Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Q 0 April 10, 2000 j.;(1 0 Ap STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor Yost & Members of the City Council THRU: Keith R. Till, City Manager FROM: Nancy Beard, Director of Parks, Recreation & Community Services SUBJECT: Gum Grove Park Recommendations SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That Council approve the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission relative to dogs in Gum Grove Park. The recommendations include amending the City's current code, Section 4-8.1. Dogs and Other Animals Not Allowed, to permit leashed dogs in Gum Grove Park, on the Electric Greenbelt, and in Arbor Park. BACKGROUND OR DISCUSSION: The City sponsored two well-attended town hall meetings on the subject of dogs in Gum Grove Park. Additionally, the public gave testimony at the March e`, 2000 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Many issues were discussed during all three meetings. The majority of those in attendance at each of the meetings were residents who currently walk their dogs in the park, many of whom walk their dogs off leash and would like to continue to do so. There were those in attendance who did not believe a dog presence was appropriate in the park. Additionally, there were those who would like to see dogs under the control of their owners at all times, as there were reports of adults and children being jumped on or frightened by unfamiliar dogs rushing up to greet them in the park. For Council review, a copy of the Commission minutes including testimony and all written correspondence received on this issue is included in your packet. Following the public input at their March 1 g meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission delayed their vote for one meeting in order to better research the issue. During the next month the Commissioners visited Gum Grove as well as other local parks and spoke with many of the park users. It was their conclusion at their March 29th meeting that dogs should be allowed in Gum Grove Park as well as two other park areas including the Electric Greenbelt and Arbor Park by a 4-0 vote. They further advised that the dog owners must be held responsible for any waste left behind by their dog and if observed being negligent of that request, a fine, similar to that of being caught with a dog off leash, be imposed. The Commissioners suggested the city provide Agenda Item Q I signage. If Council approves the recommendations, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department will work with the Gum Grove group in developing adequate signage at Gum Grove Park, as well as providing for additional trash cans and "doggie dispenser" stations at each of the recommended sites. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to implement this recommendation could be $3,500 initially, for the purchase of the"doggie dispensers", new city code signage and additional trash receptacles, with an ongoing cost of$500 annually for the purchase of the doggie bags. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce attached Ordinance No./ 5 Papproving an amendment to the current Municipal Code, Section 4-8.1.1, to include permitting dogs on leash in Gum Grove Park, the Electric Greenbelt and at Arbor Park. Approved by Nancy L. Beard, Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Noted and Approved: By Keith R. Till, City Manager Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes For March 1, 2000 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:10. Flag Salute Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioners Chattier, Watson, Johnson and Chair Sustarsic present. Commissioner Mothersead was absent. Staff present - Director Nancy Beard. Approval of Agenda Approved as submitted. MSC Watson/Chattier/All Approval of Minutes The minutes of January 26, 2000, were approved as submitted. MSC Chattler/Watson/All Oral Communications None. Agenda Items 1. Fee Resolution Review After reviewing the fee resolution the Commissioners indicated no changes to the coming year's fees. 2. Gum Grove Park Review Director Beard gave a report on the two community meetings held to discuss the issue of dogs in Gum Grove Park. The report is attached to these minutes. The Chair then opened the item to receive public input regarding the issue of dogs in Gum Grove Park. Testimony was as follows: Carolyn Gaw — Seal Beach Ms.Gaw sent the Commission a written response regarding this issue. All written responses are included with these minutes. of the points in his letter (attached). He reported that the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club were interested in this matter. He was concerned that we heard much testimony from dog owners but none from.the birds which are not present in the park because of the dogs. He felt that there is plenty of room around the Animal Shelter for dogs to run. He also stated that the Police Department responds to the parks on a complaint basis only. Margaret Jewler— Seal Beach Ms. Jewler reported seeing seventeen egrets sleeping every evening in the park. She reports seeing Egrets in the back meadow just that morning. Ms. Jewler stated that there have been no red tail hawks in three years at the park but that there are many cooper hawks in the park and that there have never been any Monarch butterflies in the park though the evenings bring the owls. She would like to see a leash law enforced as an unleashed German Shepherd attacked her Malamute while walking in the park. Kristern Troller — Seal Beach Ms. Troller stated that she have never seen an aggressive dog at the park but has observed kids and teenagers starting fires, dropping beer bottles, and littering. She has never observed anyone being attacked by a dog but regularly observes people smoking in the very dry park. She reiterated the fact that the dog walkers constantly pick up trash and that it has become a much safer atsmophere since people began bringing their dogs to the park. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Troller if she walked with her dog leashed or unleashed. She said she walked with her dog leashed if lots of people are in the park. Thomas Smith — Seal Beach Mr. Smith noted man's ancient relationship with dogs. He stated that people should allow dogs to be at the party. Additionally he suggested that we accommodate and build a bridge with the dog owners. Liz Underwood — Seal Beach Stated that she has been in the park and had a dog jump on her, which frightened her because she was unsure of its intention. She was concerned with dogs running free — off leash. Barbara Holland — Seal Beach Ms. Holland stated that she goes to Gum Grove three or four times each week to walk her dog with a group of people. She stated that she has lived in Seal Beach for the past seven years and feels that there should be some place where a resident can legally walk their dog other than the sidewalk. She suggested we rise to the occasion and make provisions for our animals Commissioner Watson also noted that the noise issue associated with dogs in Gum Grove Park should not be limited to a discussion on dogs but inclusive of people. She felt that a little education of dog walkers regarding the sensitivity nearby of residents would go along way. This issue was then tabled until the next meeting for further study and discussion. Directors Report The Director gave a report on the progression of the pool renovations, skate park, and teen dances. Commission Concerns 1. Commissioner Johnson updated the Commissioners on the 5 and 10K Race plans. She noted that sponsorship donations had reached $9,500 at this point and that they were searching for volunteers. The Commissioner also told the Commissioners that the race committee had committed to beginning a building fund for refurbishing the Marina Park Community Center. 2. Commissioner Chattier asked the Director if the bill for the Edison Park climber had been sent to the College Park West fundraising group as yet. 3. Commissioner Sustarsic noted that there are a lot of dog walkers at Arbor Park and had noted many utilizing the Electric Greenbelt. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:55pm. Next meeting - March 29, 2000, 7pm in the City of Seal Beach Council Chambers. Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes For March 1, 2000 Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 7:10. Flag Salute Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioners Chattier, Watson, Johnson and Chair Sustarsic present. Commissioner Mothersead was absent. Staff present - Director Nancy Beard. Approval of Agenda Approved as submitted. MSC Watson/Chattier/All Approval of Minutes The minutes of January 26, 2000, were approved as submitted. MSC Chattler/Watson/All Oral Communications None. Agenda Items 1. Fee Resolution Review After reviewing the fee resolution the Commissioners indicated no changes to the coming year's fees. 2. Gum Grove Park Review Director Beard gave a report on the two community meetings held to discuss the issue of dogs in Gum Grove Park. The report is attached to these minutes. The Chair then opened the item to receive public input regarding the issue of dogs in Gum Grove Park. Testimony was as follows: Carolyn Gaw — Seal Beach Ms.Gaw sent the Commission a written response regarding this issue. All • written responses are included with these minutes. I Ms. Gaw noted the increased feeling of safety when people and their dogs are in the park. She noted that those walking dogs pick up trash and help keep the park in good condition. She very rarely sees dog droppings left behind and noted that there are still wild animals that access the park and perhaps those droppings are what people are seeing. She believes that dogs are better behaved when off leash displaying less aggressive behavior. Additionally, she believes that the dogs do far less damage to the park than do people. Sally Hirsch — Seal Beach Ms. Hirsch also sent written correspondence, which is included. Ms. Hirsch noted that Gum Grove Park is the only park on the hill. She believes that dogs should not be allowed to run free throughout the park. She fears that it will keep people without dogs or those who may be afraid of dogs from attending the park as a dog has jumped on her on while in the park. Ms. Hirsch noted that people with dogs do help maintain the park. Matt Johnson — Seal Beach Mr. Johnson attended both community meetings on this issue. He stated that he walks his dog 1 or 2 times each day at Gum Grove Park. He felt that the meetings were very informative and feels that the park is a safer place as a result of the dog walkers. He believes that all in attendance at the meetings, whether they walked their dogs or not at the park, were interested in the long term health of the park. Mr. Johnson felt that the park was very absent of dog droppings and saw no conflicts with the birds or other animals in the park. He was more concerned with people who leave behind trash, start fires or create bicycle trails. He noted that he was sorry this topic had even come up because he believes that the current operation of the park was working well and wishes it to stay that way. