Closing public comment, other moves: Lack of good faith by Pleasant Hill officials in deciding fate of iconic Dome theater?

As Pleasant Hill planning commissioners decide the fate of the CineArts Dome movie theater Tuesday night, they won’t be taking public comment about destroying the theater and replacing it with a big- box-looking chain sporting goods store, adding to the perception that this was long ago a “done deal" as City Council Jack Weir so famously told the Contra Costa Times.

This matter of closing public comment, whether allowed under California open meeting laws, shows an unwillingness to truly take in community concerns about the proposed destruction of a building that, a city report itself documents, is filled with historical and cultural meaning for their city and the rest of the area. The venue is also the only theater this side of the Caldecott Tunnel showing independent, art-house films. 

Commissioners also have not apparently considered that they have the legal option to declare the nearly half-century old movie theater a “historical resource,” an option described in a report by architectural experts the city itself commissioned to consider the theater’s historical significance. This reports points out that the building may not rise to the level of "exceptional importance" under certain criteria, but it does “exhibit a level of local importance within Pleasant Hill” and noted the city does have the ability, under state law, to declare the building a historical resource -- if it so chooses. 

“It’s heartbreaking to lose something like this,” acknowledged commissioner Diana Vavrek at last week’s Planning Commission meeting. “It really does mean something to people in the community.”

But Vavrek brought up a gripe I’ve heard before from the city and from SyWest Development, the company that wants to demolish the theater and replace it with a 73,000-square-foot Dick’s sporting goods store. The gripe is that they have been laboring over the question of how to develop the Contra Costa Shopping Center off Interstate 680 for more than a decade. They wonder, why haven’t people who care about the Dome raised a ruckus before? 

That’s because it was only in December – four months ago -- that SyWest Development revealed its plans to demolish the Dome complex and replace it with Dick’s -- which is more than twice the size of the Dome complex. As soon as that news became publicized, fans launched two Facebook pages and an online petition, gathering more than 2,200 signatures, to rally in support of preserving the unique building theater -- which also has an annex with four smaller theaters.  (In a previous post, I looked at an analysis of the Dome's rich history, prepared by the city's consultant. The analysis offers a great deal of background about Pleasant Hill, Central Contra Costa, the growth of the East Bay movie theater industry and the Dome's place in all that.) 

All this time, the theater’s future has pretty much been alluded to in an undefined way in city documents, notably in the city’s Contra Costa Center Specific Plan. The plan, approved by the city in 2006 and amended in 2012, is not a development plan for any specific project. It’s essentially just an outline of what can be developed in the area where the Dome is located. It discusses maximum square footage, building heights, parking and other important issues but doesn’t necessarily say that the Dome would definitely be eliminated from those plans.

Senior planner Troy Fujimoto said the plan doesn’t mandate preservation of the Dome building, but it does encourage developing a movie theater in the area. A draft of the 2006 specific plan available on the city’s website in fact states that the theater could be efficiently reconfigured to provide for efficient expansion and reuse of the space and that the existing buildings can only be replaced – “when warranted.”

So, is the demolition of the Dome “warranted?” For the arrival of Dick’s? 

To their credit, commissioners at last week’s expressed regret – in some cases deep regret -- about the loss of the Dome. Different commissioners talked about going to movies at the Dome, being fans of art-house, independent films and reading all the various emails and comments that came with petition signatures.

Meanwhile, I did not hear from them lots of enthusiasm about the Dick’s plan, although one commissioner, Alex Greenwood, said he’d vote to support it. At the same time, Greenwood also agreed with Dome supporters and film lovers who proclaimed that the Dick’s plan is “generic.” He wondered if there was some way the plan could be “more unique … more culturally woven into the fabric of Pleasant Hill.”

If commissioners are earnest in their expressions of regret, why are they so eager to rush this project along? Are they really eager to see SyWest demolish the Dome this summer and start building Dick’s? I know SyWest owns the property and should have the freedom to build what they want -- as long as it benefits the community. 

