Sharon Cody is often the pre-eminent voice for the animal lobby in the City, because she is president of DAWG (Dedicated Animal Welfare Group) and has been intimately involved for years with the Animal Shelter. Her letter to the Dispatch last year observed the “fantasy” of dog park enthusiasts, compared to “reality.” Sharon was ambivalent, at best, about a dog park in Mission Viejo, except that she didn’t want one near the Animal Shelter. Among her concerns was having shelter employees distracted with pleas to control dogs and assist with injuries at the park.
At this month’s Council meeting on October 5, Cody made a public comment supporting the proposal for a dog park, while saying she wasn’t going to suggest or oppose a particular site, except for her objection at the animal shelter location. The comment was taken as at least tacit support for MacLean’s proposed Oso Viejo site.
At this week’s Council meeting Cody made a surprise shift to her position during an agenda item discussing the City’s legal response to a Brown Act allegation challenging the October 5 action. Cody stated that Oso Viejo Park was selected too hastily, and that further analysis is required. She mentioned Lower Curtis Park had been too abruptly discarded as a possible site based on cost, because no cost study was done. She also referred to a “freeway site.” Her advice to the Council: “Go back to the drawing board.”
Cody wants a facility which limits usage to Mission Viejo residents with approved dogs. She suggested passcards issued by the Animal Shelter. The passcard requirement would provide screening for residency and valid dog licensing. Passcards could be also be withdrawn for owners of dogs with aggressive or dangerous propensities.
On Monday speakers told the Council the site selection on October 5 was flawed because 1) no Planning Commission review was done, 2) an alleged letter opposing the dog park from Planning Commission Chairman Bastone was not disclosed pursuant to a Public Records request, 3) a Community Services Commission (CSC) hearing, set by the City Council, was never conducted, 4) notification of a CSC meeting was never provided as promised by Director of Recreation Kelly Doyle, 5) no environmental study was done regarding a dog park at the Oso Viejo location, 6) the city’s dated General Plan does not include a dog park, 7) the Negative Environmental Declaration done for the Murray Center did not include a dog park, and 8)the Council violated its own criteria against placing a dog park near parks, sports fields and homes since Oso Viejo is near all three.
Another speaker noted that 8 dog parks are located in South Orange County, and all are away from neighborhoods. She also pointed out, as Sharon Cody has, that a majority of dog park users can come from outside the city. Since Oso would be the premier aesthetic site compared to the others, she anticipated about 1,500 dogs per week at the facility. It was noted the 2 acres at Oso would also be lost to a multitude of other current uses because of a fenced-off dog park.
Sharon Cody’s shift opens the door for reversing the decision approving Oso Viejo, thereby providing strategic cover for the Council majority if it uses her name and rationale to rescind its decision (and avoid a lawsuit). At the same time the MUK Council majority could save face by formally denying and rejecting the Brown Act allegations. That action should satisfy neighbors by eliminating Oso as the location without the necessity of filing a Brown Act/CEQA lawsuit. The already approved $268,000 for project design could be left in place, assuring dog park proponents another location is being sought.
Cody’s revised position seems to also be an attempt to pull her friend Lance MacLean out of the political firestorm on the issue, because he agendized and spearheaded the Oso Viejo location, pre-empting a Commission hearing and staff report. It raised questions whether MacLean’s rushed action, and the 3-2 vote, was designed as a political counterweight to the certification of his recall election at the same October 5 meeting.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
As I suggested numerous times in the past–the place for a dog park is Lower Curtis Park. It is in the canyon and the sounds of dogs and associated noises will be baffled. It has parking, it has bathrooms, and best of all it is a “blank slate” without any design restrictions.
The ugly storage containers presently located at that site could be painted by the volunteers and utilized to hold tools for raking the park, clean up dog poop, and storage of dog toys.
I also suggest again that the “volunteers” fund the park. This way they are showing that they are not just another “Entitlement Bunch” expecting the reserves to carry the day.
Many years ago, while walking my own dogs I spotted a grading project occurring at Lower Curtis Park and felt that location was a perfect fit for a dog park in Mission Viejo; primarily because it was centrally located in town, so access for the bulk of users was possible without having to fight congested city streets. It also has an existing parking lot that can be shared. I wont go into details of all that scenario here as to why this location was rejected but the main excuse was that it was environmentally unsafe due to unverified fecal material polluting the stream nearby. That excuse, of possible stream contamination, was also used as the reason for the City Public Works Director to, apparently on his own, spend $400,000.00 taxpayer money to “clean up” broken concrete slabs that actually had been dumped up to 30 years prior, as if used sidewalk material was a pollutant and not the existing miles and miles of the same material on every city sidewalk today. It sure looked like to me like that later-promoted-to-City Manager person was attempting to build a city storage yard without citizen and council review. After spending millions on the shiny new city hall project, the city still did not own their own city yard for vehicles.
Is not the proposed site at Oso Park actually five times closer to the same stream or similar one? And, why does the city of Huntington Beach allow a mile long stretch of beach for a dog park and the state is not concerned about fecal run-off? The issue is completely speculative without verification and was used as an excuse to prohibit a dog park.
And anyone who goes to the animal shelter will see many, many city vehicles stored there on that lot, and, I suppose according to Sharon Cody, blocking cat adoptions during a two week period of the year. She claims a dog park there would do just that, block animal adoptions, not actually promote them due to a two week parking issue that has not been verified to be a problem.
Another issue Ms. Cody brings up is that if there is a dog park – and I agree that Lower Curtis is the best site in town for one, if ever built – is that all dogs should be only of the Mission Viejo residents ownership. And, of course, that she and her group are the sole monitors of such enforcement. Interesting then, if taxpayers money is to only be spent on Mission Viejo residents use, then, how many animals had the shelter adopted out to residents of other towns? How many kids from other towns need to be pre-screened to use our parks for baseball, football, etc…or simply parents visiting from out of town who want to walk their dog in a park? Or better still..what about a membership list of the Nadadore Swim team and it being required to have only Mission Viejo residents? I dont believe they have ever offered that information, have they, yet they get millions in subsidies.
So Ms. Cody wants even more control, and yet she is nothing but a simple volunteer at the animal shelter as are dozens and dozens of others.
Only one dog park I am aware of requires resident ownership. That is Ladera, but the park is owned and managed by the residents association thereby requiring a card pass similar to Lake Mission Viejo Association to use the lake facilities. I read Ms. Cody’s proposed controls as a way to create roadblocks to creating a dogpark.
That might be music to the ears of Lance MacLean, Ury, and Kelley – to deny such a dog park later while going through political movements now supporting MacLean as he attempts to get the dog owners support in his recall.