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Johnson how many dogs he saw at the park at any one time. He responded from "zero to a dozen". He also raised the issue of dogs being less aggressive off leash. Mario Voce — Seal Beach Mr. Voce is a member of the Gum Grove Park group and believes that the park is a nature park that should be limited to people without dogs, as stated in the current city ordinance. He suggested including Fish and Game as well as the Hellman family in discussions about this issue. Reg Clewley — Seal Beach Mr. Clewley also submitted written correspondence regarding this issue which is included. Mr. Clewley noted that in his correspondence, he raised ten different reasons why dogs should not be allowed in Gum Grove Park. He then reviewed each of the points in his letter (attached). He reported that the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club were interested in this matter. He was concerned that we heard much testimony from dog owners but none from.the birds which are not present in the park because of the dogs. He felt that there is plenty of room around the Animal Shelter for dogs to run. He also stated that the Police Department responds to the parks on a complaint basis only. Margaret Jewler — Seal Beach Ms. Jewler reported seeing seventeen egrets sleeping every evening in the park. She reports seeing Egrets in the back meadow just that morning. Ms. Jewler stated that there have been no red tail hawks in three years at the • park but that there are many cooper hawks in the park and that there have never been any Monarch butterflies in the park though the evenings bring the owls. She would like to see a leash law enforced as an unleashed German Shepherd attacked her Malamute while walking in the park. Kristern Troller — Seal Beach Ms. Troller stated that she have never seen an aggressive dog at the park but has observed kids and teenagers starting fires, dropping beer bottles, and littering. She has never observed anyone being attacked by a dog but regularly observes people smoking in the very dry park. She reiterated the fact that the dog walkers constantly pick up trash and that it has become a much safer atsmophere since people began bringing their dogs to the park. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Troller if she walked with her dog leashed or unleashed. She said she walked with her dog leashed if lots of people are in the park Thomas Smith — Seal Beach Mr. Smith noted man's ancient relationship with dogs. He stated that people should allow dogs to be at the party. Additionally he suggested that we accommodate and build a bridge with the dog owners. Liz Underwood — Seal Beach Stated that she has been in the park and had a dog jump on her. which frightened her because she was unsure of its intention. She was concerned with dogs running free — off leash. Barbara Holland — Seal Beach Ms. Holland stated that she goes to Gum Grove three or four times each week to walk her dog with a group of people. She stated that she has lived in Seal Beach for the past seven years and feels that there should be some place where a resident can legally walk their dog other than the sidewalk. She suggested we rise to the occasion and make provisions for our animals giving them a place to socialize. Additionally, she noted that other communities provide off leash opportunities and so should Seal Beach. Karen Gamby — Seal Beach Ms. Gamby has been a resident for the past 35 years and used Gum Grove all those years. She noted seeing lots of animals in the park and felt that the dogs did not prohibit their return. Ms. Gamby felt that we need to allow dogs in the park and that Seal Beach should provide its residents with a legal place to run free. At this point, the Chair closed public comments. Commissioner Watson began with noting the need to strike a balance between the needs of dog owners and those who do not want to see dogs at the park. She recalled the days when the park was unfenced and animals roamed the property at their pleasure. She felt that if there is a lack of wild life that it was do more to people than the presence of dogs in the park. She further stated that people are important to the park and if people bring their dogs with them, so be it. The Commissioner noted the physical improvement in the park. She felt that aggressive dogs are not limited to Gum Grove Park but may be encountered on the sidewalk and in yards. She summed up by stating that the leash issue is in need of further review. Commissioner Johnson noted lots of inappropriate behavior in the past at Gum Grove Park. She stated that she is leaning toward allowing dogs in the park. leashed. She said that perhaps we should consider establishing an area for the dogs to run unleashed but in a contained area. Additionally, she had a concern for the city's liability if dogs were allowed at the park unleashed. Commissioner Chattier also thought that an area might be dedicated to unleashed dogs but she wanted to further study the issue prior to making a recommendation. Chair Sustarsic visited the park and at that time saw no dogs or people and would also like to consider a dedicated area for the dogs. Commissioner Watson noted that people have been using the park with their dogs for the past thirty years and as a result the park has become a much safer place to visit. She also stated that we should be concerned both with the short and long term issues at the park. She further stated that wetlands would certainly not be appropriate for dogs but that Gum Grove may be a better alternative. Commissioner Watson suggested looking at the dog issue city wide — including beaches, perhaps limiting the hours of access. She knows lots of dog and animal lovers would like to see that considered. Commissioner Watson also noted that the noise issue associated with dogs in Gum Grove Park should not be limited to a discussion on dogs but inclusive of people. She felt that a little education of dog walkers regarding the sensitivity nearby of residents would go along way. This issue was then tabled until the next meeting for further study and discussion. Directors Report The Director gave a report on the progression of the pool renovations, skate park, and teen dances. Commission Concerns 1. Commissioner Johnson updated the Commissioners on the 5 and 10K Race plans. She noted that sponsorship donations had reached $9,500 at this point and that they were searching for volunteers. The Commissioner also told the Commissioners that the race committee had committed to beginning a building fund for refurbishing the Marina Park Community Center. 2. Commissioner Chattier asked the Director if the bill for the Edison Park climber had been sent to the College Park West fundraising group as yet. 3. Commissioner Sustarsic noted that there are a lot of dog walkers at Arbor Park and had noted many utilizing the Electric Greenbelt. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:55pm. Next meeting - March 29, 2000, 7pm in the City of Seal Beach Council Chambers. Staff Report TO: Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Nancy L.Beard, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services SUBJECT: Gum Grove Park- Dogs DATE: March 1,2000 GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Public comments were requested on the question of how best to regulate dogs in Gum Grove Park. The city sponsored two well attended, informal, information gathering meetings, October 18, 1999 and February 8,2000. In addition to the public input, e-mail messages were received as well as one letter(attached). The group was to address questions including: Should the City begin to enforce a complete ban on dogs in this park as in others in the City? Should the past practice of enforcing the ordinance on a complaint basis be continued? Or,are there other preferable alternatives, such as allowing dogs in Gum Grove Park only on leashes and or restricted to certain areas? The commissioners may recall that there is currently a citywide ban on dogs in parks. The Gum Grove Park property is currently leased to the City by the landowner,the Hellman family. The park will become city property upon the development of the Hellman property. At that time an enforceable ordinance will need to be in place. The current operating conditions are as follows;there are"no dogs permitted" signage in the park and the no dog's ordinance is enforced on a complaint basis. It is this Commissions charge to provide recommendations to the City Council,outlining the options they may consider when reviewing this issue. Meeting Review The first town hall meeting drew a crowd of 52 people. We heard from all sides of the issue of dogs in the park. There were twenty-seven suggestions received running from banning dogs completely to allowing dogs to run freely throughout the park. The twenty- seven items are attached to this report for your review. Some of the information given was issue oriented such as the concern for the litter left behind and instituting a call box system. The second meeting with approximately 30 people was equally informative. Each of the meetings had very good representation from the dog walking community. Members of the Gum Grove group attended both meetings as did a few other residents with concerns about the perceived growing number of people walking their dogs off leash in the