Commissioners made what felt like an effort to appease the crowd—who by and large raised concerns about perceptions about the lack of public input in this current “done deal” project—by asking SyWest president Bill Viera to come back this Tuesday night with some projections on incorporating a small theater into the project. 

Does anyone expect Viera to come back in such a short time with any response other than something rushed and obligatory, to say he tried, he really tried, to make it work but, no, he couldn’t, and the only plan that will work is essentially the one his company has just submitted?

So far, SyWest's solution to respecting the Dome's place in Pleasant Hill's history is to include a mural of the movie theater and mimic its shape in arches spanning a breezeway next to Dick's. That plan was pretty laughable to Dome supporters, in a sad, sick way. 

Vierra explained during a break in the meeting that the CineArts movie theater isn’t making a profit. SyWest, by the way, just owns the building. It doesn't operate the theater -- the operator is Cinemark -- though SyWest is the development arm of Syufy, the company that originally built the Dome in 1967. 

(But, the theater seemed to be doing a pretty good business on a Tuesday afternoon in January, when I went to see a matinee -- and took the above photo -- and the parking lot was fairly crowded, and there were a good number of people in the theater I was in.)

Vierra also noted a review by a consultant SyWest hired to offer another opinion of the building’s historic value. This report interprets the language of the city's architectural experts in a way that, not surprisingly, is favorable to SkyWest's interests. Among other things, it says that retrofitting the building to meet current code requirements for fire and other safety concerns would not be financially feasible.

Not financially feasible in what way? The report isn't very specific about that. 

Not financially feasible compared to tearing down a building that, in four years, could meet the eligibility requirements for listing as a California Historical Resource?

And that, in the hands of a more creative, less “generic”-thinking developer would continue to make Pleasant Hill a draw and put the city on the map culturally (as opposed to a town that one Dome supporter said “you just pass through on the way to someplace else.") 

And that, in the long term, could contribute to the long-term cultural and economic vitality of the city and the region?

Yes, arts and culture do very much contribute to a community’s economic sustainability, as my hometown of Walnut Creek has found over the years. According to the national Arts and Prosperity IV study, non-profit ventures in Walnut Creek generate $32.5 million annually, create 865 jobs and deliver nearly $3 million in local and state revenues.

Also, the city architectural consultant says the building retains “a good deal of physical integrity and could potentially be eligible for listing in a local register of historic places.” The main reason the 46-year-old building is not yet listed as a California Historical Resourcesis is that it’s only four years shy of the 50-plus year eligibility, the report says. 

As this report notes, according to guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act, the city is not precluded “from determining that the building may be a historical resource.”

So, what's stopping the city from doing so? Or at least opening up a better dialogue with the community about the future of the Dome, now that a development plan for that site's future is finally on the table? 

UPDATE: Fans of the Dome and independent movies will hold a peaceful protest outside Pleasant Hill City Hall at 6:30 p.m. in advance of the 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting. For more information, check out the Save Independent Film and the CineArts Dome in Pleasant Hill Facebook page. 

Done Deal? But Pleasant Hill's own reports detail the Dome's landmark, historical place in this town and county

Pleasant Hill city officials tell me and the Contra Costa Times they have no control over a development company's desire to demolish the landmark CineArts Dome movie theater--the city's first movie theater-- and replace it with an architecturally indistinctive chain sporting goods store. 

"There isn't anything we can do about the Dome being planned for demolition," Pleasant Hill City Councilman Jack Weir told the Contra Costa Times. 

"Since the site is privately owned and controlled, preservation of the theater would largely fall on the property owner," adds Troy Fujimoto, senior planner with the city.

Discussions about the fate of the Dome and its replacement--a 73,000-square-foot Dick's Sporting Goods--in the Crossroads Shopping Center along Interstate 680 will come before Pleasant Hill's Planning Commission Tuesday evening. 

