HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/5/2019 Item 11, Mohan
From:Terry Mohan <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Sinsheimer lighting
Attachments:Sinsheimer Tennis Court Lighting Saga.docx
Council members,
I sent this commentary to the New Times a couple of weeks ago to explain the history and need, or lack thereof, of
lighting the tennis courts at Sinsheimer Park. The New Times has chosen not to print my commentary but write a puff
piece on how these tennis enthusiasts are "only trying to benefit our otherwise deprived community". Why are these
same people allowed to continue bringing up this matter and costing taxpayer money without any penalty of financial
risk to themselves? I hope you will demonstrate the common sense to adamantly reject this idea and move on to some
of the alternatives I have suggested in my piece. We don't need another neighborhood at odds due to outside influence.
Terry Mohan
1
The Sisheimer neighbors are again being forced to fight yet another attempt to
install lights at the Sinsheimer Park Tennis Courts. We are baffled why this is
being brought up again seeing that it has been rejected by three different city
administrations in the past three decades the last being ten years ago. Either the
staff did not present the meeting minutes of the previous denials to the council,
or the council is continuing demonstrating its distain for affected resident to
satisfy their YIYBY (Yes In Your Back Yard, literally) cronies. Of course, the
neighborhood is in an uproar considering we had put this matter to bed ten years
ago, but this council allowed the squandering of $25,000 in design money on the
word of the same handful of people that lost the last attempt to disrupt our
neighborhood. (I doubt they had to pay the $657 council appeal fee us non‐
cronies would have been required to.) No one in the neighborhood was
consulted before the design decree went down on how we would react to the
proposed increase in lighting in the park and backyards until 10 PM and the noise
that would reverberate throughout the neighborhood disrupting our peace.
Unlike the tenants living next to the Skate Park we own our houses and the
detrimental effect of lights at the courts would not be as easily solved as moving
out at the end of our lease. With six newly renovated and underused lighted
tennis courts at San Luis High School, one mile away, this proposal is a complete
waste of taxpayer money. We only found out about the city’s plans when one of
the neighbors was asked to leave the court so they could measure for lights.
Upon learning of these plans, I distributed a letter to the neighborhood to inform
them what was planned, as I am busybody and like to show up secretive
operations at our “much lauded (by themselves) transparent city hall”. I later
learned the city was sending out timelines to some individuals who requested
information from city hall about my letter and the timeline mentioned a petition
of 200 signatures from tennis players who supported this lighting proposal. So, I
put in a public records request for a copy of the petition and after a search the
City Clerk’s office said they couldn’t find it. So, I asked Shelly Stanwyck, the Parks
and Recreation director about it and she insisted it existed blaming the clerk’s
office. So, I put in a second request to the City Clerk. I hate to bother the clerk’s
office because they are always so nice to me, but I had to go the legal route
because yes, I was mention in the timeline as threatening legal action if the lights
were installed. After a few weeks, and I believe a diligent search on their part the
Clerk’s office email me that this petition was not to be found. Minus any sad
faced emojis. I became suspicious. Especially since I was never invited to any of
the meetings concerning these lights that were also mentioned in the timeline.
Probably because I am unreasonable and make the administrators nervous. But
through happenstance, not invitation, I learned of an upcoming meeting
concerning the costs and design of the lights and decided to crash it
In the meeting we learned someone made up with a preliminary cost of the
lighting at $175k (probably the same person who came up with the laughable
estimate $45 million for the proposed Prado Overpass) to either deceive the
council or give them cover for approving the design expenditure. The new
estimated cost from legitimate contractors is almost three times the first guess at
$425k! (that’s really just 2 ½ time for you Cal Poly students but I wanted to
exaggerate for journalistic effect). This does not include ADA compliant access to
the courts or the refiguring of parking at the end of Helena St. which will need to
include handicap spots. Probably another $250K! Couldn’t someone have gotten
a free estimate from a contractor before spending the design funds? That’s what
I do at my house. When all is said and done it will probably come in well over
three quarters of a million dollars. They said they will need to install special
hinged light poles due to the topography of the area around the courts because of
their inability to get to stationary poles with service trucks. While the staff had all
the appropriate charts and such, they were unable to answer any of the real
world questions like light spread as compared to the high schools courts, night
noise evaluations, how many skateboarders could fit on the lighted courts at
night, could the nets be detached illegally for soccer like they do at the high
school. As far as nighttime supervision of the courts it will be left up to the
neighbors to call the police, who don’t have enough to do keeping the drunks in
line in our once coveted Downtown, to come and kick the rowdy’s out of the park.
A logical and intelligent avenue to follow, had the Parks department
administration and council chosen to follow such paths, and drastically reduce the
construction and maintenance of new tennis courts (less than installing lights at
Sinsheimer) would have been to find a large under used paved section of a park to
resurface and install two or four lighted courts with area that could be expanded
if the idea ever took off. This is the idea they are using for the pickleball court
over the basketball courts at French Park. The ideal location for these courts
would be the perpetual money sinkhole out at Laguna Lake Golf Course. It’s
deteriorating parking lot is primarily filled with employee cars and golf carts and
could easily be reconfigured to place these tennis courts away from nearby
residents near the pro shop.
In the 2015‐17 City Financial Plan (Page3‐65) calls for additional activities at the
course including and I quote “to offer Pickleball at the Course as well develop new
activities for active adults”. I mean don’t any of the people running the city ever
read their own material. This is a match made in heaven. The Pro Shop could
stock tennis and pickleball rackets, balls, skateboards, drug paraphernalia etc.
The restaurant would be jammed. What about a marijuana dispensary? The
course might even come close to breaking even! (dream on)
Then if lighted courts are still needed in the Sinsheimer area they could simply be
included in the public park area that the city will require the developer to pay for
(continue to dream on) at the new 1160 Laurel Lane development at a location
that does not intrude on resident’s peace and quiet. Unlike the Sinsheimer courts
which were never intended to be lit hence their location so close to residences.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 215‐3333