park. Some had been approached by what they saw as an aggressive dog. Some had concerns centered on the survivability of the animal habitat if dogs were allowed to run free. And others had concerns about the dogs barking and with having to walk through dog droppings. Because dog walkers were the overwhelming attendees at these meetings,the majority requested the park operate as it has in the past. There was a concern raised regarding the fact that the meetings were so heavily attended by dog owners, however each meeting received press coverage in the SUN, Orange County Register, Long Beach Press Telegram and the LA Times—Orange County section. Additionally,the park was posted for the meetings so anyone using the park had an opportunity to see the meeting notice and an E-mail address was posted (copies of the messages received are included for your review). Results The most common issues from both meetings included the feeling that everyone treasured the park and wanted to feel safe when visiting the facility. All believed that signage was an important factor. The Gum Grove group is currently working on developing a kiosk for the park, which will provide information about the park, as well as indicating the park rules and what is expected of you when you visit. This signage will be friendly and informative. The City will assist in developing the signage with the Gum Grove group. Additional trashcans are needed. Installing a"doggie dispenser" system with disposal bags would be helpful. An increased presence in the park by the police, animal control and parks staff would be a benefit. All dogs in the park must be collared and licensed. All of the above suggestions are very achievable. The issue now comes to whether the recommendation will be to allow dogs leashed or unleashed or do not allow dogs in the park at all. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no significant fiscal impact associated with any of the options. The few park improvements such as trash cans and doggie disposal stations represent$500. The potential park kiosk will be a cooperative project with the Gum Grove volunteers and may represent a few hundred dollars. Y LIST OF SUGGESTIONS FROM DOG MEETINGS 1. Dogs run free 2. Require bark collars 3. Dogs must have collar and license 4. Dogs leashed 5. Poop picked up 6. Tickets for violations 7. Hours of operations....no earlier that 8am 8. Dogs restricted to the lower road 9. Ban dogs 10. Offer a permitting system...this would entail purchasing a pass for your dog allowing you access to the park on certain days with no dogs on Sundays 11. Stop park vandalism 12. Designate a dog park area 13. Make doggie dispensers available 14. Have and educational effort 15. Signage 16. Positive force in the park is people with dogs 17. Institute a dog fee or permit 18. Develop additional acreage for a dog park 19. Do not develop a dog park in the Gum Grove park 20. Water the park 21. Look at the big picture 22. Install a call box with a direct line to the PD 23. Request Coastal Commission impute 24. Permit resident dogs only or set fees for resident dogs at$25 and non resident dogs at $1,000 25. Provide monthly clean ups with volunteers 26. Remove all waste.... .more educational signage 27. Provide water 28. Open the park and close the park in a standard and timely manner S 4-8 Seal Beach City Code S 4-8 .4 (g) No person shall use any aquatic sport device or equipment in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. As used in this section, the term "aquatic sport device or equipment" shall include every description of surfboard, paddleboard, skimboard, bellyboard, surfmat, sailboard, boogie board, or any similar device or item of equipment used to propel a person into, on or through the water while engaging in an aquatic activity. (Ord. No. 1277, S1) Section 4-8. 1. Dogs and Other Animals Not Allowed. It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any dog or other animal owned, controlled, or in possession of such person, to be on or upon any public or private beach, or on, upon, or in any public park or public parking lot, or on, upon, or in any public median within the City. (Ord. No. 771, S9; Ord. No. 1015, S1) Section 4-8 . 2 . Riding or Driving Horses, Cars and Other Vehicles Without Permit Prohibited. No person shall ride or drive any horse or other animal, any bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or other vehicle upon the public beach or in or upon any public park without a written permit to do so from the City Manager or his authorized representative, provided that this section shall not apply to any City employee acting in the discharge of his assigned duties. (Ord. No. 771, S10) Section 4-8 . 3 . Selling, Peddling and Soliciting. No person, as principal, agent, or employee shall peddle or sell goods, wares, or merchandise of any kind, or solicit customers or trade for any business or occupation, in or upon any public beach, public park, or public parking lot except from booths or storerooms constructed thereon with the permission of the City Council, or when such person is operating under any grantee of any franchise or lessee of any lease authorized by the City Council. (Ord. No. 771, S11) Section 4-8 . 4 . Operation of Vessels. (a) As used in this and other sections of Article I, Chapter 4 , the term "vessel" shall mean and include every description of boat, conveyance or watercraft used or capable of being used for navigating in water and designed to be propelled by oars, paddles, machinery or sail, or any combination thereof; provided, however, that "vessel" shall not include any aquatic sport device or equipment as defined in Section 4-8 (g) . (b) No person shall operate any vessel, nor permit any vessel to drift, within two hundred (200) yards of the shoreline of any beach regulated by this Chapter 4 , except: (Seal Beach 12/94) 605 Nancy Beard, Director March 2,2000 Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Dear Ms. Beard, Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting held on March 1 with the Parks and Recreation Commission at which the issue of dogs in Gum Grove Park was discussed. I did hear about the meeting from neighbors who did attend. I understand there were comments presented in letters regarding the negative aspect of dogs in the park. I feel it is important to put in writing for the council a positive perspective on this subject. I have a Labrador that I have been walking in the park for two years now, since he was six months old. It is a daily constitutional that I look forward to as much as he does. It is a joy for me to spend even a brief half hour every day walking in the trees, smelling the air, watching the clouds, listening and observing quietly all the wildlife from birds to coyotes. I treasure this"mini- wilderness", and appreciate it's existence about as much as a person possibly could. On the practical side,the park also happens to be directly on the other side of our backyard fence, so my concerns for it's well being and preservation go beyond it being merely a lovely place to visit. What goes on in the park effects our property and my family's quality of life. We bought our house on Crestview to a large extent because of the park and the open space behind us. My biggest fear, and the reason I am writing this letter, is that I do not want to see the park change for the worse in any way. I am baffled by the complaints of the same four or so people who are negatively vocal about dogs walking in the park with their owners. As I have mentioned, I am in the park at different times of the day most seven days of the week, and have never once seen the persons in the park who claim to know the most about what goes on there every day. I am a local"regular" and have been in a position to observe who is using the park on a regular basis. I am very happy to report that at this point I do not observe the park being over used in the least. During the week the people that frequent the park are those who live in our community. On the weekends I will sometimes come across people I have never seen, but in no great numbers. It is my impression that the people who are"regulars"to the park from neighboring communities also seem to have a deep concern and respect for the space. The park still remains little known to the general public beyond Seal Beach, and I would love to see it stay this way. The point I would like to make is that the people that use the park the most, or who are closest to the park, care very deeply about it's future. Many of these concerned people are dog owners. For those that have no need for dogs I respect their feelings. For the people that do need their dog I also very much understand their frustration over this dogs-in-the-park issue becoming an issue at all. I can honestly claim it is my experience that 99.5% of all dog owners who visit the park on a regular basis not only respect the park, but treat it with the reverence it deserves. If there is someone present in the park who is not behaving respectfully, the presence of dog owners are the first to let someone know this is happening, or try to correct things themselves. It is my humble opinion that it is the human presence in the park, and not dogs,that is the biggest threat to it's preservation. Twice now I have had to paint over graffiti on my back wall which faces the park(believe me,you would not want to see these words on a daily basis). Children have been reported to break or bend precious new young trees to build some kind of structure to play with. Broken glass and cigarette butts have littered the park. The cigarette butts are most frightening to me, especially when it has been dry. It is the people that frequent the park with their dogs that I have seen time and time again cleaning up messes such as these left behind by others who do not walk the park every day. They are the ones picking up cans, wrappers, bottles,and trash that does not make it into the very visible trash cans provided. Regardless of these"human problems" I am not about to suggest that there should be a ruling that no humans under the age of eighteen be allowed in the park. What harm are dogs doing to the park? Barking dogs is one of the complaints of those few people complaining. First of all, dogs in the park do not