City officials have begun to ring the Dome's death knell even as a city report, released as an addendum in advance of Tuesday's meeting, calls the Dome Theater "one of the decreasing number of buildings that represents the period of development that established Pleasant Hill as a city." 

The report, based on an expert analysis provided by architectural experts by the city, goes on to say: 

The Dome Theater is associated with an important period of development in Pleasant Hill’s history, and is one of a diminishing number of buildings that serve as visible reminders of that period. With few alterations, the functioning CineArts Theater is also the best remaining example of the distinctive domed movie theater building type in the East Bay. 

Sywest Development, the development arm of Syufy, the company that originally built the Dome in 1967, has been looking to redevelop the southern half of the shopping center for years. 

The city is essentially throwing up its hands at the likelihood of the Dome being demolished. But lately, the city has shown cognizance of deep-rooted concerns among central Contra Costa residents and film lovers who worry about the loss of the Dome, the only theater showing independent art-house fare this side of the Caldecott Tunnel. 

Weir told the Times that an unidentified group is exploring the possibility of screening art-house films at some venue somewhere else in the city. Nice thought, Mr. Weir, but part of the reason people are so impassioned about this issue is because they don't want to lose the pleasure of also seeing their movies at the Dome. 

It should be noted that at one one point in its planning history, the city understood the desirability of keeping a movie theater in the shopping center.

In 2006, the city approved a "Contra Costa Center Specific Plan" to guide development of the shopping center.  The plan encouraged the development of a movie theater in that area, Fujimoto says. But Fujimoto also pointed out that the plan never mandated development of a movie theater nor preservation of the existing Dome theater. 

He also said the building was evaluated for potential historical significance. At that time, in 2006, he says, it "was determined not to be a potentially significant resource." 

This determination of not being a significant resource may come as a surprise to the more than 800 people who have "liked" the Save Independent Film and the CineArts Dome in Pleasant Hill Facebook page. And the 2100 people, many from Pleasant Hill, who have signed the Change.org petition, asking for SyWest Development to consider preserving the Dome.  Then there are the folks who regularly go onto the  I Saw it At the Dome Facebook page to share their fond memories of films and important, life-changing personal moments that took place while seeing movies there.

The Dome obviously has a lot of meaning to a lot of people in the area, and many consider it to be the most distinctive building in Pleasant Hill, if not in one of the most notable buildings in central Contra Costa County. 

Actually, one way the Dome could have easily been saved if it were eligible for listing under the California Register of Historical Places. But, alas, it would need to be more than 50 years old. Damn, built in 1967, the Dome missed this "historical" marker by four years. 

In this city report, the city put effort into either trying to prove or deny the building's historical status under another set of legal criteria for the California Environmental Quality Act. Meeting this criteria would allow the city to declare the building to be "of exceptional importance." In the end, the report concludes that the Dome doesn't meet those criteria.

However, in language and content, the report undercuts its conclusions by presenting a great deal of history about Pleasant Hill, Central Contra Costa, the growth of the East Bay movie theater industry and the Dome's place in all of that. 

Reading it, I think, the city and SyWest Development could really muck things up and destroy a real treasure -- something of real distinction in a region that tends to lack such qualities -- if they tear this movie theater down. And, for what? A sporting goods store, one that looks like pretty much any sporting goods store in any strip mall around here.

But I digress. The history. The Dome. The Glory.

In the 1950s, Pleasant Hill was emerging as a small farming community, according to the report. Then came the large subdivisions, fueled by the post-World War II baby boom and America's expansion into suburbia. 

The year after Pleasant Hill was incorporated in 1961, Montgomery Ward's opened on Monument Boulevard just east of Interstate 680. It was the anchor of the new Contra Costa Shopping Center, built to serve the city's rapidly expanding residential population. 

Century Theaters opened its 895-seat Century 21 Theater in Pleasant Hill on February 21, 1967. The first filmed screened in that marvelous domed roof auditorium--built by fastening a concentric array of 20 individual arched steel struts to a center hub: David Lean's epic adaptation of Boris Pasternak's Russian Revolution novel Doctor Zhivago. 

