News


Pleasanton to build $300,000 new dog park

2nd off-leash 2-acre run approved after years of petitioning

Spacious and often elaborate dog parks are the rage of many American cities, and now Pleasanton is about to join in.

With 26,800 dogs in town and after years of pleading by dog aficionados, the City Council has signed off on a $300,000 plan for a second, and much larger, off-leash dog park on a two-acre site at the Lagoon Road/Bernal Avenue staging area of the Marilyn Murphy Kane Trail.

Although it's flatland sandwiched between the Arroyo de la Laguna just south of the Bernal Avenue bridge and the on-ramp to southbound I-680, heavy brush along the arroyo and the Pleasanton Ridge to the west make the area a bit more attractive than it sounds. But then dogs just want a place to run unfettered, not a scenic park.

But then scenic parks are the trend of dog parks being built these days, with some sporting beach-front land, fountains and even art exhibits for pet owners to enjoy while their dogs run free.

In Pleasanton, it will be up to landscape architect Bob Tanaka and his Berkeley-based design group to deliver an innovative design for Kane Trail dog park that meets the approval of the council and the hundreds of off-leash advocates who have been pleading with city officials for a larger and more attractive dog park since the first one opened in Muirwood Community Park in 1998.

That narrow back-of-the-park exercise area lies just under the noisy I-680 freeway, with the only amenities consisting of a watering bowl and a picnic table.

Tanaka's $49,400 contract calls for design work that will include a parking analysis, site survey and presentation of his schematic design at public hearings before the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council starting in December. Final approval will likely come next February when a construction contract is awarded. The new dog park could open in mid-2015, according to Steve Bocian, assistant city manager.

Hopes for a second dog park came alive in 2000, when Pleasanton acquired free-of-charge 138 of the 515-acre Bernal site that developers bought. Pleasanton has 52 community parks but only one for dogs, and pet owners badgered the council to place a better and larger one on Bernal.

But those hopes were dashed when in a 2006 referendum on the amenities that could go on Bernal, sports and 4-H demonstration fields, a youth center, cultural arts center, wooded trails and even a meandering creek were included, but specifically no dog park.

So fast-forward to last February after another eight years of petitions and emails to city leaders, the current council -- no doubt exasperated with all the dog talk, and with several on the council who own dogs -- gave the green light to the Parks and Recreation Commission and community services director Susan Andrade-Wax to dedicate 1.5 acres of the 12-acre Kane Trail site for dogs. Planners also acknowledged that at least two other dog parks will be needed in the future to serve those living on the east and south sides of the city, but it could take another eight years before those are considered.

To be sure, dog parks are seen as a poor use of parkland by nearly half the population and as good for pets and families by the other half, according to a report by the Association of Pet Trainers.

In a perfect world, dog parks would not have to exist as well-behaved dogs would have the privilege of being off-leash. And, despite laws to the contrary, dogs often can be seen running free in Pleasanton parks under the benevolent eyes of their owners. Good dog parks, it is said, encourage owners to take their dogs there for safety and hygiene reasons.

Perhaps that's what makes dog parks the fastest-growing segment of the urban park population. Today, in the 100 largest cities in the United States, there are over 600 off-leash parks for pooches to putter around and play.

Here are a few:

Bonita Springs, Fla. Spending almost $400,000 for a dog park in Bonita Springs seemed extreme, especially when critics considered other proposed uses for the site, such as an affordable housing community or a social services center.

"Love for pets is commendable," the Bonita Springs News-Press commented in an editorial. "Dedicating so much land and the cost of such features as an irrigation system and special sod, when there could be a better use for the property, deserves much more discussion that could result in a better long-range plan."

Even so, the Bonita Springs City Council voted earlier this year to spend additional money for the park after costs came in about $93,000 over the original $300,000 budget for the 6.5-acre site. Lora Taylor, the city's communications manager, said last week that construction is ready to start.

Fort Walton Beach. Also in Florida, some residents in Fort Walton Beach criticized the dog park proposed for Liza Jackson Park for relying on taxpayer dollars to pay for lighting, landscaping, maintenance and so forth. The new park is in a woodsy corner of the park that planners say can't be used for much else anyway. Also, it's funded with donated money, not tax revenue.

"This effort was a joint one between our chamber and the city of Fort Walton Beach," said Ted Corcoran, president of the Greater Fort Walton Beach Chamber of Commerce. "The land is unusable for normal park amenities, thus perfect for this dog park concept."