bark at all. It is the dogs who are in their backyards on Crestview who may bark. Not all dogs bark at all times, some do, some do not. This seems to be an issue to be resolved neighbor to neighbor having little to do with Gum Grove. These same dogs bark when a dog walks down the street on leash. Does this mean then, that dogs should not walk any where because they are disturbing the peace?We are supposed to be a friendly, family community. Families have pets, because they want to have pets. Seal Beach is the only city in southern California besides the city of Claremont that has no provisions for dogs. What Seal Beach does have is plenty of rules restricting and limiting dogs and their owners. I know there are reasons for these rules, but truly, is there a need for even more limitations? As I have mentioned, the regulars who use the park are very respectful of where they are. Dogs are cleaned up after, and concerned citizen(s) have placed bags for clean-up for those who might have forgotten to bring a bag along. The majority of these concerned people that appreciate the park asked to sign their names and phone numbers with the Gum Grove Park Committee to be of service in any way that they can. It remains to be seen if in the future their willingness to help will be utilized or recognized. In closing, new rules should be created, or old rules changed when there appears to be due cause. There should be some visible or viable situation(s)that warrant the change. In other words, "If it's not broken, don't fix it". The park is surviving at present because of the limited numbers of people who currently visit. This is because no one has drawn unnecessary attention to it's presence. My greatest fear and anguish is that by making an issue out of allowing dogs in the park we are alerting unlimited numbers of people about the park's existence. I do vehemently believe increased numbers of people in the park would be a much greater threat to the park's ecology, and to the safety of my Crestview neighbors, than the few dog walkers currently using the park. I urge you to recommend keeping the park the quiet , safe place it now is. I respectfully thank you for considering this letter. Please feel free to call me at any time. &lo6anne S inerrely, Le 1525 Cres ew Seal Beach 799-0338 I Betty Tanner 1784 Crestview Avenue Seal Beach, California 90740 562/430-1718 bltanner@worldnet.att.net March 27, 2000 Nancy Beard Seal Beach Parks& Recreation RE: Issue - Dogs in Gum Grove Park Dear Ms. Beard: I walk in Gum Grove Park every week day morning with my two dogs. During our walks I usually meet with several other dog owners and their pets. We enjoy watching the coyotes, the Great Blue Herons& Egrets, the hawks, the White-tailed Kites, and the numerous other birds and small critters that inhabit the park and the adjoining land. I have noted an increase in numbers of the herons and hawks in the last two years. Gum Grove Park is the only place in Seal Beach where dog owners can enjoy a pleasant nature walk. As a thirty-two year resident of Seal Beach, the welfare of this park is very important to me. I am a member of the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation and the Wilderness Society. The people I observe in the park, on our morning walks, respect it and care for it. We pick up broken glass, paper, cans and other trash left by the two legged visitors who obviously do not care for the park. I have attended several meetings in regards to the matter of dogs in Gum Grove Park. I have listened to the two or three people who are opposed to allowing dogs in the park. (Interestingly, in all the years I have walked in the park, I have never seen either of these people.) The complaints I heard voiced, by those opposing dogs, were as follows: 1. The dogs will harm the owls, hawks, herons, egrets or other birds: As dogs cannot climb trees or fly they do not pose a threat to the birds. In my yard I have a bird bath, bird feeders and numerous bird houses which are all occupied. My yard is virtually never without birds in it and they certainly are not concerned with my dogs. I have never seen a ground-nesting bird trying to nest in Gum Grove. There is too much traffic. They build their nests on the adjoining property where there is less traffic and they are protected by the fence. The Herons are hunting for mice and gophers which do not appear in Gum Grove when people are walking on the pathways. The big birds most always nest in trees. On rare occasions Herons nest in reeds near water. Other than the trees, there is no suitable nesting for them in Gum Grove. It seems to me that if the parties opposing dogs in the park studied the habits and habitats of the creatures they are worried about, they could rest easier. 2. One person suggested that the dogs would harm the butterflies. I recently visited Pacific Grove, CA where the Monarchs are in abundance. Dogs are welcome in the parks where the butterflies gather and no one has found their presence harmful. I travel extensively with my dogs and have never found a place as unfriendly to pets as Seal Beach. In Portland Oregon the Arboreum welcomes people walking their pets. The beaches are open to dogs in Washington, Oregon and Northern California. Even Carmel, with its white sand beach, welcomes dogs and provides bags for pick-up. The beaches and parks are some of the most beautiful in the United States. When you think about it, the worst thing a dog can do on a beach washes off. My children have stepped on broken glass and fish hooks on the beach here. 3. The third person opposing dogs in the park simply does not like dogs and admittedly is afraid of them. The issues of this complainant are personal and should not be considered in regards to the park issue. She states that the dogs in the yards on either side of her bark when there are dogs in the park. I have heard them and they do sometimes bark when we are in the park and when joggers pass by. They also bark when we walk down the street in front of her house. Her issue is with her neighbors, not the people walking on public streets or in the park. She stated she was attacked and bitten by a dog. However, it turns out this event occurred on Seal Way, and the dog that bit her was on leash. This does not pertain to Gum Grove Park. Each time there is an article in the Press Telegram about Gum Grove, I notice new people visiting the park. I sure hate to see this happen. The park is small and I do not believe it will benefit from the additional populace. The majority of the people who walk their dogs in the park, in the mornings, are considerate of each other. If someone has an aggressive dog they keep it on a leash so it poses no threat to other dogs. Some of the newcomers do not seem to have the same concern. The park is often so crowded on weekends and late afternoons I don't feel safe going there. Those of us who take our pets to Gum Grove, in the morning, do so to allow the animals to run and play together. There is nothing like a good game of "chase the dog with the stick". This game usually takes place in the far(east) end of the park in the large open area. The owners chat and the dogs exercise and play. Joggers pass by and I have never seen an incident of a dog bothering them. Many dogs go through a personality change when a leash is attached to their collar. They become fierce and protective of their space and do not get along with other dogs. It is important that they have time to play and socialize. Dogs that get this type of exercise and socializing don't spend their lives in back yards barking at every passerby. I am a firm believer that if it isn't broken you don't need to fix it. The"no dog" signs protect the city and should a dog pose a problem, that dog can be removed by siting the sign. If the signs are removed, I believe that opens a new can of worms, and I think a leash law is a bad idea. I would suggest a law that worked well in another state where I lived. That law simply stated that a dog must be under the control of the owner, at all times. As long as a dog posed no problem to others it was fine. Should the dog attack another dog or bother others, whether that dog was on or off the leash, the owner could receive a citation and be fined.. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Betty Tanner I. 3(04 CO _ /1 I t 'fr ., . `.-1<..*; . '•4 : - %01 f -- ' /") ''.i 4Y{ 1 F 1 : $ �. -1P1*" 1 s ,. I`�4 � r X'''% Y,-. i Cdr "' "r;' t). -, ' '_ . .,-. - -- 4 • / ) :-,. ' "th e!,,, ik 6)-1Q,'Yvk -R-e,Q.,a-^"T "Tc . „---- tcl,l.I.A.,131..51 r C 0 -:- --. 'l' I 1 'ifnA-1'1-6-.) C'`L-QMvp 0 co-) . f5eQuMi, 6ut, -tF -(-3/AISLC)c)-X 9' `k--,, -- t,c-c(2s 6(-Rs,i_a - • ilf u6K-c--',5,-- . (r_e_ e_o_Li„cp r U - -41 - t,of ,Irt...j cu>40 Q . ►�I ,' .._... 1 t-C-S11k . ivt,fi,,La_ Tjk+d14tfc-R-C, iO1 / le ate, ? • c5 ° 9 Citi ' - - g c dtA.,, ,t. _-.Q. r`(-c)--c- o &61Z 62-‘44r 04 ) Ct -Ciii/tA,"(-131k(21tij -t•C nd)tivi,(-‘) ,v604g1,,,, - -4) e t,t, rL-) C i - --- -It-71- /14- 6,_s/ 2,c_,V){, _ ..a--ii ,avylw `- , , Avizt ,„, A L.r,,o-e,:,?Au Aye Ivt.ce- -1-1-1 FLA -17) -i--- -N Asd-Ef "A-c- - ' u_n„ 0 ,r) ,„u aL, r--i- c-R7-)t-L:-12- • f c2om �� 'tc.Q pa.1-- -6-4S'a...._L_/ _4,,jobilt GVX- .-m`lit s �QLV ---:"° �l/1A i-itt<t4 < ? aVY ( V +anfit `•� 1 ��� C. -)04-- -i-(Aad-LA-)z/I ,,..„,,,2,0--v-44).' '7'P (iL�L� , ' �� f , „ Ab 1--- (2 , ,11,0,,a, Ld,,,, ..„,6„, i„,,.. ,C_Fl.CULC19-1 -..i A 411 l �9 y/ C� i 64 _> .. , -77'5D. a ; ,.. rt-S' ""\f C 'te r :::•. z0'd Y.86 129S9Zb0T2 SE:ST 000?-6Z-adW Plan for Animals in Seal Beach Background: For as long as I can remember, Gum Grove Park has been a place where people walk dogs. In addition, it was"tive park where kids rode bikes, created trails and day camped with their Girl/Boy Scout troups. In other words, it was an active urban wilderness area which was used primarily by the citizens of Seal Beach( the Hill and Old Town residents) I cannot remember when the "no dog" signs were put up, but I know that very few people have paid attention to those signs. Since the Hellman people have erected the fence, however, a dog presence is more evident since many times cogs wandered with their masters on and off leash across the entire Hellman property. Now these dogs and owners are confined to a smaller space_ What are the problems) 1. There have been some incidents of dogs who have "scared" residents_ 2. There are some residents who resent the noice and presence of dogs. 3. Some people feel that some owners do not pick up after their dogs. 4. Some residents would like no dogs allowed in Gum Grove 5. Some residents would like dogs allowed only if they are on leash. 