Atherton committee members resign over City Council's dog park decision | Town Square | Almanac Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Atherton committee members resign over City Council's dog park decision

Original post made on Dec 18, 2019

Atherton Park & Recreation Committee members stepped down late last month after a City Council decision to remove a dog park concept from the town's general plan.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 11:06 AM

Comments (15)

7 people like this
Posted by paula
a resident of another community
on Dec 18, 2019 at 2:39 pm

paula is a registered user.

I think it was reckless of the council to disregard the park and rec committee recommendation for an off leash dog park at Holbrook Palmer park. There are many dog owners in Atherton and if they want to keep their seats they should be aware

6 people like this
Posted by PeninsulaGirl
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda
on Dec 18, 2019 at 2:48 pm

PeninsulaGirl is a registered user.

The aspect of all this that I find particularly offensive is the removal from the 2015 Master Plan. I can see why the council might want to table the dog park for a later date, but why on earth was it deemed necessary to remove it from the Master Plan? A great deal of time, resources and community input went into that plan back in 2015, and it seems like a blatant abuse of power and a violation of community trust for the Council to just strike off the dog park without any corresponding community input in the present.

In particular, I don’t understand why the council felt the need to trash the idea when it was made quite clear that it would be privately funded.
I was not aware of the survey in 2015, but had I been, I certainly would have responded in favor of an enclosed off-leash area for dogs.

At present, the only off-leash area that the town’s dog owners can use----as a decidedly UNOFFICIAL dog park----is the field at La Entrada (after school hours, obviously). It is not ideal for many reasons, as both the school district and dog owners would probably admit, but it’s all we have.

I think that a dog park would be a terrific community-building opportunity. The Atherton of my youth was a much more friendly and community-oriented place——i.e., one without so many walls and gates that prevent neighbors from interacting with one another easily.

It appears that the Council not only acted rashly but also offended and alienated two dedicated volunteers on the Parks & Rec committee. I don’t know how successful the town will be in recruiting more volunteers when existing committee members are treated so disrespectfully.

2 people like this
Posted by MP resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 18, 2019 at 8:41 pm

Incredible that they would remove this from the master plan without at least surveying residents first to find out if it is justified. Many people here have dogs and need a place for them to play. This is bad governance.

1 person likes this
Posted by WOW Speachless
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Dec 18, 2019 at 8:47 pm

Build the community give us money, but we could care less about what the residents want. 40 to 52 million on a community center but a dog park doesn't matter. Oppose any funding Atherton wants. So sad they do not care enough about the residents with dogs. I hope it bites them in the butt.

5 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 18, 2019 at 8:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Incredible that they would remove this from the master plan without at least surveying residents first to find out if it is justified"

That is the arrogance of this Town Council - they KNOW what is best for the residents!

In a carefully conducted survey less than 10% of the residents want a separate fire department but the council still pursued this at a cost to taxpayers of over $100k. And in the end here is what their own staff report stated:

"Based on the results of the Study and subsequent conversations with the District and LAFCO, it
is unlikely that a tax agreement could be negotiated; unlikely that Special Legislation would be
supported; and a detachment application through LAFCO, although it could be pursued and
would be processed, would not be supported by LAFCO staff. "

All of these outcomes were known to the Council BEFORE they wasted a single penny of the taxpayers' dollars.

10 people like this
Posted by Dog Owner
a resident of Atherton: other
on Dec 18, 2019 at 9:56 pm

As a resident and dog owner in Atherton, there is a serious dog issue at Holbrook Palmer — and it’s not the lack of a dog park.

I can’t take my small dog for a walk there without passing three dogs that are off leash. Some people attach a leash when I get close, but most just don’t care. A friend was walking her small dog two weeks ago when a huge dog ran at him and nipped at him. The owner said “oh I’m so sorry, my dog has never done that before” — it doesn’t matter! Put your dogs on a leash and leave them there. There are rules for a reason, and just because you’re not worried about your dog doesn’t give you the right to flout those safety rules.

I wish the leash ordinance would actually be enforced.

Like this comment
Posted by Alisa
a resident of Atherton: other
on Dec 19, 2019 at 5:46 am

I’ve been walking my dogs at HP park for years. While I love walking my dog off-leash, I’ve rarely seen a well-kept, clean off-leash dog park. They are dusty, dirty and usually in an unappealing fenced-off area. Also, the concept of an off-leash area seems to mean to some owners that their dogs have free reign with little supervision. I have a smaller dog and rarely use off leash areas because she’ll get trampled on. This is why dogs are separated by size at doggy day cares. There are a lot of dog owners in the area but there are many people that don’t own dogs who enjoy the park. I think an off-leash area would ruin the natural beauty of the park that makes it a special place.

8 people like this
Posted by Clowns
a resident of Atherton: other
on Dec 19, 2019 at 5:55 am

Lewis is the self anointed queen of Atherton. She doesn’t want the dog park? It’s gone. Wiest will do whatever she says. Now Widmer will as well, after being scared straight when she took his job away from him as city manager in SoCal.

De Goila was for it, but technically voted against it? Or abstained? Seems consistent with a lot of his double talk designed to not appear like a jerk to residents while still maintaining fealty to Lewis.

What a bunch of clowns. This was just mean.

