Residents split on Finisterra park: transparency, reserves and liability drive opposition

Dozens of residents packed the chamber June 8 to express views on the Finisterra proposal. Many speakers opposed the plan on financial and procedural grounds: they said the HOA's reserves are low (a number cited in the meeting packet and public comments was 22 percent) and that the board did not sufficiently engage or vote the broader membership before moving forward. "We are only at 22% and this was that came out in the budget letter to the community in November 2025," one resident said during public comment.

Other opponents warned of liability, maintenance and wildlife hazards: "Approving something like this is a tremendous liability to the homeowners association and potentially the city," said Lou Rosenblum. Several speakers asked whether coyotes and other wildlife could access the fenced space and whether fencing and lighting would change neighborhood character. Supporters, including older residents, said the space is underused and would provide a valuable, nearby place for walking and limited outdoor use: one resident said driving to other dog parks is difficult and a small, well‑regulated amenity would serve those neighbors.

Applicants and staff repeatedly emphasized that the area is private HOA property, that proposed uses would continue to require leashing per the CC&Rs, and that the applicants had sought neighborhood awareness input from adjacent associations. The city attorney explained that state immunities generally reduce the city's exposure to lawsuits arising from private HOA activities and said statutes typically direct dog‑bite liability toward owners rather than the city.

The testimony prompted commissioners to add conditions and to ask the HOA to confirm costs, insurance and member reconfirmation at its next scheduled meeting. Several residents said they planned to raise the matter again during the HOA meeting scheduled two days after the commission hearing.