6. Some residents would like to see time limits placed upon-when dogs can leave or enter the park. 7. Some people feel that some dogs can be mannerly when off leash, and that when few people are around this is healthy for the animals. 8. Other people feel that dogs should always be on leash. 9. Some people feel that dogs should be allowed to walk on the bottom of the areao - 10. Many people feel that the 'should be other designated areas in town where dogs can be walked. (There is only one other city in the area that does not have some designated areas for dogs.) T29S9ZVOTS 9 :SI 0a0d-bZ-bdW Recorr mendatlons Education Respect Community Responsibility 1. That Gum Grove Park remain as it is now (temporarily.) Dogs unofficially can be walked on leash. Some dogs can be allowed to run, !f they are well mannered. NQ aggressive or misbehaving dogs allowed in the Park. 2. That we establish a time when dogs can be walked in the park. No earlier than 7 A. M. on weekdays, nor later than dark. No earlier than 8 A. M. on weekends, nor later than dark. ( This includes residents of Crestview also.) 3. That we begin an educational program that could involve several groups: Parks and Recreation committee Gum Grove Park groups Animal Care Animal lovers who bring dogs to the park. Mc Gaugh School 4. These groups could review a set of rules that must be followed when taking dogs and people to the park. 1. Ail dogs must me accompanied by their owners. 2. All dogs must have licenses and shots. 3. All aggressive dogs must be on leash. 4. All dogs who have been offensive or unmannerly should be banned from the park. 5. How can we reinforce these rules ? 1. Dogs groups who regularly walk in the park must make a strong effort to monitor the park. 2. Volunteer Police patrols could be sent to monitor periodically. 3. People who walk dogs in the park need to voluntarily spread the word that residents on Crestview and other nature lovers want to feel comfortable and unthreatened by animals. 4_ Everyone who uses the park must be willing to confront anyone who has an aggressive or unmannerly dog in the park. 5. A written policy governing dogs in the community can be written and given to every dog owner in the city. 6. More dog obedience classes can be given (?) (some people said that dogs should have a dog obedience license demonstrating that they can go to the park) Ces'n rx SSr -e( N wa-s £ .d l E9S9ZV0 l S HOS 3-10O I H SNSHdSIS HOdi Hv6V' l 66 l-SZ-S t29SSEVOIE 92:St 030Z-6Z-d W 6. For the future: One of these days, Gum Grove will be dedicated to the city and we will need to review whether dogs should only be allowed to walk on the main path. 7. If that is the case, then we might want to see if there is any other area, perhaps near the Animal Care facility where we could have a doggie park or doggie run area. 8. In addition, we could explore the idea of opening up the Electric Park way for dog walkers (on Leash) and placing doggie dispensers in this area. 8. We also could explore other parks within all city areas where dogs may be allowed to walk, perhaps even having a dog beach day once a month or once a week for a few hours. 9. Gum Grove Park should be a non smoking park area. Because of the possibility of fire ( Eucalyptus trees can be incendiary, especially in the summer. Let's put up a no smoking, no fires sign um 10. Nature education pamphlet and material could be made available to all people who walk dogs and to everyone who frequents the park. Do's and don'ts. 11. If these ideas are not workable, then perhaps an Ad Hoc committee should be formed where we develop other ideas. The key to all of this is self monitoring and education. We need to remember that Gum Grove Park Is a much safer park because dogs and people frequent the area. Statistic show that areas that are regularly used are areas that have less crime and less vandalism. We need to remember that it is important for all of us to coexist-animal lovers, nature lovers, and so on. OVJV .d lE9S9ZV01S HOS S1OOIW SNSHdS.LS WOdA WV6V' l S66l-SZ-S Feb 03 00 07 : 26p Carolyn R. Gaw 562-594-0485 p. 1 Carolyn Gaw 1110 Catalina Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431-2689 February 3, 2000 • lancy Beard ,ity of Seal Beach 211 8'`' Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Nancy. Thank you for asking aur opinions on the pet issue. In response, I will try to tell you what I think. People need to be able to have pets and enjoy them in the ways that a pet can give joy without doing harm to nature or other people. Dogs and people need to be free to walk and run in most all of the places that our beautiful city provides. If we can find ways for people to do this without harming others or nature. we wilt improve the lives of the people in our city. Gum Grove is a wonderful place to take an animal to r .• and walk. The people that go there are enjoying it very much. While they are enjoying it, they are keeping the park safer by patrolling it just by regularly walking through. It is safer for our children who may play there to have neighborhood adults going there. The walking adults youngstersagoing igha niagdcan themsev themselves. Letting a dog run/walk everything fromfires ro other people harming our youngsters through the park is a very small price to pay for such improved safety to our youngsters. Dogs behave better when they are off leash than when they are d leash. d self whelp beacause her a dog animal is frightened as if it is captured when it is on leash and may try comes near it. If dogs are free to run away after sniffing each other, they very seldom have problems with fighting. The act of running away by the fearful dog lets the dominant dog know he is the top clog, and the dominant one almost always backs off. Although it is not practical to let a dog run free in most of the city because of the danger from cars, it is quite practical in Gum Grove and the best choice. This more passive approach to the animals often prevents the owners harm, because there is far less need to separate aggressive animals - they do it themselves. Most of the animals that go there have already established a social order as they do in a very short time, and enjoy running with each other. It is fun to watch. People need to clean up after their pets. Responsible people are doing it more and more now days. It is a courtesy that is being learned better by our people all the time. It is very much appreciatedby all of us. Gum Grove is a fine example of how much cleanliness has improved. Now when you go there, you very seldom see much animal droppings, and you see far less people trash than in prior years. That is because the walking people are also picking that up. What a boon to the City to have neighborhood people regularly picking up trash in Gum Grove. There may still be some droppings, but we must remember that we also have coyotes, skunks and other animals- not a very trainable crowd. Feb 03 00 07: 27p Carolyn R. Gaw 562-594-0485 p. 1 The problems with the natural habitat are coming far more from destructive people than from the animals. The animals walk and run. They don't break trees, dig up roots and make new trails where nature hasn't meant them to be. The dog walking people may improve these problems by having someone there to speak to and influence the destroying people. I feel that we should be able to walk our dogs on a leash on the Green Belt as long as the "clean up after your pef pattern can be established. It is a lovely place to walk, and we shouldn't be banned from it. I feel that we should be able to walk also on the ':aeach with a pet. Again with a definite "dean up after your pet". In this case the beach is so heavily used by people at some times, who may not be used to pets, that we might need to set a specific times in order to avoid too much mix of people and pets. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely. /-6,11: arolyn Gaw Nancy Beard From: DanaDdesign@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 7:05 PM To: nancybeard@ci.seal-beach.ca.us Subject: gum grove park Hi. I'm a responsible dog owner living in Long Beach. I recently moved from Bellingham. Washington, where we enjoyed many parks where dogs were allowed. I lived next to an interurban trail where my miniature poodle. Zephyr. and I could run for several miles. There doesn't seem to be many places to take dogs where there are running trails. I've been to Dog Beach in Huntington, and it's really delightful. I've sent in my $15 donation and intend to participate in their beach cleanup. But, it is farther than Seal Beach. I visited Gum Grove Park, and feel it's a perfect place for dogs. It's basically unimproved and with a few plastic bag stations like Huntington has, would really work out well. If I could vote, I'd vote for letting dogs play in Gum Grove, off the leash. Thank you, Dana Snyder • 1 02/02/00 16:06 FAX 310 451 9200 RE] 001 Fax from ROB BIRO 01 - 02 - 00 Dear Nancy, I would like to voice my opinion concerning the allowance of dogs at Gum Grove Park. For several years ay wife and i have been bringing our dogs there to let them run off-leash. There are preciously few places where a dog can run, exercise and play unrestricted, Gum Grove is a special joy for a dog owner. Since Gum Grove is not officially a "dog park ' it is not advertised as such and the only dog owners who use the park have learned of it through word of mouth. I have never seen more than 6 to 8 dogs there at one time. Most of the time there are either none, or one or two. Because of it's location, Gum Grove is not a typical park per se, meaning that people do not readily walk or picnic there, it is more of a secluded woods than anything. The only other people we've seen there were older kids riding their trail bicycles and/or swinging on the rope which is hung from one of the large eucalyptus trees. To enforce a leash there would completely negate a dog owner from going to the park, since you can walk