Jacksonville. On Florida's eastern shore, Jacksonville's dog park charges $11 per pup to enter, but the price may be worth it. Here's what you get: 42 acres of open space, closed space, agility courses, 10 acres of nature trails, three lighted acres for use until 10 p.m., and Lake Bow Wow, a 2-acre swimming lake with a fountain.

Shreveport, La. In Shreveport, a proposed dog park has become a political issue. Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover is blocking one planned for his city. The Red River Waterway Commission there put up $280,000 to build the dog park along the riverfront. The city council supports it, but the mayor does not. Now, a lawsuit has been filed by the Shreveport Dog Park Alliance to force the mayor to approve the project. So, at this point, the city is not going to get a dog park for free, and instead will have to spend money defending a lawsuit.

New York City. Tompkins Square, the first of 55 dog parks now scattered across the Big Apple, opened in 1990 after a huge community effort to take it from a square block of urban decay and turn it into a safe place for dogs. In 2008, the park went through a $450,000 renovation that included a state-of-the-art clay surface. The park hosts an annual Halloween dog parade.

Chicago. Mondog Park, the Windy City's first "legal" off-leash dog park, offers a chance for dog owners to walk their pets along the shores of Lake Michigan.

Provincetown, Mass. Although relatively new, Provincetown's dog park consistently makes the cut as a top dog park in America. It's filled with wonderful structures, painted benches and tall sculptures donated by the surrounding artists in the Cape Cod area, making the locale more than just a dog park.

Seattle. In a city where there are more canines than kids, pet owners can find 11 off-leash parks within the city limits, including Magnuson, the only one with access to Lake Washington's freshwater shoreline. At 9 acres, the park also has a special, fenced-in section for small dogs.

Los Angeles. Laurel Canyon's dog park is centrally located high in the hills off Mulholland and home to many of Hollywood's beautiful people and their pups. The park has been described as "a dirt oasis" for dogs, but it doubles as a top, celebrity-sighting destination.

Houston. Remember Millie, President George H. W. Bush's English springer spaniel? Millie died of pneumonia in 1997 at age 12, but Millie's name lives on with the sprawling, 13-acre dog park with three ponds, water fountains and wash-stations established in her honor in Houston.

Even closer to home, there are a number of dog parks that top Pleasanton's single off-leash run at Muirwood Park.

Point Isabel in Richmond is a one-of-a-kind, landscaped, 23-acre off-leash dog park that is one of the largest in the country. It has sweeping views of the Bay Area, and is well known for its dog bath facility, Mudpuppy's. Half a million dogs visit Point Isabel each year.

Nearby cities also have larger dog parks, including Dublin, San Ramon, Livermore, Danville, Castro Valley, Alamo, Fremont, San Leandro, Hayward and Union City.

"Pleasanton has a great park system," said Melanie Sadek, executive director of Valley Humane Society. "It is time to add a great dog park, one that has ground cover that is easy for dogs to run on, shade for the owners, water for the dogs and lots of wide open space for them to run."

"Off-leash parks play a significant role in the health and well-being of our canine residents and their families," she added. "Plus a well-exercised dog is a good dog. Tired dogs are less likely to bark, destroy property or cause problems in general."

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of Birdland
on Aug 5, 2014 at 7:57 am

$300,000 for a dog park?? I can think of many other things this city could be spending that money on!!
That is absolutely stupid. I like dogs. I have one. I don't need some fancy dog park to walk my dog. And neither do any other Pleasanton residents.
This city is definitely 'going to the dogs'


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by NoDog
a resident of Ironwood
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:22 am

How about spending $300K to hire people to pick up the poop dog owners seem to leave behind?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Lee
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:38 am

Spending $300,000 on a dog park? That is a waste of money! There are plenty of places to walk your dog right now! That money could be used for people, not dogs! Like more computers for the schools, more teachers for special education students, more money for Axis Health Care etc...