The Dome's named changed from Century 21 to Century 5 when four theaters were added to the rear of the auditorium in 1974. (I think I went to see the Academy Award-winning Paul Newman-Robert Redford Depression-era caper movie, The Sting, in one of those smaller theaters.) In 2003, Century Theatres transferred the facility to its growing art theater franchise, CineArts.

Syufy erected several domed theatres in many western cities from the 1960s through the mid-1980s, and architect Vincent G. Raney designed all of the Syufy Century theaters through the early 1990s. 

Raymond Syufy is a rather interesting figure in the Bay Area movie scene, and in the history of the film distribution business. The city report says:

After working at local movie theaters, in 1940, at the age of 23, Syufy took charge of his own movie theater, the Rita in Vallejo. The theater business at this time was firmly in the grip of the major film producers who often kept the best first-run films away from independent operators. The U.S. Justice Department had been trying to force them to open their product to others. Independent theaters were also in the fight, forming trade associations and initiating lawsuits. Raymond Syufy, having attended law school, took up this cause starting in the late 1940s. A major battle for independent theaters was won in the Supreme Court in 1949. This legal settlement enabled independent theater operators like Syufy to improve their film offerings dramatically, and the company expanded during the 1950s and 1960s, opening additional theaters as well as many drive-ins, moving outward from California to Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.

The report notes: "The company's buildings gained a reputation for interesting architecture, with a number of its indoor theaters featuring a domed 'igloo' design." 

Meanwhile, according to the city report, Rainey also designed, for Syufy, a new dome theater in suburban San Jose. San Jose's Century 21 Theatre opened in 1964, the mothership in a series of Rainey-designed dome theaters that would grace roadsides in the 1960s. Raney designed all of the Syufy Century theaters from 1964 through the early 1990s. 

The report also notes the significance of the architectural form of the dome that Rainey's designs embody: "Though Raney’s dome theaters were not designed using a geodesic dome, popularized in the 1950s by R. Buckminster Fuller, the dome in general was nevertheless a popular and “futuristic” architectural form in the 1960s and 1970s and came to be a familiar characteristic in the Syufy chain of suburban movie theaters.

The city report contends that the Dome theater off Interstate 680 did not play a significant role in the commercial development of Pleasant Hill. However, the report acknowledges that it does exhibit "a level of local importance within Pleasant Hill." Perhaps it was important to Pleasant Hill for non-commercial reasons -- for reasons of culture or community, for instance. 

That's because the 1960s was a period of rapid expansion for Pleasant Hill, and the Dome theater was one of many structures completed during that decade to serve the modern needs of the growing suburban community. 

According to the report, research indicates that the Dome theater was Pleasant Hill’s first movie theater, and also that it was the first domed theater along the Interstate 680 corridor. 

Weir tells the Times that SyWest has agreed to donate artifacts and memorabilia from the theater to the Pleasant Hill Historical Society. The developer also plans to put up a plaque or monument marking the site of the dome theater. 

I suppose that is supposed to be some consolation. 

I Saw It at the Dome: New Facebook Page Dedicated to Contra Costa's Retro Cinema Landmark

I just got invited to join a brand new Facebook page, which asks people to share their favorite memories of seeing a movie at The Dome, the Pleasant Hill landmark movie theater that is slated to be torn down and replaced with -- ugh -- yet another sporting goods chain.

I have many memories to share on the page, I Saw It At The Dome.  I recently saw Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained. I had thought, oh, I'll just see it in Walnut Creek. Well, this was over the Christmas holidays and you all know what a nightmare parking can be in Walnut Creek -- especially in Walnut Creek during the holidays and even in its herald parking garages. Parking just didn't exist. A friend said, "Go see it in The Dome."

Of course! Where else should I go see the biggest, most entertaining and envelope-pushing movie of the season but at The Dome?  It was a great experience. A lot of others had the same idea. The matinee showing of the film was pretty packed.

