News : City starting its next round of input on linear park plan : Sierra Vista, AZ

Today's Weather


Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast


City starting its next round of input on linear park plan

By Gentry Braswell
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Sunday, Mar 02, 2008 - 06:15:49 am MST

SIERRA VISTA — The city’s Garden Canyon Linear Park planning process continues this week with two more public sessions.

It will be a chance for area residents to draw out how they envision the park, and the last two opportunities for comments to be made before three proposals are formulated.

A private contractor, McGann and Associates, hired by the city is facilitating the planning process and will make design suggestions with the public input in mind.

The public input portion of the planning process began in January, and included two hikes in the area where the park would be, and two input sessions. Several hundred people gave input at those meetings, Sierra Vista spokeswoman Marie Hansen said.


(Use arrows above to view more photos)


Since those sessions, McGann and Associates staff members have sorted out all suggestions from January, and last Monday the city sent more than 300 hard copy newsletters and 500 e-mails were sent so they could be summarized.

At this week’s meetings, which will be on Wednesday and Saturday, all of the suggestions will be able to be seen, Hansen said.

After this part of the process, McGann and Associates will study the input and, by the end of March, develop three possible design concepts most consistent with the input, vision and geography of Garden Canyon Wash, Hansen said.

Garden Canyon is a major historic stormwater runoff path for the Huachuca Mountains, and cuts through Sierra Vista after it comes east out of Fort Huachuca property.

The proposed park would be 1.5 miles long and stretch from the east border of Fort Huachuca to Highway 92. It is bordered by subdivisions.

There are some “givens” the city has for the project, including that every effort be made to preserve natural resources while minimizing long-term operation costs, including some areas accessible to disabled residents and including access points to all areas of the park.

Parking space also is planned for Roadrunner Park, which will be adjacent to the Garden Canyon Linear Park, and at a commercial site at the corner of Buffalo Soldier Trail and Highway 92.

The city heard many comments, and at the top of the consultant’s list is to keep the area natural. Other suggestions include parking at either end of the park, as well as benches and signs along the trail.

One of the most vocal group of residents on the issue is the Friends of the Garden Canyon Wash, which is a group of several people living in the area. Since last year, they have been vocal about the city moving toward establishing a paved parking access near the corner of Kachina Road and Calle Encina, on Sierra Vista’s far south side for the proposed linear park.

The linear park has been on the long-term development document of the city for decades, but some residents who live near the proposed access would rather not have such park access near their home, citing environmental and wildlife reasons.

“One of the major interests of the Friends of the Garden Canyon Wash is to keep it as natural as you can,” said group spokeswoman, Theresa Mueller, who lives near the corner of Calle Encina and Kachina Road.

Unlike previous public input meetings on this issue, only input will be taken by those people actually present at this week’s meetings. The city isn’t accepting any more input online, though the input previously received online is still available for discussion and consideration, Hansen said.

During the upcoming meetings, area residents will be asked to draw on maps of the park to indicate what they want and don’t want at the proposed natural park.

After the city’s consultant returns with its three design proposals, they will be made available at various city facilities and a final planning meeting on April 19. At that time, the public will have a final opportunity to present comments and preferences about the three designs.

The sum of the input and final plan proposal will be presented to the City Council at a work session in May.

REPORTER Gentry Braswell can be reached at 515-4680 or by e-mail at gentry.braswell@svherald.com.

WHEN AND WHERE

This week’s meetings on the Garden Canyon Linear Park will be at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday and at 9 a.m. on Saturday. Both meetings are held at the Sierra Vista United Methodist Church, 3225 St. Andrews Drive.  For more on the Garden Canyon Linear Park project, go online to www.ci.sierra-vista.az.us/.

FEEDBACK ON THE PLAN

After the first round of public input meetings for planning the proposed Garden Canyon Linear Wash, which were facilitated by the city’s consultant, McGann and Associates, in January, the following answers to the question “What would you like to see in the design of Garden Canyon Linear Park?” were received. They are in order of frequency, with the most frequency higher in the list.