Wake up to the real needs of this community and spend it on people, not more dog parks!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:40 am

How about $300,000 for a parking structure downtown? Something that is desperately needed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pooch Parade
a resident of Country Fair
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:42 am

Just to fire you up more: Check out the Pooch Parade at the first Wednesday tomorrow. The rowds will be sparse as more of our people will go to Livermore. It is official: Downtown is dead and the town has gone to the dogs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maggie
a resident of Valencia
on Aug 5, 2014 at 8:45 am

As someone with a dog and no children, it is about time my tax dollars go to something I can use! Now lets see if this actually gets done - the powers that be in Pleasanton have a way of delaying projects for one reason or another.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:17 am

[Removed because it is irrelevant]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wow
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:49 am

I think our schools need that money a lot more than the dogs do! What a waste of money!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deport Cholo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2014 at 9:55 am

This list just keeps growing of projects that the City Council whizzes money away on while critical infrastructure maintenance goes wanting. We have streets in the city that are in horrible shape. We need to be watering golf courses, existing sports parks, and medians with grey water, so grey water lines need to be put in (or else you may lose all your landscaping next year). Library expansion keeps getting tabled. A parking structure is needed downtown before all of downtown moves to Livermore. All of those are far more important than building a dog park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:27 am

How can so many folks be so down on dogs...?
[Removed because it is irrelevant]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ptownnative
a resident of Stoneridge Orchards
on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:56 am

Why do they have to get some guy from Berkely? Why can't the dog owners volunteer to do it? I'm sure they would all pitch in for their beloved doggies. I would! All the surveying and analysis...and oh the 'presentation' is all over priced. We can take care of our own. We don't need to spend that much money on an outsider. That's a lot of money. Love the dogs but not the counsels descisions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dog Lover
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 5, 2014 at 11:33 am

Our dogs do not need a fancy shmancy dog park ! There are so many beautiful parks in Pleasanton where dogs can safely play off leash. All you have to do is walk your dog in your neighborhood and look. My dog has been playing safely in a park that
No one hardly ever uses right off of Golden Rd. and Hopyard....Hansen park also has large open spaces for my dog to safely fetch her ball and interact with other dogs. All a dog needs is a good daily walk with his human.
Please spend that money on something that is more important...like a parking structure so us humans have a place to park our cars when we need a good walk downtown to spend our money there and not Livermore !




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kris
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm

This is so ridiculous that we are spending this money on a dog park! what a joke....what a sad pathetic joke


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jade
a resident of Stoneridge
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:31 pm

I think it's a wonderful development and sorely needed. Many dogs really need to be able to get in a full-out, off leash run, as well as be able to socialize off leash with other dogs...something an on-leash walk can't provide. Livermore already has some fantastic off leash parks; if we want P-town people to stay and spend leisure time money here rather than Livermore, this could help a little bit towards that end (e.g., I often go to breakfast or coffee before or after heading to the dog park with friends).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Suzie Wong
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm

[Removed because it was irrelevant}


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm

[Removed because it was irrelevant}


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Extremely disappointed in this decision by city "leaders". How a dog park can trump the city's REAL needs and the Bernal Master Plan, which truly took into consideration PEOPLE over DOGS is an embarrassment. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jam
a resident of Parkside
on Aug 5, 2014 at 5:02 pm

Jam is a registered user.

What a disappointment that this city is putting the needs of dogs ahead of the needs of the school children and many other things.
What are they thinking. Why not make one of the new big developers foot the bill for a dog park. They are going to be bringing in hundreds of people to use up the city's resources the least they can do is give something back


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Aug 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

YOU PEOPLE DONT GET IT. Dog parks ARE about people. Dogs bring a lot of joy to families and their owners (guardians, pet parents, whatever). They make us get out and go for hikes, walks, and be social with other people.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PW62
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 6, 2014 at 5:49 pm

PW62 is a registered user.

Great news! Pleasanton only has one dog park and by comparison, Livermore has 5.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 6, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

This is great news. Why not a "pay to play" fee for those who use the park? It could either reimburse the coffers or help pay for upkeep.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Citizen Paine
a resident of Danville
on Aug 7, 2014 at 8:49 am

Citizen Paine is a registered user.

Okay, so $300K seems like a lot of money -- does anyone have the budget breakdown, so we can see what's being included in that figure? Without that, all we have is a geewhiz number.

About 40% of Pleasanton households have at least one dog. How many park uses can there be that potentially appeal to that percentage of residents? Baseball fields? Tennis courts? Seems quite doubtful that many park uses can draw from such a substantial number. The DP serves People, with dogs.

And as others have mentioned, the DP serves non-dog-owners, as well, as it inevitably means fewer lawn ornaments, off-leashers where they're Not welcome, and less nuisance barking from tired, happy hounds.

Now, if there are amenities that gild this lily, I can assure you that they are for the people -- the dogs couldn't care less about high-end features.

