From: RICK SCHILLER
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 4/21 Consent: Linda Dog Park
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 5:13:04 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Dear Mayor Anderson and City Council,
Re: 4/21 Consent Calendar: Linda Dog Park closure
I am disappointed that the permanent closure of the Linda Dog Park is on consent. The process is hurried and has limited adequate public input. Any fine by the Water Board concerning the minimal and localized runoff at the Dog Park is far removed from the current situation. A $66,000 daily fine is far from imminent. Staff is well versed in BPM of runoff situations and can undoubtedly satisfy the Water Board for this single location.
I was actively involved in bring the Linda Dog Park to fruition in 2000.
While I no longer use the facility, the many positive aspects of having an enclosed dog run for Baja Piedmont continue. As rains have stopped and the area is now stable, the dog park can be reopened now with the following plan implemented in the Fall. The third of the park between the bench and the gate is good with ample foliage and ground coverage. The third of the park going south/east up the hill towards the Oakland & Greenbank intersection is also mostly intact with foliage and ground coverage. The problem area causing the undesireable runoff is the denuded lower east third. In the Fall fence off the lower 3rd next to the Bridge and hydro-seed it; leave the remaining two-thirds for off leash dog use after maintenance and fencing in the Fall.
Respectfully,
Rick Schiller
From: garrett keating
To: City Council; Anna Brown
Subject: closure of Linda dog park
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 9:02:58 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
City Council:
I was hoping to see a more detailed description of the penalties facing Piedmont regarding stormwater violations at the Linda dog park in Monday’s staff report for the second reading of the ordinance to close the park.Potential daily penalties of $66,000 were raised verbally by staff as a basis for its recommendation to close the park and by some council members for their support of park closure as well. But as with the April 7 staff report, there is no reference tin teh April 21 staff report to pending or even potential penalties facing the city for the purported stormwater violations. Likewise, there is no mention of penalties in any communications between the Water Board and city staff since the complaint was first filed.
There is precedent for the Water Board to levy fines for stormwater violations.The City of American Canyon was fined $66,000 ($up to 3,000 per penalty) for 28 violations of discharging toxic pollutants to the bay, much more serious violations than what has occurred at Linda (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay//board_info/agendas/2007/january/8_MMP.pdf).
In
such cases, a portion of the penalty can be applied towards the mitigation.
Likewise there are penalties for discharging sewage into the stormwater system.Piedmont’s share of a $350,000 penalty enforced by EPA on 6 East Bay municipalities was $13,000, not $66,000.
Ironically,
during the city’s discussion of a BMP plan plan for the park, in a 3/4/25 SCOTUS opinion, cities were found not liable for penalties for discharges to receiving waters that did not meet standards under the Clean Water Act.
(https://norcalrecord.com/stories/670225528-epa-can-t-make-sf-pay-big-fines-for-overall-quality-ofsf-bay-due-to-wastewater-flow).
So the suggestion that the city is liable for “daily fines of up to $66,000” for discharges from the dog park is unfounded.Staff, either gun shy from the $13,00 penalty or overly conscious of concrete-only solutions, seems to have given false pretense for its recommendation to close the park.I suggest, as was done with the ADA ramp at the Dracena dog park, staff engage the Park Commission in a public discussion about the BMP options for the Linda dog run. As was the case there, landscape professionals on the Park Commission were able to provide creative solutions for that complaint that were better for the park and less costly to the city.Water Board communications have indicated there is no urgency to mitigate the problem and seemed to expect a plan from the city that would have preserved the dog park. Put the ordinance on hold until it is determined that park closure is the only solution.
And in general, don’t agendize items like the closure of a park during PUSD spring break. Staff does this all the time and it’s really counter to engaging residents in an open and transparent process. It appears purposely done in this case.
Garrett Keating
From: Zelda Eser
To: City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan el Gonzales; Deniz Ergun; Rosanna Bayon Moore Subject: Save Linda Dog Park flyer
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 11:01:12 AM
Attachments: IMG 0720.png
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from zeldaeser@gmail com Learn why this is important at https://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding I made this flier, please share!
Have a wonderful day,
Zelda Hazel
Sent from my iPad
From: Nick Goyhenetche
To: City Council; Daniel Gonzales; Deniz Ergun; Rosanna Bayon Moore; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk
Subject: Save Linda Dog Park petition!
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 10:42:54 AM
Attachments: petition-qrcode.png
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Good morning all!
Please sign the petition to save Linda Off-leash Park, this was started last evening and already has 61 signatures! QR code attached.
https://www.change.org/p/prevent-the-closure-of-piedmont-s-only-enclosed-off-leashpark-linda-dog-park There is another hand held petition that has been circulating since Wednesday.