The Dome has been living under the threat of destruction for years, ever since what's become known as the Crossroads Shopping Center along Interstate 680 started to get fixed up. I understand. That mall was definitely an eyesore for a long time and needed a makeover. SyWest Development wants to modernize the southern half of the center, which includes the geodesic-domed movie theater.

Pleasant Hill city leaders seem to think that a sporting goods store in that location would be a good idea. So much for creative solutions to economic challenges. Cultural attractions actually do drive business and make a city more attractive to residents and to businesses. You can't get more cultural than an art-house cinema that shows movies, like, with subtitles.

Hmm, if we lose The Dome, what happens to the future of art-house cinema in central Contra Costa?

Believe it or not, there are a fair number of suburbanites who like to see movies that are not based on comic book adventures or taken over by one CGI thrill ride after another.

So It's Finally the End for the Dome?

This is an annoying, disturbing recent development. The Dome movie theater, a landmark in Pleasant Hill and in the history of East Bay cinemas, is going to be torn down to make way for a sporting goods store.

A CBS producer was at the CineArts theater Saturday afternoon, where I went to see the beautiful Helen Hunt-John Hawkes film The Sessions. "Oh shit," I said. "It's terrible news."  However, I didn't say "shit" for the soundbite he asked me to give him for a possible broadcast on tonight's nightly news.

It's not as though the Dome hasn't been living under threat of destruction for years. SyWest Development wants to modernize the southern half of the Crossroads Shopping Center by tearing down the geodesic domed-roof theater and putting in a 73,176-square-foot Dick's Sporting Goods, the Contra Costa Times reports. 

Do we really need another sporting goods store? And, will central Contra Costa residents lose their local art-house cinema, which always looks to me like it's doing good business, packing in audiences.  Over the past 10 years, plans by SkyWest -- previously known as Syufy -- to replace the Dome with a sleek new art-house cinema never went anywhere, especially after the recession hit.

Well, Pleasant Hill Councilman David Durant told the Times that the loss of the movie theater and the chance to revitalize that part of the shopping center will be good for the community.  Really, David?  I understanding wanting to fix up that part of the shopping center. It has a certain smell of decay and sadness about it -- though not in the theater itself.

"It's always sad to lose something iconic like the dome, but the real challenge for a lot of people to understand is that there's no way to effectively to keep that theater operating," Durant said. "I think it's unfortunate, but to be candid about it, I think it's a sacrifice we need to make for the overall benefit of the community."

Back in 2009, I wrote that it would be great if the developer realized the retro '60s cool value of the Dome and sought to preserve that, while, of course, fixing and cleaning up the lobby and interiors--and adding whatever modern movie technological innovations are needed.

The Dome is listed on the Cinema Treasures website and represents a certain era of grand technological experimentation in the art of filmmaking. The Dome auditorium opened in 1966 with a giant curved screen used to show films—generally big, sweeping epics—shot in a process known as Cinerama. This widescreen process worked by simultaneously projecting images from three synchronized 35 mm projectors onto a huge, deeply-curved screen. It was the first of a number of technological innovations introduced in the 1950s and 1960s to help Hollywood offer something to audiences that TV, the movie industry’s big competition, could not.

I’m pretty sure I saw my first movie at the Dome. It was The Sound of Music.  Going to see this movie was a reward for getting through a week of preschool without crying and clinging to my mother. My older siblings took me to see it. Over the years, I remember going to see Jaws, The Godfather II, Apocalypse Now, and The Shining at the Dome. It was the theater in central Contra Costa to see the big screen epics.

But either it's not economically feasible to preserve this community landmark or we have yet another developer in Contra Costa County -- and city leadership -- who lack imagination. Hence, we get another sporting goods franchise. 

Locating a new In-and-Out on far North Main Street is just--goofy

For the past year, I've been following from an unusually objective distance the brouhaha over In-N-Out's proposal to open one of its drive-through burger restaurants at the far north end of North Main Street. As Walnut Creek Patch has reported, residents who live in neighborhoods just west of the site are not happy.