So let's just be clear -- the money is for the people, and let's spend it wisely. But let's not confuse the budget with the concept -- it's an excellent addition to Pleasanton's parks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 8, 2014 at 8:52 am

Commentor is a registered user.

This dog park would definitely be for people - the selfish, frivolous FEW. Did you know that more than 35% of PUSD high school kids are not college/career ready? And that our schools are so strapped they can't afford enough money to pay custodians to do the work of keeping our schools well maintained - that's 14,000 students that can really use this money to help reduce class sizes. How about gym space for team sports - did you know there was a shortage of that in Pleasanton? What happened to the community arts center, Native American meditation center, beautification that was included in the Bernal Master Plan that our City Council conveniently trumped for a DOG PARK. Mental health services aren't even close to being able to service everyone who needs them and therefore many of our youth either already use, or are at risk for drug/alcohol addiction. Ask any high schooler if they've been offered drugs at school - you'd be surprised at how rampant a problems this is. Walk down the Marilyn Kane trail - many people and dogs ALREADY enjoy the NATURAL beauty of this area. Do we really want to see some chain link fence/dog park there?. The view to the ridge would be obstructed by - a dog park??!! The citizens of Pleasanton do not a need a dog park just so a few dog owners can UNLEASH their dogs and the dogs/owners can "socialize" . Dogs are pack animals and many are territorial - for humans to project that it's good for their to socialize, unleashed with other strange dogs in public is a dangerous experiment they can do, but please don't use my hard earned money, as a taxpayer for this. I'll bet it will lead to more dogfights than "socialization". If there is an attorney out there willing to help us fight this, I am certain many would chip in to stop this gross misappropriation of funds and hold those who made it happen responsible. Many of us in the neighborhood voiced our concerns but apparently the City of Pleasanton did not listen - why they even waste more time and money asking if it's not taken into consideration? Get the corruption out of our city government.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Dogfather
a resident of another community
on Aug 8, 2014 at 9:56 am

The Dogfather is a registered user.

Everybody always has a 'pet' cause that's more important than any specific project. For the Pleasanton Anything to plead poverty is laughable. It just ain't so. This is also the first time I've heard 40% of our friends and neighbors called The FEW.

Commentor, your ignorance of dog park behavior is clearly stated. Dogs are territorial, but the point is that this is not their territory -- fights, or even displays, are very rare -- indeed much fewer among canines than among their people, whose behaviors is typically much more sketchy I've broken-up many more skirmishes betw homosaps than canis familiarii at the DP.

There are many situations in this world that are worthy of y/our righteous outrage. Please go find one.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:35 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I admit I haven't followed this closely enough to know the amounts, but it seems to me pet owners have paid licensing fees (albeit small) for many years. Maybe it's only enough to pay for staff, maybe less, maybe more, but it isn't like residents with pets aren't paying taxes as well as the fees.

Also, the city and the district are two separate entities. You cannot use that $300,000 for the schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Dogfather - 40% of Pleasanton residents own a pet? or 40% of Pleasanton residents want to spend $300,000 on a dog park before OTHER needs? Clarify, better yet, cite your evidence. Big difference. For you to say that there aren't bigger problems than a dog park in Pleasanton is, quite simply ignorant.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Kathleen, I highly doubt there is anything in the law or IRS tax code to stop them donating to a non-profit with like minded goals. They just have to get their priorities straight. Is Pleasanton Parks and Rec really in a position where they HAVE to spend the money on SOMETHING and cannot give to our schools, or senior services, or health agencies, other human services? Someone show me, please. This is the type of thing that makes the public distrust any "government" if this passes, expect donations to PPIE, PUSD, other support for public measures and other similar causes to go down. Distrust breeds problems far larger than the need for another dog park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Dogfather
a resident of another community
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm

The Dogfather is a registered user.

Here ya go, Mr. Scrooge: The number is not 'pets' -- it's 'dogs,' based on the American Veterinary Medical Assn formula. Web Link See also: Web Link 40% may be low hereabouts because of the higher popularity of dogs in this region and high economic stratum (with everybody but YOU).