Cheers,
Nick Goyhenetche
From: Lana Tillis
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Linda Dog Park Closure
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 11:31:44 AM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
As a local resident of the 94611 area code for 15 years, I am deeply concerned about the way the park closure is being pinned on threats of $66,000/day fines from the water board.
This supposed threat from the water board is being used to expedite a decision without due process or input from the community. There are many options to consider including partitioning the existing dog park, keeping it open for the summer dry months while a new location or permanent solution is found.
Well socialized dogs benefit the community AT LARGE, keeping everyone safe and keeping public lawns and sidewalks available for their intended use. Linda Dog Park is a heavily used park and the ONLY enclosed off leash dog area in the city.
I do not believe that the water board would be unreasonable in offering time to gather community support for a solution that meets their requirements and those of the community.
Please DELAY the closure of the park -or- EXPEDITE the relocation of it! Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, Lana Tillis
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Clerk; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Petitions Against Closing Linda Dog Park
Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 5:43:34 PM
Attachments: SFBusJrnlPop3-22.docx
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Attached are hand-carried petitions with 75 signatures by Piedmont residents against the closing of the Linda Dog Park. The reasons cited by staff for closure are doubtful at best. We have reviewed the correspondence between the city staff and the SFBARWQCB (Water Board) preceding the April 7th Council meeting. The reasonable requests by the Water Board for a detailed mitigation plan to correct drainage to be received from the city were somehow interpreted by staff to be a demand for closure, and a threat for $66,000 a day fines against the city with a high level of urgency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because of this misleading argument, the Council was led to introduce Ordinance No. 780, and staff now recommends adoption on the 21st. Sadly all this was done without any significant citizen involvement. The April 7th meeting was a stealth attack on the interests of the public. There was no public notice to the press or to stakeholders, i.e. the hundreds of dog owners who use this park.
I obtained the attached signatures in about an hour at the Food Event at Piedmont Park on the 19th. Virtually everyone asked readily signed the petition with many expressions of how much they loved that dog park. Only two said No. At the time of writing this on Sunday afternoon, there are 264 online signatures to save Linda Park on Change.org, and an unknown number of paper petitions to be turned in. By Monday evening there may be 500 signatures opposing this stealth move. There would have been similar outcry on April 7th if the staff had not hidden their intent.
From a preliminary discussion with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office, it would only take about 700-800 signatures from Piedmont residents to qualify for a referendum if Ordinance 780 were to pass. Given the reaction so far, this number of signatures should not be hard to obtain. There would be 30 days to obtain the signatures making it especially easy. Once qualified, by law the special election must be held within 88 days. This would be a standalone election, and it is estimated to cost $19 per registered voter or about $130,000 to be paid for by the city. Please keep this potential cost in mind when considering all the options. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but a referendum is a reasonable expectation given the level of opposition.
Sincerely,
Michael Henn
From: Nick Goyhenetche
To: [email protected]; City Council; City Clerk; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Petitions Against Closing Linda Dog Park
Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 8:24:41 PM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
This is great Mike! Well done.
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 5:43 PM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Attached are hand-carried petitions with 75 signatures by Piedmont residents against the closing of the Linda Dog Park. The reasons cited by staff for closure are doubtful at best. We have reviewed the correspondence between the city staff and the SFBARWQCB (Water Board) preceding the April 7th Council meeting. The reasonable requests by the Water Board for a detailed mitigation plan to correct drainage to be received from the city were somehow interpreted by staff to be a demand for closure, and a threat for $66,000 a day fines against the city with a high level of urgency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because of this misleading argument, the Council was led to introduce Ordinance No. 780, and staff now recommends adoption on the 21st. Sadly all this was done without any significant citizen involvement. The April 7th meeting was a stealth attack on the interests of the public. There was no public notice to the press or to stakeholders, i.e. the hundreds of dog owners who use this park.
I obtained the attached signatures in about an hour at the Food Event at Piedmont Park on the 19th. Virtually everyone asked readily signed the petition with many expressions of how much they loved that dog park. Only two said No. At the time of writing this on Sunday afternoon, there are 264 online signatures to save Linda Park on Change.org, and an unknown number of paper petitions to be turned in.
By Monday evening there may be 500 signatures opposing this stealth move.
There would have been similar outcry on April 7th if the staff had not hidden their intent.
From a preliminary discussion with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office, it would only take about 700-800 signatures from Piedmont residents to qualify for a referendum if Ordinance 780 were to pass. Given the reaction so far, this number of signatures should not be hard to obtain. There would be 30 days to obtain the signatures making it especially easy. Once qualified, by law the special election must be held within 88 days. This would be a standalone election, and it is estimated to cost $19 per registered voter or about $130,000 to be paid for by the city. Please keep this potential cost in mind when considering all the options.
Hopefully, it will not come to this, but a referendum is a reasonable expectation given the level of opposition.
