Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cambria board delays East Ranch park decisions after floodplain and maintenance concerns
Summary
Directors, residents and PROS committee members clashed over the Phase 3 East Ranch Community Park plan’s proposed features and locations, citing floodplain placements, long‑term maintenance responsibilities and funding; the board voted to continue the items and hold a joint site visit with the PROS committee before further action.
The Cambria Community Services District board on March 12 agreed to postpone final action on the East Ranch Community Park phase 3 plan after directors and public speakers raised concerns about proposed feature locations, floodplain exposure and who will fund and maintain park facilities.
Supporters, including members of the park ad hoc (PROS) committee, said the phase‑3 plan reflects decades of community development and fresh input gathered at farmers markets and workshops. PROS chair Shannon Sutherland told the board that local volunteers have worked for years to refine designs to better fit the ranch’s natural setting. “We are willing to spin up a 501(c)(3)…we have the paperwork ready to go,” she said, urging a clear pathway so volunteers can begin fundraising and managing project work.
Opponents and several directors said the plan as drawn places key elements — including a proposed playground and passive recreation areas — inside areas the county’s flood delineation now shows as floodplain. Vice President Dean and others asked the board to inspect the site before approving any layout. “The playground area is a very low spot. That area has flooded before,” Dean said, asking that locations be reviewed on the ground and, where necessary, shifted nearer the existing restroom and parking.
Directors also pressed for clearer long‑term maintenance commitments. Director Gray said the packet’s cost estimates list construction costs broadly but do not include ongoing maintenance budgets. He said the district should avoid taking on recurring maintenance that would draw on general‑fund resources: “Maintenance has to be covered by the 501(c)(3) or a dedicated fund, not ongoing CCSD operating funds,” he said.
PROS leaders and several public commenters favored a community nonprofit taking responsibility for development and upkeep. At the meeting PROS members said they had talked about forming a 501(c)(3) but wanted board agreement on a path forward before investing in formal organization and fundraising. Dennis Dujic, a longtime local activist, proposed giving a community group discretion to build and maintain park features if the district retains land‑use oversight and the county’s permitting requirements are met.
After extended discussion, Director Scott moved — and the board unanimously approved — a motion to continue agenda items 7c and 7d and to schedule a joint on‑site visit with the PROS committee so staff can flag floodplain boundaries and directors can view proposed feature locations in person. Staff agreed to coordinate a date, pull county flood maps and mark on‑the‑ground lines before the visit.
Next steps: staff will work with the PROS committee and district engineering to place flagged floodplain boundaries on the ground and identify feasible locations for high‑priority features. The board expects to reconvene after the joint site visit so directors can consider refined siting, funding and a memorandum of understanding defining maintenance and fundraising responsibilities.