1. Keep it natural (minimal or no paving, preservation of native plants, minimal disturbance to wildlife)

2. Parking and/or access at the west end (Kachina Trail and Calle Encina)

3. Benches

4. Signage (interpretive, trail markers, park rules and trail etiquette)

5. Equestrian use and access

6. Restrooms (in parking areas)

7. Trash receptacles (bear-proof, in parking areas)

8. A wider, multiple use path

9. No parking at west end (Kachina Trail and Calle Encina)

10. Dog waste removal bag dispensers and enforcement

11. Picnic areas/tables

12. Loop trail

Answers to the question “What are your concerns?” They are in order of frequency of response.

1. Disruption and denigration of natural state of wash (over-mowing native grasses, allowing invasive plants to take over, not providing safe connections for wildlife).

2. Construction of  a parking lot at Kachina and Calle Encina resulting in drainage issues, increased crime and the possible violation of subdivision conditions, covenants and restrictions constituent to neighboring homeowners.

3. Omission of parking and access at the west end; cutting off access “for many by few.”

4. Increase in illegal activities, homeless use and use by motorized vehicles (insufficient law enforcement protection).

5. Overuse of trail, increased litter and noise.

6. Exclusion of equestrian users.

7. Lack of erosion control and possibility of flooding and drainage problems.

8. Safety at street crossings, traffic control.

9. Ability to regain access to state lands and National Forest trails.

10. Insufficient signage leading to trails and explaining park rules.

11. Lack of enforcement of dog litter removal and leash laws.

12. Insufficient parking and overuse of on-street parking.

Source: City of Sierra Vista

WHAT ONE GROUP HAS TO SAY

The Friends of the Garden Canyon Wash, a group of neighbors living near the proposed site of the Garden Canyon Linear Park, issued this statement on Friday about the process.  The group’s Web site is www.gardencanyonwash.com.

Our design preference for the Garden Canyon Wash Linear Park is a park with areas west of St. Andrews remaining in their current natural state. Exceptions include widening some dirt trails, re-vegetating excess paths, and joining others to create a loop. We do not oppose a discussion for a non-motorized vehicle access point at Kachina Trail and Calle Encina. However, the city must first negotiate directly with affected neighbors and commit to an agreeable resolution to issues of homeowners conditions, covenants and restrictions.

All non-natural amenities such as parking lots, toilets, and picnic tables should be restricted to already graded areas above the flood plain. The pre-planned Road Runner Park area east of St. Andrews is ideal. However, the development near St. Andrews should include substantial water-wise vegetative screening to preserve the natural feel for nearby residences. If additional parking areas remain necessary, the city should look to its inventory of already graded areas above the flood plain west of St. Andrews. Lastly, we feel the existing water retention basin at St. Andrews is sufficient. No additional retention basins should be constructed.

We believe that our ecology-centric design provides the best overall solution for all of Sierra Vista and would provide outstanding recreational opportunities, today and tomorrow, for walkers, runners, mountain bikers and equestrians throughout Cochise County.



Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   





    Senior walker wrote on Mar 16, 2008 2:42 PM:

    " The No. 1 expressed "desires", and "concerns": keep it natural, minimal disturbance to wash area. Let the grasses grow back in the monsoon. I will not walk there again till after it rains. Expect volunteers will be willing to adopt the wash to pick up the growing piles of trash. No more dollars need be spent, or arguements issued. "

    To Get Real wrote on Mar 16, 2008 12:45 PM:

    " Golf and swimming are wonderful activities that are good for the body and soul. But like everything else on this desert the benefits must be weighed against the costs. Perhaps hiking and mountain biking in the natural linear park make more sense from a water management standpoint. One thing is for sure, the faster new homes are built, the sooner current residents will be have to give up their current lifestyles. Golf and pools will be the first to go. Showers and flush toilets won't be far behind. Living in denial is not a water strategy. "

