Dog owners and non-motor boats battle over Mission Bay

Response to #39: As far as enmity, there are many of us who have dogs and paddle, take this situation away and there is no rub. According to one of the e-mails provided by the city, the paddlers were told to choose from two areas on FI which included the off leash area, so they selected the area that is now in dispute. I really doubt anyone involved understood that area had been used as off-leash for over 10 years. It points to a broken process: why didn't the city do their homework and stop many of the issues that plagued this project from the beginning. Why assign the project management position to a paddler putting that employee in a conflict of interest position and subject to attack. I doubt he knew the level of use that area has. Why approve building a $20 to $30 million beach next to the least tern area and in the middle of an off-leash area that has been in use for well over 10 years. This should never have happened nor gone this far.
— February 6, 2009 2:57 p.m.

Dog owners and non-motor boats battle over Mission Bay

#36 Actually 3 of the alternative sites have the least impact to the environment because the Paddle clubs could be setup without grading and can use the existing beach. All the beach in the off-leashed fenced area is under the tidal zone so the plans states a new beach will be built. This requires grading back acres of land, further reducing the size of the area and hauling in new sand. All this construction would be right next to the least tern area. During construction there would be a road right down the middle and the entire area would most likely be fenced off and useless do to safety concerns. The $20 to $30 million dollars, is estimate for just the fenced off-leash area. The total island redevelopment was originally estimated at $200 million, then later lowered to ~$130 million. Also, in the new plan dog owners lose 30% of off-leash access around the island so those users would now move to the fenced area further increasing usage. We compromised on the 30% loss, but want to keep the off-leash fenced area intact.
— February 6, 2009 12:07 p.m.

Dog owners and non-motor boats battle over Mission Bay

I think the key question is should they. I support the paddlers having a location, but don't believe it should be at the expense of thousands of existing users. There are areas around Mission Bay that allow beach storage for boats with a permit. Both Mariner's point and Southshores have room for the paddlers, with existing infrastructure and the paddlers could be given permits to store their boats there. It would be an awesome setup and would not be a detriment to the budget. The last outrigger event ended at mariner's point, which is a great venue for them. There doesn't need to be a rub between the Paddlers and Dog Owners. If the process protected taxpayer's dollars and was designed to ensure the right thing is done, this would not have escalated.
— February 5, 2009 3:22 p.m.

Dog owners and non-motor boats battle over Mission Bay

Hit back? The rational and responsible response is to perform due deligence and determine if it is in the tax payers interest to move the paddlers to an existing location that already has the majority of the requirements met. Also, determine, should we spend taxpayers dollars to accomodate the storage of their boats. FI is currently enjoyed by all and not storage of people's property. The process should ensure the right plan is implemented, not a quick rubber stamp move it thru plan. The project manager and consultant have ignored the off-leash precedence set on FI. Why? If you look at the matrix provided at the link in #5 it becomes obvious that there are better economical areas that better fit the paddlers needs. Then it becomes more obvious the process does not ensure the right thing is done with the taxpayer's dollars; and in this case thousands of taxpayers life style will be changed forever if we lose that open natural park as it is today.
— February 5, 2009 3:06 p.m.

Dog owners and non-motor boats battle over Mission Bay

FIDO believes FI is working well for all users & should be available to all users. FIDO has offered to work w/paddlers to find a more suitable location but doesn’t change the use of the area by existing users. Boaters & paddlers will always have water access; but those of us who like to exercise w/our dog in an open space, not worry about cars, will lose the last open natural off-leash park in San Diego. Not only does the plan call for a road, fencing & parking lots in the 93 acres of off-leash area, it adds a bisecting road thru the center of FI, adding another intersection for bikers to be concerned. FIDO supports adding bathroom facilities for all users, but why add another road, fences, grass turf during times of water shortages where all users do not benefit. FIDO has started research on 5 possible locations for Paddle groups. Mariners basin ranks #1 based on req. set by paddlers. Boaters have given input that this area would not conflict with their activities. It is a large cove, flat water, short access to ocean, short access to Sail Bay for paddlers, existing bathrooms & parking lots, & could easily secure boats. The matrix of locations is available, please let us know if there are inaccuracies. www.fidosd.org/pages/paddlersitesv3.pdf Clarifications: 1 The project manager did have contact w/the paddlers & we have copies of his email to them. 2 Consultant has refused to meet w/FIDO regarding their needs sighting Parks 'n Rec staff did not approve. We have this e-mail. 3.There would be no dredging required at South Shores & no conflict w/Boat & Ski Club moving there some day. 4 There is no security at FI. 5 Paddlers need flat water close to the ocean. Beach location in the off-leash area is in the 5 mph channel. It would require major grading of multiple acres & tons of sand to build the beach out of the tidal zone to be suitable for paddlers. 6Quote: "The paddlers' usage of other sites would be incompatible with the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, the conditions of the SeaWorld permit, & the coastal act". Recreational boating is allowed by permit in the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, is explicitly compatible w/Coastal Act & SeaWorld permits are irrelevant. 7 There will not be more sludge mitigation funds & there are many other needs on FI for remaining funds -< $2 million after spending $500k on this plan which has been shoehorned into the process. 8 Blaming delays on dog owners is irresponsible. The consultant met w/all other users (OMBAC, Paddlers, etc.) & refused to meet w/the largest group, the dog owners. We are just making our needs heard because we were not allowed in the original process. FIDO has been asked to compromise in every way, but another group who already has available locations has been given carte blanche. As a person who is new to working within the gov’t process, I find, it abusively political & non-democratic. If this plan goes through, it will waste millions of taxpayers dollars.
— February 5, 2009 1:58 p.m.