The owner and manager of an Arroyo Grande apartment complex have filed a lawsuit against the city seeking to block the creation of an off-leash dog park next door until a full environmental impact report is conducted on the project.

The lawsuit claims the council's approval of the dog park in Elm Street Park constitutes an “abuse of discretion” that violated the California Environmental Quality Act because the facility will have adverse impacts on the neighborhood and thus requires a full EIR.

But the Arroyo Grande city manager said the city considered the potential impacts of the park through an environmental review and plans to mitigate any impacts that surface after the park is in operation.

William S. Walter, a San Luis Obispo lawyer representing Manfred Freutel, trustee of the trust that owns the apartments, and Mitchell Mundahl, the apartment manager, filed the lawsuit Feb. 8 after the City Council approved the dog park Jan. 22.

Mundahl, Walter and several residents of Park Place apartments brought their concerns to the council at that time and asked that the park be denied.

The lawsuit reiterates those concerns, including noise from barking dogs, increased problems with parking - especially during community events - and odors from urine and feces.

It also says the city did not limit the number of dogs in the park, failed to consider alternative locations and adopted inadequate mitigation measures that are unenforceable.

Advertisement

In addition, the suit says the Five Cities Dog Park Association - named as a party in interest in the lawsuit - is a volunteer organization whose operation of the park also can't be enforced.

Walter could not be reached for comment by press time, but City Manager Steve Adams said Arroyo Grande officials believe the courts will find the lawsuit groundless.

“Based on the results of the prior environmental review, we don't believe the grounds of the lawsuit would be substantiated,” Adams said. “The city's legal position is strong in terms of this issue.”

He said the city strongly believes all the appropriate and necessary environmental reviews were conducted and a full EIR would not generate any additional information.

As a result, he said, a full EIR would be “both unnecessary and a waste of public funds.”

“We think the suit is unfortunate, particularly given the fact the council was concerned about the impact on the neighbors and directed staff to work with the neighbors to address their concerns ...,” Adams said.

That included monitoring the park's operation, providing reports on its operation not only to the council but also to the apartment residents and taking steps to resolve any problems that arise.

Adams said he did not know how much it would cost the city to prepare a full EIR on the park, but typically, full environmental impact reports cost between $75,000 and $100,000.

He noted the California Environmental Quality Act requires a full EIR to study issues that wouldn't be relevant in this case and thus would be an unnecessary expense.

Adams noted the council's assessment of potential problems and their severity did not just come from the city's environmental review.

“The council's conclusion was based on ... experiences at other dog parks by people who are involved with (those parks), and council members viewed other dog parks personally,” he said.

A case management conference for the lawsuit is set for 9 a.m. March 24 in front of Judge Charles S. Crandall in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Department 3.

The drive to create an off-leash dog park in Arroyo Grande began in early 2006 after Grover Beach barred dog owners from letting their pets run free at Costa Bella Park and directed the County Division of Animal Services to issue citations to those who did.

Arroyo Grande initially considered using a drainage basin the city owns outside city limits in Oceano, but concerns arose over liability, maintenance and supervision after a misunderstanding of what role the Dog Park Association intended to play.

That led to the proposal to construct the dog park in Elm Street Park, which the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended in June 2007 and the City Council approved in August 2007.

However, the apartment residents and manager claimed they did not receive sufficient notice of the city's plan and objected to the approval, which led the city to hold a second hearing and approve the park Jan. 22.

February 19, 2008