    Get Real wrote on Mar 15, 2008 8:49 PM:

    " The golf courses don't have a problem with drilling deep, and getting all the water they need. And the amount that is pumped, for each nut that chases little white balls around is astromical. "

    Keep Drillin? wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:54 AM:

    " You can only drill so deep and you can only have so many wells. I hear some talk about a desalinization plant in Mexico. Anyone bothered to ask the Mexicans if they want a plant on their resort coast? Even if they said OK, what would the tax burden be? What are the benefits of a larger population, besides more traffic, crowded schools, increased crime, and smog. If that is what you want, move to Phoenix. "

    Dry wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:06 AM:

    " The water in my well dropped more than 300 feet in the last few years and is now dry at 500 feet total. Hooked up to water company. How deep can water company go before public well is dry too? "

    Defense Contractor wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:01 AM:

    " There are some in Sierra Vista who would like to run the Fort out of town. This would give some short term water supply relief for the developers who see advantage in turning SV into a retirement haven. That would also uproot thousands of families with high incomes and replace them with couples on fixed incomes. Castle & Cooke and the Council are not interested in jobs and the long term welfare of this community. It is all about how many houses they can build. Whether there is a sustainable water supply is the least of their concerns. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:24 PM:

    " Our reference to the Water Board was simply an acknowledgment that even they understand that ground water is being depleted at an alarming rate. However we are not aware of any government body facing up to the issue of over-development. Conservation is great but it will only do so much. Augmentation would be great but no one has any realistic options. Where will the additional water come from? How much will it cost to get it here and who will pay for it? If we fail to find a viable solution soon, we will lose the Fort. Then what? "

    USGS-2005 wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:32 PM:

    " The total population in the subwatershed is about 72,500. Water outflow from the subwatershed, including water withdrawn by pumping, exceeds natural inflow to the regional aquifer within the subwatershed. As a result, ground-water levels in parts of the subwatershed are declining and ground-water storage is being depleted. "

    OH NO wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:29 PM:

    " GCW is also in favor of the Water Board.
    Which is going to end up being another agency that is going to tax us. Darn near as bad as waterboarding. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:36 AM:

    " Studies have been done and the City was in Washington last week trying to get funding for more research. All signs point to serious water shortages not only here but through out most of the Southwest. This why the Water Board and others talk about the need for "augmentation." But from where? Those facing their own problems (Tuscon and California) are in no mood to share. It is a serious problem that will require a lot more than sarcasm. But if you have hard science saying otherwise, by all means, enlighten us. "

    Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:21 PM:

    " So GCW, your the first one one the elevator, so lets not let anyone else get on? How about adding another elevator? And you in you infinite wisdom know how what the water supply is in this area? "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:38 AM:

    " You cannot have unrestricted development for the same reasons you cannot have open borders. The residents of Cochise County have a right to maintain their quality of life, including a sustainable water supply. To simply say that if you live in a house, you cannot question over-development is an illogical argument. This is why elevators have restrictions on how many people can fit in. When the elevator is jam-packed someone has to shut the door. We have very limited water supplies. We cannot allow more development than our water supply will support. The Colorado is already tapped out. "

    To Elderly Walker wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:46 PM:

    " There is no "mountain side" of the GCW park. The mountains are miles away. A parking lot on Cherokee or St. Andrews is just as near the mountains as one on the west end. The park ends at the Ft. Huachuca fence. And no one in the area is selfish, or against access, or is preventing usage by anyone. There has never been public access in this spot and it violates neighborhood CCR's. "

    Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:23 PM:

    " So the GCW's aren't happy complaining about the park, next it is going to be development. The same people that bought houses in a development. They are getting more NIMBY all the time. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:32 AM:

