc.)

Desirable

6.  With existing natural shade areas (e.g., trees)

7.  Conveniently located

Optional

8.  Ideally large enough for both a small dog and a large dog area (although this is not critical, and the small and large dog zones should be separated anyway)

9.  With one zone in the Foothill area and another in the "original city" area

Right now the PRC has tasked itself with looking more closely at 3 existing parks – Pittsford, Vintage, and Darrin. Quite frankly I believe that Regency and Borrego are far superior to the other 3, so I’m including these 2 as well.

Using this checklist, I’m going to see how the PRC’s top 3 choices do, and just for kicks, I’ll throw in my own 2 top choices. You can play along too and check out these parks and report back.

While we go about the job of rating the Parks, tomorrow we’ll address another one of the stumbling blocks – the pursuit of perfection.

Meanwhile, for a different perspective on the recent PRC meeting, see the article in today's issue of The Patch.