|
Parks studies paused while
APG makes up its mind
By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun
ALPINE — The search for
active parkland in Alpine has been put on hold, for now, until
local planners can make up their minds about what to do next.
This was the outcome of a meeting between Alpine Planning Group
members, county supervisor Dianne Jacob and county staff
members, on Nov. 29.
The original purpose behind the meeting, which was
requested at the October APG meeting, was to learn why the
county’s report did not include all of the sites that the group
had submitted. The APG Parks, Recreation and Conservation
Subcommittee’s parkland priority list, submitted each year to
the county parks department, specified five sites that the
community wants to look at for an active park.
The county report, which was presented to the
subcommittee on Oct. 12, specifies two sites in Alpine that
would be suitable for an active park. The concern of planning
group members was that the report did not include the Wright’s
Field property as one of the possible sites, as well as the
removal of two sites being offered by local businessman Tom
Dyke.
“They’ve got properties here that they’ve removed,
without a good explanation,” said subcommittee chairman Brad
Bailey at the October meeting. “This is a slap in the face. They
haven’t done anything.”
The Nov. 29 meeting with Jacob included APG members Jim
Mowry, Brad Bailey and Mark Price; Director of County Parks &
Recreation, Rene Bahl; Tom Oberbauer, DPLU Chief of Land Use;
and George Barnett, chairman of Jacob’s Alpine Revitalization
Active Parks & Recreation Committee, among others.
According to Jacob, the outcome of that meeting was
that she called a stop to county work on acquiring and
developing parkland for Alpine, until the planning group can,
“get its act together.”
Semantics are playing a big role in the Alpine park
argument: Park studies have been stopped versus studies have
paused. However you chose to say it, parkland studies in Alpine
have ceased, for now.
At an impasse, the county can not move forward until
planning group members decide whether they are going to move
forward with the staff recommendations for sites, or to halt the
process, go back, and study sites that have already been dropped
from the list.
County parks believes that two properties meet the
criteria for a active park site in Alpine: The “old chicken
ranch” located on Harbison Canyon Road, adjacent to Shadow Hills
Elementary School; or the now unused Lazy A horse ranch,”
located on Alpine Boulevard at the east end of town.
“As you know, the county has previously evaluated
Wright’s Field as a potential site for park development and
determined that Wright’s Field is not suitable for the
development of an active recreation park,” reads a letter from
Bahl to the planning group dated Oct. 27. “Letters stating such
were sent to the Alpine Planning Group on Oct. 8, 2003 and July
22, 2005. Our concerns regarding the biological sensitivity of
the habitats within Wright’s Field have not changed and we do
not believe that Wright’s Field is suitable for active parkland
development.”
Price questioned the environmental overlay on the
property saying that no environmental studies have been done on
the land recently. He said that the most recent environmental
study conducted was part of the golf course project that, nearly
15 years ago, was planned for the land.
According to Oberbauer, the county holds that the
underlying environmental issues contained in the 15-year old
Environmental Impact Report have not changed, and in fact the
area is likely more impacted with the growth that has occurred
in Alpine. County staff has said that the areas supporting
native California grasses (the vast majority of the Field) are a
Tier I endangered habitat.
According to Jacob, when county staff did a simple walk
of the Wright’s Field property, “The obvious environmental
impacts could be seen visibly, without even having to get into
the deeper studies.”
“Do we want land determinations made in our community,
by people just going out there and walking the area instead of
doing the proper studies?” said Price at the latest APG meeting
held Dec. 7.
“We have professionals down at the county; these guys
with masters and doctorates, who can see, just by walking the
area, that there are going to be obvious environmental impacts.
Don’t you think that would be adequate rather than to spend the
dollars to run a study?” responded member Paul Rohal.
Jacob said that, due to the reports from staff, the
county would not be paying for more environmental studies on
Wright’s Field.
“The planning group needs to decide whether it is going
to go ahead with the options that the county has presented, or
whether it’s going to search for other ways to fund the studies
on the field,” Jacob said.
She also added that there are options available to the
planning group, if it decides to go this route, including having
university environmental studies students do the work, or
searching for outside funding sources for the studies.
“If we want to challenge it, it’s up to us,” said
Barnett at the Dec. 7 meeting. “And until the APG makes up it’s
mind, studies on parks in Alpine have stopped. The county is
ready to go, they’ve got willing sellers and they’re ready to
move forward with the sites they have… They’ve found pieces of
property that meet everyone’s criteria, they’re ready to move
ahead on those sites, and this group is hindering that.”
Price countered that, “Studies of parks in Alpine are
just on hold until the planning group comes back to the
supervisor with these things she’s asked us for.”
“I find it odd to say that now, after more than two
years, when the county finally comes up with a couple park sites
and the subcommittee wants to postpone it to get some
clarification, that all of a sudden that means that the planning
group is responsible for stalling,” Price said.
Despite the impetus, parkland studies for Alpine are
currently stopped, until the planning group takes action and
returns with direction.
This matter will go back to the parks subcommittee at
its next meeting and will likely be before the APG board again
at its January meeting, for a vote.
Editor’s note: Chuck Taylor contributed to this story.
 E-mail
Christy Scott
|