    " To Blogger: Adding blogging to our site is certainly an idea well worth looking at. However for the moment. The Herald blogs have been 'relatively' free of censorship and provide the widest possible audience. So we encourage you to make good use of these blogs. Of course the problem with the Herald is the slanted reporting. When and if we get past the linear park issue, we plan to re-focus our site towards county wide water and ecology issues. The linear park is just the tip of the iceberg. Water sustainability vs. over-development is the next battle. "

    Wondering wrote on Mar 12, 2008 6:45 AM:

    " I'm wondering how the passage of Prop 207 will affect compensation of the property owners next to any of these parking lots? Seems like everyone will suddenly say they have a decrease in property value and want compensation. Even more controversy than now because even more on the bandwagon when they can get money out of it. "

    Blogger wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:34 AM:

    " GC wash guy. You should turn your website into a SV blogsite. SV needs a reliable news source. I agree with ANOTHER ROUND below. Throw the bums out. "

    Agree wrote on Mar 11, 2008 4:27 PM:

    " I agree, it's an election year and our elected officials have not been receptive to their constiuency. Let's let the incumbents know how we feel in November. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 11, 2008 9:57 AM:

    " Just because you keep saying we are few doesn't make it so. We have had over 600 visitors to our website and it is no accident that the most popular design choice was to keep the Wash natural. Yes our bloggers have a familiar ring. We ask them to stay on message, "Keep it natural, no parking lot, protect the environment." There is really not much else for our folks to say. God has already done all the hard work. No need for the taxpayers to shell out hard earned money so that you can turn the beautiful into ugly. "

    Deal is... wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:16 AM:

    " You see nobody at the SV Planning Department had ever heard of this natural thing. So they thought maybe some high falutin consultants in Tucson might know for the right price. Apparently they didn't know neither. I am thinking if they'd gone up to Bisbee they might have found some old miner who remembered what it was. For a six pack he might even had told 'em. "

    Another Round wrote on Mar 11, 2008 4:15 AM:

    " Here they go again. City staff will cook up their own version of what they want in this \"Park\" and then sell it to the council. Just like they cooked the numbers with the cove while ignoring public input. Real public input will not matter. STAFF RULES. As inept as they are. But then again, the voters let this happen. If y\'all don\'t like it, then kick the bums out. "

    Silver Lining wrote on Mar 10, 2008 9:15 PM:

    " Well there may be a silver lining here. The City has a budget short fall, so the more money they waste on Tucson consultants the less likely they will be able to afford more parking lots, amphitheaters and heliports in the wash. Oh,did I forget dams. (and porta-potties every hundred yards, and drinking fountains and, and. and signs all over the place so it looks like a sale at Dillards. Yup, some folks sure know how to mess up a nice thing. "

    WOW wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:06 PM:

    " The friends of GCW, and the NIMBY's are resorting to posting using many different names, but we are on to you. You few don't really matter to most of us. "

    Wondering wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:46 PM:

    " Why is the City paying a Tucson consultant to do what the Planning Department is hired to do anyway? It is not exactly like the City is swamped with new housing permits. Why are the taxpayers paying consultants to make a mess of things when the City has lots of experience at it already. "

    Cost Benefit wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:01 PM:

    " How much can the taxpayers of Sierra Vista afford? Can we afford amphitheaters, detention ponds, lawns, picnic tables, BBQs, rock art, playgrounds,and parking lots? Do we pay for a very expensive parking lot for elderly walkers and not have a playground and amenities other people want? Who is selfish? It all boils down to what city taxpayers want to pay for and these all have to be prioritized. I don't think a parking lot is a high priority when there are already two others available at BST and Roadrunner Park. "

    To Elder wrote on Mar 10, 2008 3:48 PM:

    " Your question was answered you just weren't listening. We should not destroy the natural beauty of the mountain side of the wash with an ugly parking lot when anyone, elder or otherwise, can enjoy mountain views, lovely trails and scenery while parking at St. Andrews. Preserve what little is left of the wash. Be responsible regardless of your age. Leave something for the next generation. "

    Elder wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:11 AM:

