People familiar with park planning process are baffled by the Review’s coverage

Why did a drawing in Half Moon Bay’s park grant application merit a front-page story titled "Is park plan already in place?", a ready-made op-ed titled "Does plan already exist for park?", and an editorial that concluded "the planning process is merely a joke"?

No one connected with the process seems to know what the Review is talking about.

The Half Moon Bay City Council made a point of being public about its grant application and made it clear from the outset that any plans in the application were a "place holder". The Review knew about the grant application three months ago. On October 27, 2004, Jeanine Gore reported, "Rollie Wright, parks and recreation director, is applying for two grants, each worth $350,000."

Members of the park design committee continue to believe that the City Council is working with them in good faith, and resent the Review’s treatment of the story.

The park’s current project manager was never in any doubt that the plan in the application was anything other than a place holder. Richard Quadri was hired when Parks and Recreation director Rollie Wright went on leave. In response to questions from committee members prompted by the Review’s coverage, Quadri wrote a memo to dated January 21. He says he was never told the drawing was anything other than a place holder.

City Council was asked at its October 19, 2004 meeting to approve the application for these grant funds.  According to the minutes of that meeting council member Grady pulled the item from the consent calendar "so that the public could be made aware of the details relating to the grant requests".  Parks and Recreation Director Wright provided information for the Council.  Council then approved the application.

At the last Community Park Committee meeting (January 11), the City Manager discussed the grant application and noted that it was submitted as a "place holder".  Since there was only one opportunity to submit an application for these particular funds, it was thought better to submit the application and try to modify it after the design process, rather than let the opportunity pass altogether.

...

When I was hired last month to work on this project, I was told that the design process had not yet begun, and that a citizens’ committee had been appointed for that process.  I have passed this understanding on to all of the design firms that have been under consideration to complete the Master Plan.

Members of the park planning committee are baffled that the Review had made such a big deal about the grant application.

Committee member Ken King told me, "They’ve been very upfront about the grant application. Why would [the Review] attack you for going after supplementary funds? I trust the process. I’m confident that this has been done correctly."

King was very unhappy with the Review’s coverage. When he found out that I was doing a story on the Review’s coverage of the grant application, he went to his computer so he could read me his indignant letter to the editor over the phone.

Committee member Jessica Hopkins told me that she was at the meeting where mayor Mike Ferreira assured the committee that the plans were "only for the purpose of the grant application. I can either believe I’m being lied to or believe they acted in good faith. I can’t believe they’re hiring an architectural firm without using them to do the planning."

Hopkins has no reason to defend the plan in the grant application. She entered the planning process as an advocate for gardens in the park. There are no gardens in the plan that accompanies the grant application.

Hopkins was also baffled by the Review’s coverage of the plan, "Was Jeanine Gore, whom I respect, not in the room?  I’m a former journalist, and I thought it [her story] was irresponsible."

On Tuesday night at 6pm the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and planning committee will review presentations from the three finalist architectural firms.  The proposals from the firms can be dowloaded from the City’s Web site, or from these links:

• Beals Alliance
• MIG
• David Gates & Associates

At the end of the evening, the proposals will be discussed and the City Council will select the firm with input from the committee. The selected firm will work with the committee over the next six to nine months to come up with the plan for the park. The committee members I talked to were looking forward to this meeting and to the process to come.

UPDATE: I just got off the phone with a third member of the park committee,  Cypress Cove resident Steven Stauss.  While he said that he felt that "statements by city officials weren’t crisp enough," Stauss told me, "I’m confident that the city will go forward in an open way. I’m confident that the plan will be the one developed by the architects."