Summary: 

 

Common Ground (CG), represented by Trish Davey and Dan Bernstein, noted that for multiple decades Sierra 2 was a successful shared-use space where soccer, families and limited off-leash dog hours coexisted. They acknowledged the disruptive effects of the pandemic, including lack of enforcement by the city during those difficult days. CG emphasized that their intent is to find common ground and return to shared usage!  They believe we could return to the previous time-share arrangement without additional fencing.  However, CG presented two possible layouts using some additional fencing that would preserve the soccer field, provide off-leash usage, and also provide reassuring safety for the children’s playground. CG noted that many cities, including Davis, have successfully approved shared-usage of schoolyards, soccer fields, and beaches so they know it can be done. CG noted that the off-leash usage is a neighborhood amenity and part of the long-standing and valuable culture of the neighborhood. Common Ground implored the city to convene the groups in order to come together and find compromise. 

 

Land Park Soccer Club (LPSC), represented by Kinsley Earl, stated they are a non-profit representing over 1000 youth soccer players. LPSC holds a permit for Sierra 2 for the Fall 2023 season and they are delighted with the current condition of the field. Field maintenance is an important concern for the LPSC, since safety is a primary concern and rough turf or holes add to injuries. They noted that in 2021 the degradation of the field along with lack of off-leash enforcement created such poor conditions that they did not renew their permit for 2022, despite the paucity of fields. LPSC noted that they have spent $180,000 over the past eight years on field equipment and turf maintenance. (CG notes that this works out to about $22 per player, per season.) When asked if LPSC would consider limited off-leash dog use on a shared soccer field with soccer players having priority for use, the representative said they might be open to that, depending on the conditions and enforcement. They recognize competing park needs and welcome further discussion.

 

Families for Sierra 2 (FS2), represented by Ann Linton, noted the small size of Sierra 2 and that “usually neighborhood parks are oriented toward the recreation needs of children and designed to serve a half-mile radius”. They noted that siting a permanent dog park at Sierra 2 would be an anomaly because it is a neighborhood park, not a regional or community park. FS2 believes that Sierra 2 green should be for neighborhood children and that dogs pose a threat for children. They feel that shared use is unrealistic because of the increase in dog ownership. The representative cited numerous 311 calls about off-leash dogs. The group recommends that a minimum 200-foot buffer area be between any playground and any dog activity. FS2 feels that the city and all the residents of Curtis Park should be prioritizing children over dogs. When asked about the car trip that dog owners would need to make to get to another dog park, Ann reiterated that children's sports and recreation should be everyone’s priority, and more important than accommodating the “convenience of a minority of dog users”.  

 

Dog X, represented by Dave Knox and Talene Ghazarian, is an organization that grew out of the old “Dogxilliary”, an organization that is 25 years old, sanctioned by the city in 1998, 2008 and 2013. The group represents all ages and walks of life. They described the many valuable friendships they have made at the park and the importance of those connections for mental health. They noted that the community creates a natural system for neighbors to offer support to each other. For many, the dogs are family members, emotional support and a reason to stay active as one ages. Young families appreciate the opportunity to have their human and dog children at the same park. They expressed their strong support for soccer, but noted that soccer’s limited season leaves the park unused for much of the time. They believe a well-used park will be a safer park and discourage unsavory elements. They acknowledged that, because enforcement stopped during the pandemic, their numbers grew quite a bit in 2021 - 2022. They also expressed interest in knowing whether the 311 calls cited by FS2 came from many individuals or a handful of regular callers. They noted that for over a year, they have been discussing fundraising options and are completely confident that their members would readily and generously contribute to park and field maintenance.

 

They reminded listeners that they belong to our community and that this listening session would have been more appropriate a year ago. They are aware they have been maligned from the beginning and were not invited by SCNA to the dialog until recently. Instead, SCNA pushed on the city to make sudden changes without acknowledging the long-standing, city-sanctioned usage that neighbors enjoyed. They feel the neighborhood association should meet the needs of the community, stay aware of those needs as they change, and that by excluding a large portion of the neighborhood, they are leaving opportunities on the table. 

 

Sierra 2 Center, represented by Terri Shettle, the Executive Director. The center’s two main priorities are “to promote educational, cultural, community and recreational programs and to advocate for and promote quality of life in the neighborhood”. The center was built in 1923 and is on the local register of historic buildings. Terri listed the various tenants, including dance, arts, theater, etc., noting that the revenue from Sierra 2 tenants provides 85% of the SCNA budget. She expressed concerns about the idea of placing a permanent dog park at Sierra 2, noting noise, dust and odors. She also noted that the current fencing next to the Dance wing makes it difficult to access the building for maintenance. Parking is a concern because there are only 90 spaces for the center. Other concerns listed included: visual aesthetics, loss of the sports field and casual use of the field, loss of open space, and possible loss of revenue at the Center. When asked if Sierra 2 has lost any tenants as a result of dog activity, Ms. Shettle stated no tenants have left so far because of dog activity, but that a permanent dog park in the future  could have negative impacts. She expressed doubt that Sierra 2 Green could successfully return to shared use, but clarified that her concerns pertained to the siting of a permanent dog park, not the shared-usage concept.