Spokane City Parks Board to vote May 11th on new dog park location

Upriver Drive neighbors left out of the loop, pushing back

When Melinda Norman reached out to me this week, she was distraught. Until local TV reporter Peter Choi knocked on a neighbor’s door, she and her family as well as the other half dozen households adjacent to the proposed dog park had not been informed. No outreach about the proposed development, one that had been met with pushback in other Spokane neighborhoods. And yet the Spokane Parks & Recreation Department boasts on the October 6, 2022 press release on the draft standards for dog parks of having “a robust, award-winning outreach Master Plan process last year.”

They must be working with a different definition of robust outreach if it doesn’t include notifying a few contiguous property owners (even if they are county and not city residents), or putting a sign on the property to inform those passing on Upriver Drive. Wondering what organization gave the award.

Meanwhile, the Parks Board is set to vote on designating the site on Upriver Drive as a dog park at their meeting on Thursday, May 11 at 3:30pm in the Spokane City Council Chambers.

WebEx access is available by calling 408-418-9388 Access code 2486 273 6319

Below the video link are excerpts from some of the emails sent to city and county officials. On Wednesday night May 10, the Norman family had this to say about the situation:

Email sent to Peter Choi and copied to a long list of city and county officials:

May 8, 2023

To: Peter Choi KXLY

Thank you for coming out to cover our issue with the Upriver Park dog park. Since we were not home and available, here are a few points that were missed in your broadcast on May 8^th.

If you ask Garrett Jones how many feet our well is from the proposed dog park boundary I will guarantee he has no clue. They have NOT done the necessary research to put in a dog park. It is a known fact that dog concentrated feces and urine propose a threat to drinking water as well as the aquifer and the Spokane River which is directly under this proposed site.

This dog park will significantly devalue all our properties. Nobody in their right mind would want to live next door to a dog park. Between the noise, smell, barking, fighting dogs, waste, littering, and potential increased vandalism in our area, let alone the increased fire dangers, what are the benefits? The proposed parking lot is a joke. You know just as well as we do what parking lots attract. Illegal drug activity, after hours loitering, homelessness camping, vandalism, littering, gang activity, garbage dumping, etc , etc.

Garrett expects the neighbors to provide security for the dog park.

The survey the parks department conducted was all with people that have no skin in the game. They don’t live here. They suffer no economic consequences if the park is built. In their survey, the parks department conveniently left out the question – Would you like to have a dog park right next to YOUR home?

The park department can’t even maintain the existing parks now. This was brought up in the parks department’s OWN survey.

This is an extreme infringement on all our wildlife and their habitat. This particular area is the last remaining natural area in District 1. It is where all our deer shelter and bed down year round. Summer and Winter. We have been here 39 years and have first-hand knowledge of the habits of ALL the wildlife in this area. Nothing was mentioned about the devastating impact this will have on the wildlife with the increased dog population.

Dog park is just a euphemism for a scorched earth. In no time it will be down to bare dirt just as it is on the south hill. Go take a look for yourself. It is PURE DIRT and DUST!

I spoke with one of the neighbors near the south hill dog park and they were never notified by the city either and literally hate living near it.

Nothing done on an environmental impact statement (EIS) or State level (SEPA)

Everyone here on Upriver Drive is totally against this dog park. Not just the immediate neighbors on Upriver Lane, but the entire area. And of those people, an overwhelming majority of us own dogs ourselves.

Thanks again for shedding light on this issue.

Jim Norman

Melinda Norman

Dan Norman

---

Email sent to Garrett Jones, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Spokane Parks & Recreation by Christie Norman Gunderson and copied to the same long list of city and county officials:

Garrett Jones,

Agreeing with my family’s and neighbors’ prior emails sent to you regarding the dog park proposal on Upriver Drive, I whole-heartedly agree with them and I am embarrassed for you and your ignorance.

My family has lived on Upriver Lane for 39 years. For 39 years, we have watched COUNTLESS deer, moose, turkeys, quail, owls, hawks, bald eagles, marmots, coyotes, rabbits, snakes, and raccoons walk through and nest in the field next to our home. For 39 years, we have watched them roam freely to seek food and shelter. You clearly never even looked at the proposed field to see the mazes of game trails and scat littered around. I can guarantee you, a dog park in this field will destroy the natural habitat for HUNDREDS OF WILDLIFE.

Did you not read your own dog park guidelines? You claim that “93% [of survey participants] agree it is important to protect water quality and riparian habitat”, and “79% would prefer dog park sizes to be reduced or located on developed land if it meant protecting “natural” lands”. Your math is off (should be 78.1%), but I’ll let that slide.

