|
Proposed Wright’s Field development resurfaces
By Susan Hogoboom
The Alpine Sun
ALPINE — The future of a portion of
Wright’s Field is once again up in the air after a heated
discussion between a developer and an Alpine Planning Group
member at the APG meeting held Thursday, Jan. 28.
The principal engineer, Darcy Jones, from Engineers
Incorporated, represents Richard Singer, general partner in the
investment group that owns the property of the Park Alpine
Project, more commonly known as Wright’s Field.
The current proposal calls for a housing development of
47 single family lots on the property. The development would
cover about 139 acres: 51 acres developed and 89 acres preserved
as open space.
“For the last few years, we’ve been working with the
county planning department on design and environmental issues,”
said Jones, adding that the process was put on hold because the
field was one of the possible sites for the new Alpine high
school. Eventually, the Lazy A site won out because of the
presence of precious grasslands on Wright’s Field.
According to Jones, the original acreage holding was
approximately 260 acres. A few years ago, the owners deeded
about 120 acres to the Back Country Land Trust (BCLT), leaving
about 139 acres, which Jones told The Alpine Sun after the
meeting, BCLT had an opportunity to buy.
Jones is seeking approval of the project’s tentative
map and what he called a “significant element” added to the
project — a sewer system.
“We’re here to ask for your support in clustering and
allowing public sewer,” he told the APG. He also wants the group
to make the decision that the project is a benefit to the
community, as well as consistent with the General Plan Update (GPU);
a countywide developmental plan outlining what is expected in
the next 20 years.
Jones said that his plan allows for the process of
clustering, which is part of the GPU.
“With the proposed density under the current zoning and
General Plan Update, in order to get that many lots, we would be
covering significantly more of the property,” Jones explained.
APG member, George Barnett, wants to see 30 to 40 acres
of the land dedicated to park construction with a $1 to 2
million cash contribution for the park’s development and
equipment. Barnett is president of BCLT and chairman of the
Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of the Alpine Revitalization
Steering Committee.
About five years ago, the developer had presented the
matter to the (APG) but with the promise of a multi-acre park,
which, to Barnett’s understanding, was reflected in mailings
from Singer to Alpine residents in fall 2005.
And Barnett has not forgotten that promise.
He continually grilled Jones on several issues and
asked him if that promise has been withdrawn. Jones did not
answer such questions before finally admitting that the current
application makes no specifications for a park. He did add,
however, that his people are willing to work with the APG
regarding the matter.
“This particular submittal does not propose a park
here. The original submittal does,” said Jones. Jones said the
county opposes a park, and he has received “negative feedback”
from staff.
He cited environmental reasons as to why the county
does not support a park. There are concerns of environmental
impacts to the large, dense, virgin Native California grassland
habitat.
“If you’re group would like to see a park, I’m pretty
sure … we can promote that and motion that to the county again,”
he said.
And according to George Barnett, the barriers to a park
on the site do not necessarily mean that its construction will
not occur. While an active park is not suitable for the site, it
could be designated as passive parkland.
“That doesn’t mean the subdivision applicant cannot
deliver of his promise of parkland to Alpine. There are other
properties that have been prioritized by the APG for purchase as
a sports parkland,” he told The Alpine Sun.
Jones is optimistic that despite the county staff’s
environmental concerns, it might be cooperative.
“I think if the county understood that the Alpine
Planning Group truly wanted a public park area, they would come
around and support it,” he told the group.
Barnett, who said he spent the week prior researching
the matter with the county, told Jones that his request for a
sewer system would probably be denied on the basis of
circumstances he discovered during his research.
Barnett said an employee at the San Diego Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) said that the commission has no
intention to change the Alpine Sanitation’s District’s sphere of
influence boundary. The Alpine sanitation mapping is not
scheduled to be reconsidered until 2012. A change would require
Board of Supervisor and LAFCO approval.
Furthermore, Barnett has been in contact with the
Department of Planning and Land Use and told Jones that the
California Environmental Quality Act documentation, which is
mandated by the state and the project’s scoping letter are
incomplete. A scoping letter is sent by the county to
applicants, providing a preliminary review of a project and
listing items that need to be addressed to ensure that the
project is in compliance of all ordinances, laws, and
guidelines.
According to Barnett, without addressing the issues in
the scoping letter, approval from the APG is premature.
Jones said that he has also in contact with the county.
He said he attended a workshop, at which he was encouraged to
seek input from planning group’s members.
Nevertheless, Jones told the group that he was not
necessarily seeking an answer at that particular meeting.
“I’d like to work with your group. It’s a very
important site to your community,” he said.
He said he wants, to the best of his ability, to “craft
a project that is in everybody’s best interest.”
Singer took the floor and said that he and Jones want
to work with the APG, at the same time, issuing a caveat against
non-cooperation, saying that they will go to the county, though,
if communications breaks down.
“We don’t want to, but we will if we have to,” he
warned.
Member Jim Easterling made a motion, seconded by Scott
Tuchman to send the project back to the APG’s Private Actions
Subcommittee for more work, such as completing the information
required by the county’s scoping letter and to complete the CEQA
documentation. The Private Actions Subcommittee also offers an
opportunity to involve local residents in a review of the
project and it’s impacts on Alpine. Subcommittee meetings dates
and agendas should be published in future edition of The Alpine
Sun.
 E-mail
the Editor
|
