From:Dan Casey
To:City Council
Subject:Fw: Proposed Spyglass Park dog park
Date:Friday, May 12, 2023 3:57:38 PM
External Email
Dear City Council Members
On Thursday evening 05/12/2023 it was brought to my attention by a neighborthat the City Manager had been directed to file an appeal of the PlanningCommissions decision do deny the proposal for the development of a Dog Parkat Spyglass Park. It seems apparent that this appeal was already in the worksprior to the Commissioners meeting on April 25th, 2023. To the best of myknowledge those citizens opposing the development are unaware of this appeal.I find it interesting that the appeal was filed by a city employee and not amember of the community who disagreed with the Commissions denial of theCoastal Development Permit. I find the City Managers appeal to be inconsistentand contrary to the feelings and sentiments of the public, especially of thosewho live in the vicinity of, and adjacent to, the park. The Planning Commissionsfindings seem to be primarily based on objective facts and reasoning and notnecessarily subjective feelings as is apparently the case as voiced by the CityManagers opinion when he says the dog park "Enhances the quality of life in thesurrounding area. The proposed dog park will add to the social and emotionalhealth of residents who enjoy time with each other as they watch their dogs playand exercise." It certainly wont enhance my quality of life or that of the citizenswho live adjacent to the park. Is this the kind of criteria you expect your PlanningCommission to use when reviewing proposals? If so, then I invite you to read thecomments sent to the Planning Commissioners prior to their decision. You findthat by far the vast majority of comments lean towards opposing the park. Thesecomments are from locals who live near and utilize the park. I have included inthis email my original letter to the Planning Commissioners and hope that youwill read it and understand that it is reflective of the sentiments of my neighbors.One more thing I would like to point out is that with the development of the 26unit senior affordable housing project at the corner of Seacliff Dive and ShellBeach Road the only logical path to Spyglass Park is down the service road thatleads into the park. If this proposal is not denied the first thing these residentswill see and pass by will be a chain link fence obscuring their view of our parkand the Ocean. So much for enhancing the surrounding area. In a time whenthere is a cry for open space and scenic beauty please don't obscure it with adog park that doesn't fit nor is necessary.
Thank You, Dan and Shelly Casey 152 Seacliff Dr. Shell Beach ----- Original Message ---From: Dan Casey To: Sent: 4/19/2023 3:53:18 PMSubject: Proposed Spyglass Park dog park Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members
I am writing to you regarding the proposed dog park at Spyglass Park locatedat 2539 Spyglass Drive. I must first apologize for not addressing this issue priorto your first meeting/hearing on this subject matter. Having never been to oreven seen a dog park, I was under the impression that the notice wastantamount to legally declaring the park as an off-leash park. Havingconsistently seen dogs off-leash for years in this park without any enforcementfor leash law violations I foolishly believed my assumptions to be true. Was Iever wrong! I never in my wildest dreams that it would entail the constructionof a fenced in area that would effectively reduced the usable area of the parkfor the majority of our citizens and turn this coastal gem into an eyesore. Mywife and I have lived adjacent to this park for 35 years and our backyard andgate open into the park. I sincerely believe that there isn't a person in this citywho is more aware of the daily usage of this park. I have watched andexperienced its growth and development from an unimproved and seldomused facility to a vibrant community asset. In the distant past it was primarilyused by surfers and their families as a gathering spot to be enjoyed after a dayof surfing. But as the years passed the city made a commitment to improve itsusage by including and then upgrading the playground facility and probablymore importantly building a permanent restroom facility (and I might add theparks department crews have done an outstanding job in maintaining theparks natural beauty). Traffic increased greatly because of theseimprovements. Its a rare weekend in which there isn't a large gathering of onekind or another using the park. In fact just 2 weeks ago there were hundredsof people enjoying the annual Easter Egg Hunt. It seems that duringgood weather it usually includes a bounce house. The area which is proposedfor the dog park is in direct conflict with many of the uses of this park. It isused by parents and children having their first catch or learning to kick asoccer ball or throw a football. Even the simple joy of running and chasingones friends and siblings would be greatly impacted by this fenced in kennel.The service road is often used by children learning to ride a bike, scooter, orskateboard. This joy would be greatly impacted by a fenced area adjacent to
the road. The current playground is also very close to the proposed entry wayand presents a clear danger to curious children. I might add that far and awaythe majority of parents of children using the playground park in the area thatis in front of the proposed dog park entry area.
This park is too small for this proposed development. It doesn't come close tomeeting the typical recommended industry standards. Your study sites otherdog parks in the area but fails to mention the fact that all of these parks havefar greater acreage(as much as 50X larger). Regardless of the design criterianot following recommended guidelines, I submit to you that there isn't actuallya need for a dog park. Are there people in the area that walk their dogs in thispark? Yes. But as a constant observer of activity in the park it doesn't evenremotely approach the need for more open space area to accommodate thepublic for general overall use. And aesthetically, isn't a seaside parkunincumbered by a chain-link cage far more in touch with our city's goal of"building on the strength of our local community to preserve the City's "ClassicCalifornia" charm and ensure an exceptional quality of life for residents"? Is thisgoal just government hyperbole or do our actions actually define ourcommitment? Does anyone actually feel that the charm of Pismo Beachwould be enhanced by a dog park in a seaside park? If so, then why not putthe dog park in a larger seaside park so that "the charm" would be enhancedto a greater degree? Why Spyglass Park? Is it because its hidden and out ofsite from tourists, visitors, and public officials? It would greatly impact thequality of life(not to mention the property values) of the neighbors, tenants,and home owners adjacent to the proposed caged in area. I'm sure thatthe "Special Goal-Setting" workshop considered this but came to theconclusion that checking off a box showing a physical development projectwas more important. I invite you to visit our park and stand just behindand beyond the proposed fencing and look towards the ocean and envisionhow your decision will impact its charm and beauty.
I'm fully aware that a loophole has been found that allows for a CategoricalExemption to be submitted to bypass or request such an exemption of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act. Is this really the course we want to takeas a community? Searching for loopholes to fit an agenda? Therecommended guidelines are there for a reason. The proposal does not fit thearea. Neither functionally nor aesthetically. It is my understanding that thisproposal was turned down once before. A misguided idea remains just that inspite of a loophole. I am vehemently opposed to this project. I implore you todo the right thing and turn down this proposal.
Thank you, Dan & Shelly Casey. 152 Seacliff Drive, Pismo(Shell) Beach. Ca.93449