By contrast, only 9% of people in the US play tennis. Web Link 10% play softball. Web Link Aaaannndddd 3% play soccer. Web Link

Those are relevant, apples-to-apples comparisons. So, Pleasanton, tear up all those courts and playing fields, and don't even THINK about a swimming pool. You huffy tea partiers seem to think you can choose where your taxes go by referendum -- that's not how our system works. Go take a walk in the park -- but don't kick anybody's dog, okay?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Commentor, I have seen cooperation to build and use facilities (Harvest Park gym). I have seen a district pay $4M to buy fair share for use of a road improvements (vineyard). I have seen the city offer a loan to the district ( don't recall if it happened). I have seen shared landscaping crews, fields, resource officers, and theater use. But I have not seen an outright gift of funds. I believe it is prohibited, but I'll have to do the research unless someone else knows. There are examples where cities run the schools, like Chicago. I'll let you draw your own conclusions there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Kathleen, cooperation is good, whether it's an outright or not-so-outright gift of funds, there are other ways to put the money towards more pressing needs. I fail to see the point in comparing Pleasanton to Chicago. Please clarify.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Calm down, Dogfather. This bickering is going nowhere. Don't be surprised if, if put on the ballot where EVERYONE gets a vote, this dog park doesn't fly. If the majority of people want to spend $300,000 on another dog park then I'll agree to disagree. That's not what I think happened here though. You get a few myopic dog-lovers in key positions and this is what happens. Not really how democracy is supposed to work, is it? BTW you still didn't answer my question, but I'm not going to hold my breath for the truth from you. Good bye -


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Just noting that too much city in the schools and vice versa (no examples?) makes the separate priorities of each entity fuzzy and possibly both entities. Chicago is a hot mess.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Dogfather
a resident of another community
on Aug 8, 2014 at 5:56 pm

The Dogfather is a registered user.

Me calm down? After You called for a lawyer's crusade against this grave injustice? One of us waxed apoplectic, and it was not me.

When you ask a question knowing full well there's no answer, do not expect one. There has been no poll done of Pleasantonians -- if there was, you'd complain about the cost of it. That's why, as here, we work through our elected officials.

Now, allow me a question: do You Know for a fact that it's just 'a few myopic dog lovers in key positions?' If so, cite Your sources, and Name those myopes, preferably including their vision test results. Let me guess that you have no such evidence. Otherwise, bring it on.

People who care -- they get involved and work toward a goal. People who don't get involved -- they sit back on message boards and complain bitterly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 9, 2014 at 5:41 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Dogfather, Measure P was approved by voters and did not include a dog park.

Web Link

Waayyy at the bottom is something that says amendments required voter approval at a City election. That did not happen. I do believe there is grounds for legal action against the City of Pleasanton here, don't you?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Commentor
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Aug 9, 2014 at 8:06 pm

Commentor is a registered user.

Source: Web Link

Potentially permitted uses within the Phase II Plan Area are listed below.

(Note there is no mention of a dog park)

Potential Land Uses

Agricultural club
Agriculture
Child care
Community vegetable garden
Cultural arts facilities
a. Art classrooms
b. Art gallery
c. Rehearsal space
d. Theater (800-seat indoor facility for the performing arts)
Educational facilities
Environmental education center
Fire station
Native American history reflective area
Open space
Park and recreation uses (including lighted sports fields and amphitheater)
Park-and-ride commuter parking lot
Public utilities and improvements
Trails
Youth/community center



 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Aug 13, 2014 at 9:06 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

OMG. That's right Plesantonians, if you, the noisy minority don't like it, referendum it. Complain, whine, and protest about everything. Our town has become negative and unwelcoming. Our sister city should be Berkeley and not some likeable town in Latin America or whereabouts.
The level of affluence in Pleasanton is high and surely we are educated enough to have balanced perspectives and achieve everything we want.
The dog park is just one component of the Bernal Park as pointed out earlier which makes 300 acres useable to a wide range of interests and age-groups. I am sure the City Council reports explain the cost breakdowns so if you think it is too expensive, then propose some cost cutting measures, but don't take it away just because you don't think it is important enough. THANK YOU CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THE DOG PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Aug 13, 2014 at 9:14 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

I forgot to mention. The City Council has nothing to do with Pleasanton Unified School District funding and expeditures. The School District is entirely a separate agency. There are questions and concerns I have with the District's spending, programs, and falling test scores especially if they plan to propose yet another parcel tax to pay for the short-fall. However, if these are also your concerns, questioning the City Council on funding a dog park as part of another phase of the Bernal Park for the community's use is completely unrelated.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 21 comments | 1,756 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,189 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,054 views