These northwest neighborhoods of homes and tree-lined streets happen to lie within Walnut Creek's city limits. Meanwhile, the proposed In-N-Out property sits literally just over the border in Pleasant Hill. That city, therefore, has jurisdiction over any planning decisions regarding the property, now a field of weeds and an oak tree. It also stands to enjoy the tax benefits.

Walnut Creek neighbors say they will have to deal with the fall-out. They have aired their concerns at both Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek city meetings, saying the property, between the Oak Park Hill mortuary and the big parking lot for Black Angus Steakhouse, is too small to accommodate a nearly 4,000-square-foot drive-through restaurant and the high volume of customers and motorists it is likely to attract.

Laura Milstead and other residents cited numbers from the city of Pleasant Hill that the restaurant could bring an additional 1,200 to 1,500 cars a day into their neighborhood.

They also said the drive-through will open 30 feet from the home of a resident who has lived in the neighborhood for 60 years, near a family with small children and next door to the Oak Park Hills Chapel mortuary. The restaurant would bring unwelcome noise, odor, crime and late-night crowds who have been drinking and partying into the area.

As the Planning Commission prepares to release an environmental impact report, dueling Facebook pages and petitions have been posted this week to gather signatures for and against the project. As the blog Claycord has reported, "just a few days after Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce supporters created a Facebook page & petition in favor of In-N-Out Burger, a citizen stepped up and created a petition and Facebook page against the proposed restaurant.

The Limit In-N-Out Burger in Pleasant Hill Petition says that the location next door to homes is simply inappropriate for this kind of business and that the fast-food burger chain already has the greenlight to open a location three miles up the road at Contra Costa Boulevard and Concord Avenue.

Meanwhile, the petition created by chamber supporters says the North Main Street location is appropriate because the area is zoned commercial The restaurant will "bring in much needed tax revenue for Pleasant Hill and good paying jobs to area residents."

OK, let me say first that I like In-N-Out burgers--though, .for the sake of my waistline, they should remain rare indulgences. A lot of the residents who live near the proposed North Main Street location have admitted that they, too, like In-N-Out.

Even die-hard foodies have to give In-N-Out its due ever since top American chef Thomas Keller, of French Laundry fame, said the following in 2007 to Via Magazine; "I really respect a company that holds its ground when there is so much pressure to follow the 'what’s next, what’s new' trend. In-N-Out’s quality lies in the simplicity of what it promises and delivers. To be able to do something over and over with integrity and excellence, even if it is fast food, is something to be truly admired."

So, there you go. Thomas Keller says In-N-Out models integrity and excellence in the way it prepares its fast food.

I have long been in favor of the chain opening a location in Walnut Creek, as I wrote in September 2009 on my CrazyinSuburbia blog. Indeed, when the controversy over the North Main Street location first boiled up, I talked to a top representative at In-N-Out and asked if the company--please, please, please--would consider moving its sights south to my hometown. He assured me that the company was considering Walnut Creek in its future plans.

But for now we in Walnut Creek would have to settle for this North Main Street location.

Oh joy.

I'm sorry but this location makes absolutely no sense to me.

For one thing, there is what I believe to be a guiding ethos of the In-and-Out model. The company locates restaurants close to freeway entrances and exits so that its car-bound customers can enjoy easy access--they can literally drive in, get their burgers, fries and shakes, and drive out.

Yes, this proposed location sits right across North Main Street from Interstate 680. But getting there from the freeway is not as easy as it looks. To get there from either north or southbound 680 involves exiting a mile or so south or north of the location, traveling through several intersections, a U-turn on Contra Costa Boulevard, crossing the freeway or a confusing turn off Oak Park Boulevard. Residents in the neighborhood say people often miss the Oak Park turnoff to North Main Street and wind up wandering through their streets to find the thoroughfare.

