Press
June 18, 2008, Five Cities Times Press Recorder
Judge rejects dog park lawsuit
By Mike Hodgson/Associate Editor
A lawsuit seeking to overturn Arroyo Grande’s decision to approve a mitigated negative declaration and require a full environmental impact report for a proposed dog park was rejected June 3 in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court.
Judge Charles S. Crandall denied the writ of mandate sought by the owner, manager and 15 residents of the Park Place apartments located adjacent to the proposed off-leash area at Elm Street Park.
Although the lawsuit was denied, the petitioners have 90 days to appeal the decision, so Arroyo Grande is holding off on creating the park.
“They do have a couple of months to appeal, so we’re waiting for the appeal period to finish before we proceed with the dog park project,” said city manager Steve Adams.
“But the folks are definitely getting ready to proceed with the project,” he added.
William S. Walter, attorney for apartment owner Manfred G. Freutel, apartment manager Mitchell Mundahl and 15 residents, could not be reached by press time for comment on whether an appeal might be filed.
In the lawsuit filed Feb. 8, the group said that under California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the city should have prepared a full environmental impact report because the dog park would have “significant environmental impacts.”
They cited many of the same objections they raised at a public hearing when the dog park was approved, including noise from barking dogs, potential parking problems and odors from dog urine and feces, which they claimed would contaminate groundwater.
However, in his decision, Crandall wrote that the petitioners had to demonstrate “substantial evidence” the decision would have a “significant effect on the environment” in order for the CEQA requirements for a full EIR to apply.
Citing previous appellate court decisions, he noted that evidence must be “fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact” and would not include “argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, narrative or rumor.”
He said “unsubstantiated fears and desires” of the opponents did not constitute such evidence.
“The city’s evidence supporting a lack of significant effects and adequate mitigation measures is based mostly upon statements from witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts,” Crandall wrote.
“... Moreover, the minute size and nature of this project militate against a finding of significant effects.”
Crandall also cited the city’s mitigation measures — limiting hours of operation and requiring daily cleanup of trash and dog feces and emptying trash containers — as adequate to address concerns.
Adams said the city is sensitive the neighbors’ concerns.
“Even though we won the case ... the council and city staff is concerned with the concerns of the neighbors, and what the council directed the staff to do when the project was approved was to contact the neighbors and have a review after a couple of months to see if there are any problems,” he said.
The park will be created with some $40,000 in funds raised by the Five Cities Dog Park Association, which will assist in constructing the park’s amenities and then turn the facility over to the city.
That commitment led association Vice President Ray Quintana on Monday to tell Grover Beach the group could not commit to funding a portion of a dog park in that city until the Arroyo Grande facility is completed.