a dog virtually anywhere if it ' s on a leash. A dog cannot play, exercise or interract with other dogs tethered to a leash. It isn't clear to me why dogs are an issue here, unless it 's from complaints of homeowners that border the park, many of whom are also dog owners. = recall one owner who was fond of simply throwing their dogs feces over their fence and into the park, rather than disposing of it. I wonder if the park users were blamed for this practice. Perhaps there is an opportunity hereto profit from dogowners, who I'm sure would support a donation program to help maintain and beautify the park. Please do not take away the joy that dogs and their owners share by letting them run free. Thank you. • 4 P h c n e s : I Work 310 394 7150 cxt272 Home 562 434 5285 Reply Fax 310 451 9200 • e-mail robb@bdfox.com • EDWARD J. HIRSCH 1325 CRESTVIEW AVE. SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 February 20, 2000 Ms. Nancy Beard, Director Recreation, Parks and Community Service Dept. City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Re: Dogs in Gum Grove Park Dear Ms. Beard: I was unable to attend the meeting that you held last week, however, I did attend the first meeting and have talked with friends and neighbors about this issue and wanted to share my thoughts with you. It seems to me that the problems relate to the fact that the no dogs in the park law has not been enforced for some time. Not only have dogs come into the park but also they have been permitted to run free. People have become afraid to bring their young children into the park for fear that they may be injured by a free running dog. At the first meeting a man stated that dogs in the park harassed his disabled girlfriend in a wheelchair. A lady stated that she and her young child were threatened by a free running pit bull in the park. Citizens interested in the birds and animals in this nature park believe that the dogs are eliminating the various species. I do recognize that most of the dog owners are responsible and control their dogs, but some do not. No one would dare to bring a small child to the park when there is a possibility that the child might be bitten or knocked down by a large dog. When dogs such as pit bulls or other aggressive dogs run in the park the area becomes unusable to the rest of the citizens. We can expect more of these dogs if and when it becomes legal to bring dogs into the park. Dog owners insist that they have always been permitted to bring their dogs into the park and should be able to continue to do so. Should lax enforcement of the law create a change in permissible conduct? Perhaps dogs should be permitted in all parks and the beach. Why just in the only nature park in the city? Perhaps a compromise solution does exist. I suggest the following: 1) Only dogs on leash shall be permitted in the park 2) Dogs shall only be permitted in the parking area and lower road. This will protect the nature aspect of the park and reduce the potential for contamination of the park grass and nature trail areas by dog feces. 3) There should be immediate enforcement of license and leash laws. 4) Enforcing the rules on a complaint basis is unworkable. It does not prevent the problems from arising. Animal Control should regularly patrol the park and citations given for infractions of the law. 5) The park should not open until 8am so that the park hours may more closely match those of Animal Control who will then be available to monitor this situation. A dangerous condition will exist if free running dogs are permitted in the park. Not only danger to children but also substantial legal liability may exist should someone be injured. Most importantly, permitting off leash dogs will prevent a large number of citizens from using the park. Please do not create a situation that benefits only the dog owners and excludes everyone else from enjoying Seal Beach's only nature park. Yours truly, f_424,,,tx.034.4.44. Edward J. Hirsch PROBLEMS WITH DOGS IN GUM GROVE PARK During the past few years the number of people bringing their dogs to Gum Grove Park has increased substantially. As a result problems relating to the use and maintenance of this nature park have increased. They include the following: 1) Dog owners have permitted their dogs to run off-leash within the park. Violations of the Seal Beach City leash law occur regularly. There is substantial danger of a child being jumped on,knocked down,or ever bitten by these free running animals. 2) The City of Seal Beach faces substantial legal liability due to the fact that the Police Department and Animal Control have been directed to not enforce the leash law in Gum Grove Park. This intentional non-enforcement of the law creates negligence on the part of the city and may result in great cost to the city if, for example, a child was badly bitten in the park by an off- leash dog. 3) Parents have become frightened by people and their dogs in the park and no longer feel safe in visiting this city nature park. For example,Rebequi Howarth spoke at a recent city council meeting and described how she and her daughter had been threatened in the park by an unleashed pit bull. Other parents refuse to bring their children to the park due to the unleashed dogs and the contamination from dogs. 4) People turn their dogs loose in the park in early morning. These free dogs go up into the tree area and agitate other dogs that live in the homes that are contiguous to the park. These dogs then bark and bark and bark, creating a disturbance to the entire neighborhood. 5) Dog feces are contaminating the park. This health hazard results from owners permitting their dogs into the grass and trail areas. 6) Since March 1971 the City of Seal Beach has leased Gum Grove as a community nature park. In the Hellman Specific Plan Amendment it is provided that the 10.2-acre parkland will be dedicated to the City of Seal Beach for a public nature park and open space use. This is the only nature park in northwest Orange County. It has always been accepted that Gum Grove • • is a nature park and not a dog park. Uncontrolled dogs and their contamination are restricting the use of this park by the citizens as a nature park. 7) A brochure published by the Gum Grove Nature Park Group,a group dedicated to restoring and maintaining the natural wilderness qualities of the park, refers to the park as"a special place for wildlife enthusiasts and anyone who wants to walk or commune in a peaceful, nature filled environment." Dogs in the nature areas are damaging this environment. RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS The most efficient solution to this problem would be to merely enforce the existing law. This is a nature park and NO dogs should be allowed. If dogs must be permitted the following minimal conditions should be required: l) Immediate and continuos enforcement of the City leash and license laws should be effected. This will eliminate legal liability to the city and ensure that all users of the park are protected. 2) Temporary signs should be created and posted immediately at the park so that all users of the park will become familiar with the dog rules in effect. Permanent signs should be created and posted as soon as possible. 3) The park should not be opened to public use until 8am daily. This will eliminate much of the noise during the early morning that is so disturbing to the neighborhood. 4) On leash dogs should be restricted to the lower paved road. This will reduce the potential for contamination of grass and nature trail areas by dog feces. This restriction will also serve to protect bird and animal life in this nature park. Sally Hirsch 1325 Crestview Avenue Seal Beach, Ca 90740 Nancy Beard From: aabiscan@corp.rockwell.com Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 7:18 AM To: nancybeard@earthlink.net Subject: Gum Grove & Dogs I am a resident of Seal Beach who would like to voice me opinionsfor the City Council's consideration: 1- Most cities have an area which allow dogs. Huntington Beach and Long Beach have "Dog Parks". Huntington Beach and Sunset Beach also have Beach/Park Walk areas which allow dogs. Seal Beach does not provide any such area. 2- Sunset Beach grass area requests that dog owners"pick up after their dogs". They provide baggies, trash cans, etc. 3- While in Gum Grove Park, I have never experienced dog fights, excessive barking. etc. The dogs have freedom to run and exercise. They do not harm the environment. We know that coyotes utilize the area. They can be seen early morning and at dusk. 4- Why have the city spend resources and money on patrolling a deserted park? any of the dog parks are well kept by the dog owners themselves (e.g. ',intington Beach Dog park). If you entrust the dog owners to be responsible, you might be pleasantly surprised! (Not to mention save city resources and $S.) Thank you for providing your email for our comments. 1 Gloria M. Burton 214 Second Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 799-1779 February 17,2000 Nancy Beard, Director Seal Beach Parks&Recreation Dept. 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Dogs in Gum Grove Dear Ms. Beard: After looking at the current issue of"The Sun" it has come to my attention that you are going to present your findings to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the possibility of allowing dogs equal access to Gum Grove. It is generally known that Seal Beach is not friendly to dogs. Every where you go there are signs"NO DOGS ALLOWED." We are only one of many responsible owners of dogs who take their dogs to Huntington Beach where they provide a wonderful park for dogs to run free of leashes. People clean up after their dogs and assist in taking care of the Dog Park. I feel that Seal Beach, which has a"No Kill" shelter should lead the way in allowing people with dogs' equal access to the park. Some fear that the natural animals would suffer. If any problem would exist, it would be with cats which are natural predators, not dogs. I believe that you could restrict dogs to morning and late afternoon hours and still provide plenty of access time for others to enjoy the park. We live in the community also and deserve someplace to take our dogs. Thank you for your consideration. Gloria Burton Nancy Beard From: Sue Ramsey [city_sue@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 4:08 PM To: nancybeard@earthlink.net Subject: Gum Grove Hi Nancy I read the article in the News Enterprise. I hope that we all can come to some agreement concerning the dogs. I started coming to Gum Grove over a year ago. I did not own a dog at that time. I thought I found paradise. It is the greatest little hide away. I have meet several people who live and own dogs in the neighbor hood. They all feel the way I do. Its a great place and hate to loose it. We have tried to pick up after lazy dog owners and kids who leave trash. I know that there are some dogs who go up top and bark. But I have been up on top without a dog and had the dogs who live up top bark like crazy. So its not only the visiting dogs and people causing the problems. I hate to see this place get closed completely. Maybe you could have set hours or hours &days. I now own a dog. I've had her 9 months. I did not realize how hard it is to find a F. ace to take them so they can get some exercise. People have really spoiled it for responsible pet owners. I hope we all can come up with a compatible decision. Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts Sue Ramsey Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 1 r �� o � ,o February 28, 2000 Stephen Reg Clewley 945 Catalina Ave. Seal Beach,CA 90740 (562)430-8841 City of Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Commission 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach,CA 90740 Re: Dogs in Gum Grove Nature Park Parks and Recreation Commissioners, The policy of the City of Seal Beach for some time has been to allow illegal admittance of domesticated canines into the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area fondly referred to as "Gum Grove Nature Park". This policy constitutes irresponsible stewardship of the land,must be terminated at once,and no recommendation to legalize this dangerous and abhorrent activity can be reasonably made by reasonable people to any higher governing body. 1. Supervision is non-existent at Gum Grove Nature Park. 2. Dogs are imperiled at Gum Grove Nature Park 3. Human beings are endangered by the presence of dogs within Gum Grove Nature Park 4. No mechanism is in place for the immediate reporting of aggressive dogs. 5. Physically challenged, frail,and elderly are deterred from recreational opportunities contrary to the open space/recreation/conservation element of the Seal Beach General Plan by the presence of dogs in Gum Grove Nature Park. 6. The "turning a blind eye to" or permitting of dogs within Gum Grove Nature Park places the City of Seal Beach at significant exposure to litigation with respect to Seal Beach City Council Resolution No. 4562,more specifically Exhibit 11 of California Coastal Commission Development Permit Application Number 5-97-367,currently before the courts and which on page 66 under B-Dedication of Gum Grove Nature Park,touts the park as a"potential migration stop for the Monarch Butterfly",an area which"supports an abundance of wildlife",contains several potentially important archeological sites, including the site with the highest diversity of ethnographic material culture traits of all the sites located on the specific plan property,and which by dedication of the park to the City will preserve the land a nature park in perpetuity. 7. Hellman Properties(LLC)Coastal Development Application Number 5-97-367A1 currently before the California Coastal Commission may have to undergo significant changes as a result of any move by the City of Seal Beach to allow dogs access to Gum Grove"Nature Park" according to California Coastal Commission staff. 8. The value of habitat afforded the endangered Western Burrowing Owl within the metes and bounds of Gum Grove(sic) "Nature Park" is mitigated below a level of significance by a I continuation of the City of Seal Beach's policy of ignoring the illegal presence of dogs in the park and eliminated entirely by official sanctioning use by dogs of the'park in any way. 9. The value of the park as a buffer between the existing residential development and existing oil extractions is mitigated below a level of significance by the City of Seal Beach policy of ignoring the illegal presence of dogs in the park and eliminated entirely by official sanctioning use by dogs of the park in any way. 10. The potential value of the park as a migration stop for the Monarch Butterfly is mitigated below a level of significance by the City of Seal Beach policy ignoring the illegal presence of dogs in the park and eliminated entirely by official sanctioning use by dogs of the park in any way. Respectfully submitted, �,►6.,�� � Stephen Reg Clewley ,e /0/ • ,} Qty Co+otcfl IUio4ttion No.4562 Ccr*ation((Ra i Rana,.74.41Ti lla► • Srptembes 22.1117 connection and consolidating the wetlands into a saltwater Marsh eoosystein:. Sensitive • species on the site would be translocated to the saltwater mrsh andtkbufer.aea. Mc marsh will provide important nesting habitat for the Belding'r savannah Vftrow. It will also provide habitat for shorebirds, herons, egrets and ducks arid'wil.have significant. foraging value for the California least tern. The saltwater marsViv3D serve as an important biological link in the coastal marsh environments in the 'repos. . In addition to the saltwater marsh, the Project wou)dc;f ate..a network of six interconnected open water/freshwater marsh area co tht..t3te.=.-.712ese.arras will provide high-quality habitat for water fowl, herons and egress u.wefl as passerines. A..1 - plant species associated with the marsh areas will be naive to-Coastal Orange Courcy freshwater or brackish water marshes. • The restored and created wetlands will be .turttier 'buttered,hrcn surrounding urban environment by a public golf course. The golf:coutse will provice over 100 additional acres of open space adjacent to and around tlu Ial as arcus. It will -be constructed and managed in an environmentally sensitive manner fa accordance wig • the proposed Environmental Management Plan. Out-of-play areas wii_be planted with native vegetation which will function as habitat zones and will, enhancethe habitat values of the marsh wetlands system. She costs of the wetlands restoration program will berceuararitxd by,thr project applicant as a condition of approval, thus providing assurance that the_ restoration program will be funded and that no public funds will be required to ensure its completion. The saltwater marsh will be dedicated to a public or nonprofit agency oforganization for monitoring, maintenance and management if there is an appropriate -agency willing to accept the conveyance. The freshwater areas will be managed and'in:naintained bye Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course. Both the saltwater and freshwaterman_hes will be dedicated as permanent wetlands and open space. _.:. . :•T--..z•�.� . . B. Dedication of Gum Grove Nature Park •_ sr_ M The project applicant will dedicate Gum Grove Nature psi Ctothe Clay for open space and park purposes as part of the Project. The Peri here uric — eucalyptus grove which supports an abundance of wildlife mrgratioo:stop for the Monarch butterfly. 7.he Palk also contains several'aiir{iafy important archeological sites, including the site with the highest diversity of ethnographic material culture traits of all the sites looted on the specific plan property (ORA-258). In addition, the Park provides a buffer between existing residential developi5•arid.existh g. oil extraction operations. Currant) , the Pak is privately owned �tl a rt ect app cant.and is Y P Y by .. ,� � leased to the City on an annual basis. The dedication of the Panic to the Cify as put of the Project will preserve the land as a nature park in pcapetuity,,.'Ihis dedication-will achieve ism>ca notiEcnice tea« • 66 SUNDAY FEBRUARY 20 , 2000 £19 PRESS TELEGRAM I NEWS , Dogs imperiled G Attacks: Supervision It is largely up to •.he dog is scarce at dog parks, ark tips owners themselves to make sure Dog p p their canines and others are safe. fights are common. Here are some tips and rules to make sure your visit to an Rules are posted on signs at the I By Lisa Van Proyen off-leasn dog parks is safe for you and your dog: front gate, but not everyone Stats writer • If your dog is aggressive, dont bring it to the park. abides by them,officials said.And LOS ANGELES — Alan Gold- • p gg g immediately no city workers are permanently Re ort aggressive dogs to authorities. stationed at the park,leaving it up man had always looked forward to taking his corgi Lab mix. Joy, to • Do net bring in female dogs in any stage of heat. to dog owners to police themselves I froh: in the dogpark with other • on the five-acre field that has a� If dcgs get into a fight, avoid sticking your hands fenced-off area for smailer and pooches. between them. Rather, try to have a person grab each more timid dogs. But their fun turned into horror dog by the hind legs to pull them apart. last week when a pit bull mix Up to a dozen volunteers - twice Jov's size tried to steal her • Carry an air horn to distract fichting dogs. When using it, including Stone herself-are there Frisbee. burying his fangs in her hold it up in the air, rather than further agitating the dog to supervise the dogs. But they neck. Goldman was badly bitten, by blowing it in the dog's face. have no set schedule, Stone said. too, as he intervened. • Place a harness on your dog to more easily lift your Charles Shorts, acting chief "The dog parks are not as safe anima! away from a fight. Splk'd collars can also be park ranger for the city's Rec- as people think," Goldman said placed on the dog to discourage other dogs from biting in reation and Parks Department, last week. "People don't know the neck area. said his rangers act immediately about the dangers of doggy when hearing about a dogfight parks." • Keep small and timid dogs in the smaller play area of the It certainly isn't the Westmin- park. "It's community involvement. ster Dog Show. They need to report to us ongoing • Source: Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks problems and we will respond to it In the past 12 months at the immediately.We try to monitor all Sepulveda Basin Off-Leash Dog the facilitis the best we can," Park, the