I'm also going to say something that some will no doubt find objectionable about that particular stretch of North Main Street, between the mortuary and the Oak Park Boulevard overpass. But here goes: The first word that comes to mind is "armpit." It's just a remote, unappetizing, almost pointless location. And I am just talking about North Main Street, notthe pleasant residential neighborhoods to the west.

Yeah, Black Angus Steakhouse is there-. The longstanding steakhouse looks like it recently received a new paint job and landscaping. Black Angus used to be a central Contra Costa hotspot before downtown Walnut Creek's nightlife took off.

I'm sure in the years since, the durable Black Angus has evolved and maintained a legion of loyal fans.

But again, that North Main Street stretch makes me think "armpit." There is no nice way to put it.

As for the mortuary, I wonder: A happy-skippy food preparation joint next to a mortuary?

There's a disconnect here. I'm mystified that the company's corporate leaders signed off on this location. In-N-Out usually seems so spot-on in choosing desirable sites that will accomplish its goals of serving as many double-doubles to as many customers and as quickly as possible.

As a Walnut Creek resident, who is sitting here craving some In-N-Out fries as I write this, I don't see myself frequenting this North Main Street location. Despite it's apparent proximity to the freeway, the 680 entrance and exit configurations make the location not that convenient. Also, I avoid that part of North Main whenever possible. I just find driving through it a bit depressing and annoying. As you travel south, approaching Treat Boulevard, it gets clogged with cars. But that's the route I'd have to take when returning home from a North Main Street In-N-Out burger run--which I wouldn't do very often, if at all.

I still have high hopes for In-N-Out someday coming to Walnut Creek. In the meantime, I'll stick to The Habit, The Counter and even Burger King closer to downtown if I have a burger and fries craving.

Martha Ross is the editor of Walnut Creek Patch and the publisher of the Walnut Creek-based blog, Crazyinsuburbia.blogspot.com.

With the exception of Rossmoor, Walnut Creek is slacking off on the Census

I filled out our family’s U.S. Census form and mailed it back. What a good citizen I am. I guess.

I happen to be a census geek, digging around different data tables, trying different queries. The census is a  goldmine for data about the United States and local communities. It provides a picture of who we are, where we come from, and how we live. 

Cities are particularly keen on making sure the census gets accurate numbers of the people who live within their borders. There are big bucks at stake, which are especially crucial for geographic areas in these tough economic times.

“When you fill out your 2010 census form, you help determine how more than $400 billion a year is distributed to communities," the census website says. On Walnut Creek’s website it reads: “Census participation is important, especially in today's tight economic environment, because per-capita federal funding is tied to census count. Our community stands to lose about $11,450 in federal funding for each person who goes uncounted.” 

So far, on National Census Day, Walnut Creek’s participation stands at only 59 percent. We might have our very civic-minded residents of Rossmoor to thank for scoring just a bit better than the 52-percent national participation rate. According to the Contra Costa Times, more than 75 percent of households in the Walnut Creek retirement community already have mailed back their 2010 census forms, the highest rate of any Bay Area neighborhood.

The city as a whole is doing a bit better than those bigger slackers in San Ramon (52 percent); Danville (57 percent); Pleasant Hill (55 percent); Martinez (57 percent); and Concord (51 percent). But we’re not keeping up with those Lamorinda overachievers: Lafayette, 61 percent; Orinda, 61 percent; and Moraga, 63 percent. You can view this map to see how communities are doing. 

Those Lamorinda numbers are up there with the top five states in census participation rates: the Dakotas, North and South; Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa. (To be snarky, one might say that there’s not a lot else to do in some parts of those states than to fill out a Census form. )You can view maps showing regions and communities and their participation rates at the U.S. Census website.

Starting in May, federal census workers will start walking the streets, visiting the homes of those who have not completed their forms.

If you didn’t receive a Census form in the mail, and want to avoid that visit and participate in this once-in-a-decade count, you can pick up forms in the City Hall lobby, 1666 North Main Street.