Sincerely,
Michael Henn
From: [email protected]
To: Nick Goyhenetche; City Council; City Clerk; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Petitions Against Closing Linda Dog Park
Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:16:49 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Thanks, the down side of saying this early is they'll have a lot of time to prepare a defense and get the City Attorney to research any weakness, like maybe something in the Charter or case law that deals with what is subject to referendum.
I'm not an attorney.
But it should get their attention.
Mike
Sent from AOL on Android
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 8:24 PM, Nick Goyhenetche
<[email protected]> wrote:
This is great Mike! Well done.
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 5:43 PM, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Attached are hand-carried petitions with 75 signatures by Piedmont residents against the closing of the Linda Dog Park. The reasons cited by staff for closure are doubtful at best. We have reviewed the correspondence between the city staff and the SFBARWQCB (Water Board) preceding the April 7th Council meeting. The reasonable requests by the Water Board for a detailed mitigation plan to correct drainage to be received from the city were somehow interpreted by staff to be a demand for closure, and a threat for $66,000 a day fines against the city with a high level of urgency. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Because of this misleading argument, the Council was led to introduce Ordinance No. 780, and staff now recommends adoption on the 21st. Sadly all this was done without any significant citizen involvement. The April 7th meeting was a stealth attack on the interests of the public. There was no public notice to the press or to stakeholders, i.e. the hundreds of dog owners who use this park.
I obtained the attached signatures in about an hour at the Food Event at Piedmont Park on the 19th. Virtually everyone asked readily signed the petition with many expressions of how much they loved that dog park. Only two said No. At the time of writing this on Sunday afternoon, there are 264 online signatures to save Linda Park on Change.org, and an unknown number of paper petitions to be turned in. By Monday evening there may be 500 signatures opposing this stealth move. There would have been similar outcry on April 7th if the staff had not hidden their intent.
From a preliminary discussion with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office, it would only take about 700-800 signatures from Piedmont residents to qualify for a referendum if Ordinance 780 were to pass. Given the reaction so far, this number of signatures should not be hard to obtain. There would be 30 days to obtain the signatures making it especially easy. Once qualified, by law the special election must be held within 88 days. This would be a standalone election, and it is estimated to cost $19 per registered voter or about $130,000 to be paid for by the city. Please keep this potential cost in mind when considering all the options. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but a referendum is a reasonable expectation given the level of opposition.
Sincerely,
Michael Henn
Voters Office, it would only take about 700-800 signatures from Piedmont residents to qualify for a referendum if Ordinance 780 were to pass. Given the reaction so far, this number of signatures should not be hard to obtain.
There would be 30 days to obtain the signatures making it especially easy.
Once qualified, by law the special election must be held within 88 days.
This would be a standalone election, and it is estimated to cost $19 per registered voter or about $130,000 to be paid for by the city. Please keep this potential cost in mind when considering all the options. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but a referendum is a reasonable expectation given the level of opposition.
Sincerely,
Michael Henn
<SFBusJrnlPop3-22.docx>
From: Nick Goyhenetche
To: City Clerk; [email protected]; Rosanna Bayon Moore; Daniel Gonzales; Deniz Ergun; Lana Tillis; Michael Henn; Garrett Keating; [email protected] Subject: Linda Park 2.0
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:35:16 AM
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Morning all,
Electronic petition: 285
Handheld petitions: 85
and counting!
Looking forward to the City Council meeting this evening. Just wanted to share a few final thoughts:
- First of all cooperating with the SF Water Board is at the top of everyone's list, the park does have topographical challenges that need to be addressed. That said it is dry season now though and we have time to think of alternative locations, explore low cost BMP's and include the neighborhood in this process. In the meantime we would love it if this valuable community asset remains open, enhancing ours and our pets quality of life.
Regarding changing the topography of the existing park:
-The current retaining wall is dilapidated and needs to be replaced regardless of whether there's a dog park there or not. Adding a few feet of height to improve the topography and slope shouldn't cost too much more given the already sunk cost of needing to redo the wall.
Low cost BMP's for the Water Board to consider:
- permanently fencing off the lower 20-30 feet of the slope, hydroseeding and planting.
- acknowledging the difficulty of the constant open/close approach perhaps a solid 6 month closure is what's needed.
- move the park? On a whim I reached out for a quick quote from a local fencing company. Apologies, not trying to step on any toes but was curious about what it might cost to make the site across the street suitable. Following is the estimate, including double doors at each entrance. It could be a even less if existing fences were tied into. https://checkout.superiorfenceandrail.com/packageselection/95f07e5b-a468-44aa-8de0-1671d78144fc?source=email Have a wonderful day everyone! Looking forward to seeing people this evening.
All the best,
Nick Goyhenetche
From: [email protected]
To: Nick Goyhenetche; City Clerk; [email protected]; Rosanna Bayon Moore; Daniel Gonzales; Deniz Ergun; Lana Tillis; Garrett Keating; [email protected] Subject: Re: Linda Park 2.0
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:36:03 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
Nick, good work, re the fence, the across the street site is already largely fenced, or is blocked by the solid bridge. It's only the east end that should need new fencing. Plus gates.