If you believe this 79% statistic is accurate, then please explain how 35% of the scoring criteria in Tier 2 is weighted for the “available acreage”. This is the ONLY reason Upriver Park scored so high comparatively. Moreover, where in any of the scoring criteria is ‘protecting wildlife habitat’ reflected and weighed? How could the Advisory Board, which determined the scoring criteria, lose sight of such a high priority?

Additionally, more weight is given to proposed sites if the surrounding areas consist of multi-family residents, and yet 88% of survey participants come from single-family residences. Seems as if your statistical analysis is meaningless.

In Tier 2, Upriver Park scored 2 points for “direct access to arterial” and additionally inferring that no street improvements are needed. If you conducted a traffic study to concur that additional vehicles and pedestrians would not have a significant impact on Upriver Drive, as an engineer, I’d personally like to review this data.

Was a feasibility study even done for Upriver Park? If not, I’d like to know how you justified not performing one.

What is the percentage of potential visiting dogs that are accustomed to gunshots or low-flying aircraft? As you know, Felts Field Airport and the Spokane Police Academy are just across the river. Between aircraft taking off and landing at the airport and on the water, and rapid gunfire every day, these loud noises echo off Beacon Hill reverberating into the lands just below. Did you also know that in the summer, helicopters collect buckets of water right near this field to help fight wildfires? Can you honestly rationalize ignoring startling loud sounds like this in your decision matrix?

You state that District 1 favored the idea of dog parks in natural areas more than the other Districts. How is 147 people an accurate reflection of the population size and demographic of District 1? Not to mention, District 1 survey participants only made up less than 13%! This sample size is by far not enough for an accurate statistical analysis.

Meeting Minutes from July 26, 2022 state the following:

“There was a general hesitation amongst many PAC members about locking in on site selection at this time. Having a general idea of expenses for each candidate would help, as one choice may cost significantly more to install than another. There was fear that unknowingly selecting the more expensive option may also wipe out funds for future dog parks next in line to install.

·         It was encouraged that members try to look past the financial logistics at this point and focus more attention on which site could offer a more favorable experience.

·         Although it was too soon to analyze sites at this level of detail, AHBL and City Parks will continue to move forward with research in order to identify as many site constraints as possible prior to selection.

·         Because each district has 2 strong contenders for community parks, these can be presented to the Spokane Park Board and voted on at a later date. Site constraints will be made available to them so that they can make the most informed decision.”

How is that “research” going? You’ve had 10 months. Did you actually pursue any investigation into the impacts on wildlife habitat and breeding grounds, private wells, the Spokane Aquifer, or traffic? If you have, NONE of these “site constraints” have been communicated.

Among other things, not considering cost as a factor when choosing sites is foolish.

More Meeting Minutes from July 26, 2022:

“After reviewing the sites and the scoring behind them, it was determined that dog park size is the most important factor, even in comparison to distribution. Members generally agreed that fewer but larger parks would be more beneficial especially in the early planning stages.”

If in fact, you believe the survey analysis is acceptable, as representatives making the official decision, you’re choosing to go against the wishes of 79% of voices who would prefer smaller dog parks if it meant protecting natural lands.

            “For areas immediately adjacent to potential dog park properties, more outreach may be needed to make sure that there are enough participants able to voice their concerns on a site that directly affects them.”

Again, you’ve had 10 months. We are still waiting.

As stated many times before, your lack of communication surrounding this dog park proposal is flat-out disrespectful.

Despite your efforts to vote without community involvement, I would like to spread the word of Thursday’s meeting. However, your website does not include an agenda or virtual attendance information via WebEx. Would you please be so kind as to forward me this information so that we can attempt to involve those directly impacted?

Christie Gunderson

Followed by Garrett Jones response, with link to the meeting agenda:

Good morning Christie,

Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts and concerns.  We would be more than happy to sit down and have a conservation regarding our process, systemwide master plan goals and priorities, results from our dog park plan, funding and partnership strategy, and our outreach plan and public process.  Our Park Board performed many public discussions regarding the systemwide dog park approach and selection process.  I am providing a link below for our upcoming Park Board meeting May 11^th. 

https://static.spokanecity.org/documents/bcc/boards/spokane-park-board/agendas/2023/05/spb-agenda-2023-05-11.pdf

Thanks again for taking the time and feel free to reach out and we can find a time to discuss further. 

Thanks,
Garrett Jones, PLA | Director of Parks and Recreation | City of Spokane Parks & Recreation

|Desk: 509.363.5462 | gjones@spokanecity.org | SpokaneParks.org