city Recreation and Shorts said. Parks District has logged one call ,,you get thosepunks who seek 1 , of a child bitten by a dog, fivey you see a person with an ' out dog parks. They go to these aggressive dog, and we don't let But the reality is whatever dog-on-dog attacks and two calls parks to field-test the fighting them stay in." action is taken is usually left up to for owners not taking reasonable dogs," he said. the owner's discretion,Stone said. control of their pets. And some owners police them- But Los Angeles police said they Lynn Stone, president of the selves. Some owners choose to share respond to an average of about advisory committee of the Se' Frank Bonnell has lived across the vet bill, others go to small four dogfights per month at the pulveda Basin Off Leash Dog the street from the Sepulveda Maims court. Sepulveda Basin park.And at the Park,said the problem of ruffians Basin dog park for a decade and Stone recalled one case years Beverly Oaks Animal Hospital in with vicious dogs has been solved. has witnessed the fights. Because back in which Judge Wapner of Sherman Oaks, 20 to 50 dogs are "I think at one time, that may of the potential for problems, he TV court fame ruled in favor of brought in each year that have have been true. Groups of guys keeps Josie Wales, his 2-year-old three Irish wolfhounds who at- been injured by other dogs at would come and bring pit. bulls mastiff-Lab mix with a mean tacked a small dog at the Sepulve- some of the city's five off-leash and fight them. We got that bark,away from the park-except da Basin park. He determined parks,said the manager of the pet cleaned up pretty quickly," she on a rainy day when few dogs are that the smaller dog should have hospital. said. around. been placed in the smaller dog In some cases, customers "These parks have assumed "He gets dominant if other dogs park area. - bragged they bring their ferocious risks. You can get knocked down. get around him. He gets mad,"he dogs to the parks to train them for You can get bit. And you can get said. "I love animals and I don't ' ,' fighting, said the manager, who peed on. Those kind of things like to see dogs fight. But it asked not to be identified. happen,"Stone said."Occasional- happens. It's in their nature." JANE MCCLOUD 700 BALBOA DRIVE SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 DATE: February 29, 2000 TO: Members of the Seal Beach Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Jane McClolettvi As Co-Chair of the Gum Grove Nature Park Group, I volunteer to achieve this group's purpose which is "Dedication to restoring and preserving, for future generations, the health of West Orange County's only urban wilderness forest". The ongoing preservation and maintenance of the natural flora and fauna in the Gum Grove has been made possible by volunteer efforts, city and county employees, and our adult community members who visit the park either alone, with family and friends, and/or with their dogs, and do so primarily for communing with nature. Traditionally, children have also played in the park with periodic mischief(such as the most recent'dirt bike trail blazing") that is remedied through adult interventions. This type of community use with related checks and balances has allowed the Gum Grove's natural habitat to continue without irreparable damage. As the city faces the current issue of dogs in Gum Grove, I would like to recommend the following for consideration. (I am sharing my own recommendations,and am n41 serving as a spokesperson for the Gum Grove group.) 1. If the city is going to explore the issue of"In which park are dogs to be permitted?", please do so by evaluating our current laws city-wide regarding whether or not dogs can accompany their owners on the Green Belt and in other parks, rather than singling out the Gum Grove Nature Park. • Seal Beach is a residential community and dogs are part of our families. • Many similar residential communities allow people and pets in their neighborhood parks, unlike Seal Beach where dogs are banned from our parks. • Many like-communities also have dog parks where dogs can run safely off-leash. 2. If the city explores the provision of "doggie bag stations" (for bagging feces), please consider the effect of limiting such stations to just one park. • If limited to the Gum Grove, this could become an advertisement of Gum Grove as a "dog park", increase people-dog usage far beyond local community members, and possibly initiate the eventual degradation/destruction of the Grove's natural balance. • Although prohibited, people and their dogs use all of our parks, therefore, deciding whether or not to post doggie bags should be considered equitably regarding all parks, rather than "implicating" (by the presence of doggie bag stations) that only one park is designated for dog visitation. (Over) Mvan.b,.ngrov..dog • • P.T.S.M. Fax:3104083329 Oct 14 ?% 11 :45 P. • October 14, 1999 Nancy Beard Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director I may not be able to attend the meeting Monday night concerning dogs in Gum Grove Park and would like to add my comments. Thirty years ago I was one of many citizens who worked extremely hard to"save Gum Grove Park" and after petitions, pleas and presentations to the city and Hellman heirs, a lease was worked out to save the area as a wilderness or nature park. We had a formal dedication and opening of the park with basic facilities such as concrete benches and seating, drinking fountains etc. A nature trail was formed through the grove and a fire ring was available for Indian Guides, scouts and classes from Mc Gaugh School to bring students to the park for picnics. Our boys grew up with hundreds of other children going to Gum Grove for a fun, safe place to play after school and on week-ends. We did not hesitate to let them go alone when they were old enough to ride bikes and meet their friends there. I realize that over the years the deterioration of facilities, and the lack of patrolling and the general culture probably do not allow children to go there unaccompanied by adults. It is still provides a wonderful opportunity for families to enjoy the trees and trails. I would like to propose a compromise. Perhaps dogs could be allowed on leash with owners required to clean up after them. Also, increased patrolling and ticketing would be necessary on the part of the city to keep the environment pleasurable and safe for all of our citizens. Thank you for considering these remarks. Gayle Knapp 645 Sandpiper Drive Seal Beach, CA 90740 PROBLEMS WITH OGS IN GUM GROVE PARK During the past few years the number of people bringing their dogs to Gum Grove Park has increased substantially. As a result problems relating to the use and maintenance of this nature park have increased. They include the following: 1) Dog owners have permitted their dogs to run off-leash within the park. Violations of the Seal Beach City leash law occur regularly. There is substantial danger of a child being jumped on, knocked down, or ever bitten by these free running animals. 2) The City of Seal Beach faces substantial legal liability due to the fact that the Police Department and Animal Control have been directed to not enforce the leash law in Gum Grove Park. This intentional non-enforcement of the law creates negligence on the part of the city and may result in great cost to the city if, for example, a child was badly bitten in the park by an off- leash dog. 3) Parents have become frightened by people and their dogs in the park and no longer feel safe in visiting this city nature park. For example,Rebequi Howarth spoke at a recent city council meeting and described how she and her daughter had been threatened in the park by an unleashed pit bull. Other parents refuse to bring their children to the park due to the unleashed dogs d the from 4) Peopleanturn their dogscontamination loose in thedogs.park in early morning. These free dogs go up into the tree area and agitate other dogs that live in the homes that are contiguous to the park. These dogs then bark and bark and bark, creating a disturbance to the entire neighborhood. 5) Dog feces are contaminating the park. This health hazard results from owners permitting their dogs into the grass and trail areas. 6) Since March 1971 the City of Seal Beach has leased Gum Grove as a community nature park. In the Hellman Specific Plan Amendment it is provided that the 10.2-acre parkland will be dedicated to the City of Seal Beach for a public nature park and open space use. This is the only nature park in northwest Orange County. It has always been accepted that Gum Grove is a nature park and not a dog park. Uncontrolled dogs and their contamination are restricting the use of this park by the citizens as a nature park. 7) A brochure published by the Gum Grove Nature Park Group, a group dedicated to restoring and maintaining the natural wilderness qualities of the park, refers to the park as "a special place for wildlife enthusiasts and anyone who wants to walk or commune in a peaceful, nature filled environment." Dogs in the nature areas are damaging this environment. RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS The most efficient solution to this problem would be to merely enforce the existing law. This is a nature park and NO dogs should ll be allowed. o If dogs must be permitted the following minimal conditions should be required: 1) Immediate and continuos enforcement of the City leash and license laws should be effected. This will eliminate legal liability to the city and ensure that all users of the park are protected. 2) Temporary signs should be created and posted immediately at the park so that all users of the park will become familiar with the dog rules in effect. Permanent signs should be created and posted as soon as possible. 3) The park should not be opened to public use until 8am daily. This will eliminate much of the noise during the early morning that is so disturbing to the neighborhood. 4) On leash dogs should be restricted to the lower paved road. This will reduce the potential for contamination of grass and nature trail areas by dog feces. This restriction will also serve to protect bird and animal life in this nature park. Sally Hirsch 1325 Crestview Avenue Seal Beach, Ca 90740