Gonzales said at one meeting that the asphalt would have to be removed, and replaced with a more suitable surface.
The Claremont DP in Rockridge is all paved and seems to work.
Mike
Sent from AOL on Android
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:35 AM, Nick Goyhenetche
<[email protected]> wrote:
Morning all,
Electronic petition: 285
Handheld petitions: 85
and counting!
Looking forward to the City Council meeting this evening. Just wanted to share a few final thoughts:
- First of all cooperating with the SF Water Board is at the top of everyone's list, the park does have topographical challenges that need to be addressed. That said it is dry season now though and we have time to think of alternative locations, explore low cost BMP's and include the neighborhood in this process. In the meantime we would love it if this valuable community asset remains open, enhancing ours and our pets quality of life.
Regarding changing the topography of the existing park:
-The current retaining wall is dilapidated and needs to be replaced regardless of whether there's a dog park there or not. Adding a few feet of height to improve the topography and slope shouldn't cost too much more given the already sunk cost of needing to redo the wall.
Low cost BMP's for the Water Board to consider:
- permanently fencing off the lower 20-30 feet of the slope, hydroseeding and planting.
- acknowledging the difficulty of the constant open/close approach perhaps a solid 6 month closure is what's needed.
- move the park? On a whim I reached out for a quick quote from a local fencing company. Apologies, not trying to step on any toes but was curious about what it might cost to make the site across the street suitable. Following is the estimate, including double doors at each entrance. It could be a even less if existing fences were tied into. https://checkout.superiorfenceandrail.com/packageselection/95f07e5b-a468-44aa-8de0-1671d78144fc?source=email Have a wonderful day everyone! Looking forward to seeing people this evening.
All the best,
Nick Goyhenetche
From: Lana Tillis
To: [email protected]
Cc: Nick Goyhenetche; City Clerk; [email protected]; Rosanna Bayon Moore; Daniel Gonzales; Deniz Ergun; Garrett Keating; [email protected] Subject: Re: Linda Park 2.0
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:48:40 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL] This email originated from an external source. Please use judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
That's correct Mike. The fence quote was for the remaining side that is open to pedestrians accessing the field or bathrooms.
Asphalt is a common surface at dog parks and although it's not perfect, it's perfectly suitable.
Furthermore, that area is mostly shades by trees and the bridge so concerns of heat are not really relevant. Having said that, more ideal surfaces according to AI, "include grass, artificial turf, or other softer materials like pea gravel or rubber mats".I can't imagine the cost or time would be that high to do this given the relatively small square footage.
Another proposal I made at the last meeting was to relocate temporarily, with the option for community to vote for it to be a permanent location. This would also give it a test run for sound etc and any other improvements or changes and could also likely attract fundraising if required.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 12:35 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick, good work, re the fence, the across the street site is already largely fenced, or is blocked by the solid bridge. It's only the east end that should need new fencing. Plus gates.
Gonzales said at one meeting that the asphalt would have to be removed, and replaced with a more suitable surface.
The Claremont DP in Rockridge is all paved and seems to work.
Mike
Sent from AOL on Android
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:35 AM, Nick Goyhenetche
<[email protected]> wrote:
Morning all,
Electronic petition: 285
Handheld petitions: 85
and counting!
Looking forward to the City Council meeting this evening. Just wanted to share a few final thoughts:
- First of all cooperating with the SF Water Board is at the top of everyone's list, the park does have topographical challenges that need to be addressed. That said it is dry season now though and we have time to think of alternative locations, explore low cost BMP's and include the neighborhood in this process.
In the meantime we would love it if this valuable community asset remains open, enhancing ours and our pets quality of life.
Regarding changing the topography of the existing park:
-The current retaining wall is dilapidated and needs to be replaced regardless of whether there's a dog park there or not. Adding a few feet of height to improve the topography and slope shouldn't cost too much more given the already sunk cost of needing to redo the wall.
Low cost BMP's for the Water Board to consider:
- permanently fencing off the lower 20-30 feet of the slope, hydroseeding and planting.
- acknowledging the difficulty of the constant open/close approach perhaps a solid 6 month closure is what's needed.
- move the park? On a whim I reached out for a quick quote from a local fencing company. Apologies, not trying to step on any toes but was curious about what it might cost to make the site across the street suitable. Following is the estimate, including double doors at each entrance. It could be a even less if existing fences were tied into. https://checkout.superiorfenceandrail.com/packageselection/95f07e5b-a468-44aa-8de0-1671d78144fc?source=email Have a wonderful day everyone! Looking forward to seeing people this evening.
All the best,
Nick Goyhenetche