2 people like this
Posted by Love dogs
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Dec 19, 2019 at 6:07 am

I live 2 blocks from HPP and have walked my dogs there for years. In the past couple of years I’ve been driving to Sharon Park instead to walk my dog. I have found owners to be more courteous, responsible and friendly there. There is a leash sign but dogs run off-leash on the field or walk the path, like at HPP, but owners are respectful and they supervise their dogs. It’s relaxing and pretty and I’ve never seen the MP police there - probably because there is no need.

9 people like this
Posted by PeninsulaGirl
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda
on Dec 19, 2019 at 11:38 am

PeninsulaGirl is a registered user.

Hi All,

I just wanted to update my post from yesterday, because I have learned a few things that demonstrate INACCURATE REPORTING by the Angela Swartz of The Almanac.
I have been in communication with both George Rodericks, our Town Manager, and with Rick DeGolia---the ONLY Council member who responds to his constituents, and promptly at that---and it seems that this article has some SERIOUS inaccuracies.

The most striking FALSEHOOD in Ms. Swartz's article:
The article states, "A 2015 survey for the master plan determined that residents didn't particularly want to add amenities to the park, but an off-leash dog area was the only major request, with 24% supporting off-leash dog use anywhere in the park and another 44% supporting it in a designated area, for a total of 68% of respondents."

The REALITY: THERE WAS NO TOWN-WIDE SURVEY. "2015 survey for the master plan" makes it sound like an official town-wide survey, doesn't it?
What really happened: In 2015, committee members posed the dog-park question to people who were walking around the pathway at Holbrook-Palmer, and most of them were dog owners. (Think about that small sample population compared with that of the entire town!)
Apparently, that survey was challenged from the beginning, and Angela mentions NOTHING about that.

Also, that $60K figure for the "cost" was NOT accurately reported. The off-leash dog area described in the Master Plan had a cost of about $250,000. The $60,000 figure referred to in Angela's article was a figure that came from Christine David and had not been vetted with staff at all. One example: it assumes two water basins for dogs, but allocates no cost to building that water conveyance (i.e., plumbing). It also doesn't take into account that for any construction in the Park, the Town has to send it out for bids. So the cost would be far closer to $200K than $60K.

I am hoping that Mr. Rodericks will write to the Almanac to lists the facts---which are easily verifiable via town council meeting minutes from 2015 on. He can explain it far more thoroughly than I can. That said, I know that town staff is busy overseeing the new town center construction and dealing with the stress of working out of those portables in the park.

I'd like to add one more thing: of that small sample of path-walking residents surveyed in 2015, the article states that "residents didn't particularly want to add amenities to the park."
The "amenities"---more like NECESSITIES---that ARE in the Master Plan are things like BATHROOMS in the Pavilion, which are very important and are in the pipeline of projects being funded in the future at the park.

The long and the short of it: Nothing prevents a private survey being conducted and a private proposal from being presented to the Council for a project that is fully funded. (Of course, there will still be concerns about insurance liability, insurance costs, maintenance costs, Park impact, construction timing, etc.)

I hope that the Almanac will start FACT CHECKING its reporters' articles in a deliberate way.

2 people like this
Posted by Colleen
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Dec 19, 2019 at 12:52 pm

I do not understand how they are saying there wasn't a survey. I filled one out. A huge number of our social group filled one out and we wrote in a dog park. We can ask Menlo Park what the cost was for them to have a dog park. They are super dog and community friendly.

1 person likes this
Posted by Colleen
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Dec 19, 2019 at 1:46 pm

Years ago the town was presented on more than one occasion of a great idea. Here is what was proposed:

Small and large dog park.
Membership fees and a pre-screening must be done in order to even get a key.
Talk of having a dog trainer on-site and establishing doggie play hours.
It must be privately funded even before the project is started.
Basic polite rules must be set-up. Now we could just use the Menlo Park's rules.

Just like tennis courts. That being said years ago they found the tennis court money if I am not mistaken used for other things. Does anyone remember what happened with that?

3 people like this
Posted by All politics are local
a resident of Atherton: other
on Dec 19, 2019 at 2:26 pm

Two points stand out here.

First, it's totally understandable that these committee members are resigning. If the Atherton council doesn't trust their judgment, why are they donating their time to perform this function?

Second, we can all quibble about what the costs for this would have been. It's very striking that the town center plan is very, very expensive, and when certain questionable items were debated – such as the world class fitness center for the police department – the response was akin to "don't be so short sighted."

In all reality, the dog park – which would have been paid for by private donations – would have had much more positive effect on the lives of dog loving Atherton residents (not a small number) than the police fitness center.

By the way, the residents are the ones paying for the town's functions.

10 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 19, 2019 at 2:43 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

This is what happens when you have an entire Council serving terms for which they were not elected = zero accountability.

64 people like this
Posted by Laughing
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 19, 2019 at 8:05 pm

Typical Toon Town politics!!!! This would be funny if it were not TRUE!!!! Pathetic is the word for these unimportant so called council members of a town where they are part of nothing more than a coffee clatch of snooty rich people. THEY don’t want a dog park...POOF! Dog park eliminated from the master plan.

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


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Los Altos's State of Mind opening NYC-inspired pizza shop in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 8,271 views

Flying: How much is enough? It's personal.
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 2,806 views

Wait, wait – we’re working on it
By Diana Diamond | 18 comments | 2,457 views

My Pet Peeves
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 7 comments | 1,910 views

Goodbye toy stores
By Cheryl Bac | 7 comments | 1,211 views


Short story writers wanted!

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 27, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

View Details