    " You still have not answered my question. Why would you deny elder walkers a good access to the mountain side of the wash? Also, a gravel parking lot (similar to Ramsey Canyon Road's trailhead for Brown Canyon trailhead) is going to cost how much?...vs. the cost of health for our seniors?? Sounds like your sense of stewardship is based on selfishness and folly. Finally, I hope our elders are reading your responses on this important question. That is the most telling of your sense of sharing in the community. "

    Not fooled wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:50 AM:

    " The City announced their plan for the park without input last May. The "amended" Vista 2020 already has a map showing where they want the paved trail. Someone pointed out that was illegal. State Law requires a public input process. So they hire McGann & Assoc. Of course McGann is just the City's hired gun. Their job is to give the City what they wanted all along, but to provide some smoke and mirrors to fool the public into thinking that the public designed the park. If citizens buy this they are as dumb as the Council thinks they are. "

    Real Input wrote on Mar 10, 2008 6:08 AM:

    " If the City had wanted a transparent and reliable input process. Citizens would have had to come to a session and used their driver's license to get an input form. That would have prevented multiple inputs from individuals. The online system they used only prevented multiple inputs from a single computer. People could make multiple inputs if they had access to multiple computers. At this last round there were people giving multiple inputs at the sessions. Everything was strictly honor system and honor was in short supply. McGann gave us a very expensive suggestion box. "

    Taxpayer wrote on Mar 9, 2008 7:08 PM:

    " Elderly Walker, the taxpayers of Sierra Vista do not want to pay for a very expensive parking lot when one is already available. Remember we used Roadrunner park for the guided hikes. It is not good stewardship of taxpayers money or the environment to make every available inch of ground available to you because you do not want to walk that far. Have some responsibility and don't expect the taxpayers to pay for everything for you. "

    Love it wrote on Mar 9, 2008 6:15 PM:

    " To boring conversation: You nailed it. And to Consequences, The fort should deny access, a fort is not public property. "

    To Boring wrote on Mar 9, 2008 6:03 PM:

    " Haven't heard anyone say they oppose a trail head at Kachina. But there sure are a whole lot of people saying they don't want a parking lot in the wash. The only problem with the trail head is CC&Rs. Those CC&Rs were agreed to by the City before the sub-division was built. Any changes must be approved by the homeowners. If the City wants a trail head it will have to give up on the parking lot. They aren't the same. They may get one but is highly unlikely they will get other. "

    boring conversation wrote on Mar 9, 2008 10:43 AM:

    " To city slicker and the same guy who over and over keeps banging on how he doesn't want people to have a trail head near his house at Kachina - This is not a case where you can stuff the suggestion box and bully your selfish way to keep the public out of a public area. Commenting over and over the same thing is not going to grant your Garden Canyon Wish. Enough with the dog crap tactics (in another sense) already. Let the public have the best access to that mountainside part of the wash. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 9, 2008 10:17 AM:

    " That bit about "your park, your plan" is empty PR. The consultants are being very candid. All the public is being offered is the opportunity to throw out some ideas. The consultants will draw up the 3 options irrespective of input. The popularity of any particular option is not their concern. They will make their professional judgment as to what are the best three options. Then the Council will choose which they like best. The public did not plan anything. They just got an opportunity to fill out some paperwork. Don't fool yourself that this was real public input. "

    Consequences wrote on Mar 9, 2008 9:39 AM:

    " GC WISH, it was your insistance for a parking lot from Kachina that got the fort access gates closed. If you want future access to the west end, you should consider the consequences of your actions. The fort is the only current possible access to the mountains. A parking lot next to the fort will almost certainly leave the fort no choice but to continue to deny access. Where will you go from a Kachina parking lot when the state trust land is sold to the highest bidder? Do you think the city can outbid? "

    city slicker wrote on Mar 9, 2008 8:58 AM:

    " I would like everyone to know that I emailed comments to the city regarding keeping the park natural with no parking lot on Kachina. My comments were not in the comments available to look at the meetings this past week. Nor were similar emails by my husband and neighbor. What is the city trying to pull here? The results by their consultant will not be accurate if they are not including all the comments. If anyone commented, please go to city hall and check to see if your comments were included. "

    To GCWish wrote on Mar 9, 2008 6:33 AM:

    " Park at St. Andrews. where there is tons of off street parking. Access the same way you did for the City's Hike and take the same lovely stroll you took that day. All at no extra charge to the taxpayers or environment. Walk half as a far as you are able, then turn around and come back. This is not rocket science. "

    Elderly Walker wrote on Mar 9, 2008 12:25 AM:

    " But I want the west end near the mountains. You still have not answered my question. Why would you deny me that? Why do you call me selfish? I don't mind that your house is there already. I can share. Can you? "

    Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 8, 2008 9:34 PM:

    " Now GCW is talking about mountain bikers.
    We are not all mountain bikers, some of us need a parking lot to park, and go for a stroll. "

    Gail wrote on Mar 8, 2008 8:27 PM:

    " Much ado about nothing. A paved area for parking is not necessary; think of Brown/Miller Canyons where you park on the dirt among the trees. VISTA 2020 allows for a neighborhood park at St. Andrews, like other neighborhood parks. Note that young people with rakes, shovels & skateboards & bikes are creating their own recreation area. Not an obese youngster among them! Surely folks can walk a mile without needing a porta-potty. No neeed for benches, picnic tables--the place is only interesting in summer when foliage is out. KEEP IT NATURAL; LET THE GRASSES RETURN. "

    To hypothetical elderly wrote on Mar 8, 2008 5:48 PM:

    " Don't be selfish. Walk at the east end of the park where nature, the scenery and wildlife won't have to suffer on account of your little walk. There is already a graded parking area there outside of the wash and that part of the wash is also quite nice. Besides the west side of the park won't be nearly so lovely after you put in that ugly parking lot. "

    Suppose I Am An Elderly Walker wrote on Mar 8, 2008 10:11 AM:

    " I do about 3000 paces every morning. Slow and feeble but I do them. I really desire to walk on the mountain end of that linear park. Please do not dictate to me that I cannot share access to that end. Why the selfish exclusivity? "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 8, 2008 8:22 AM:

    " How long does it take a mountain biker to traverse the one mile linear park? Perhaps five or six minutes? If they go down Kachina it is probably more like a very scenic four minutes. So either way bikers are raising a ruckus over ten minutes of an hour or two ride. We understand that they would prefer to go through the wash. However they need trail access across CC&Rs protected property. As long as they push for a parking lot at Kachina, homeowners will resist any changes to the CC&Rs. However Trail access might be negotiable. "

    Bait and switch wrote on Mar 7, 2008 5:13 PM:

    " Or why not park up at Veterans Memorial Park? Good hike/bike distance wont kill ya. Plenty of space there too. Thus we wont disturb anyones paradise. "

    To Mr. Chadbourn wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:18 PM:

    " Have you ever noticed how wide St. Andrews and Cherokee are? They are like L.A. freeways and there is hardly any traffic. It would be awfully easy to allow off street parking on one side of the street. Plenty of room for toilets, tables and all kinds of amenities at Road Runner Park on St. Andrews where they have been planned for years. No need to further degrade the wash. "

    Lee R. Chadbourn wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:33 AM:

    " I believe the picnic tables should be located close to any parking lot and to the toilets. It would be very nice to have a closed loop of hiking throughout the park, being kept as natural as possible, thus cutting down maintenance cost. There should be parking at each end of the closed loop hiking trail, at either or both on Hwy 92, St.Andrews Ave., or Cherokee Ave. "

    Mother Nature wrote on Mar 6, 2008 6:28 AM:

    " If the city mows all the grass in the wash, when my monsoons hit the water will not be trapped and held by my pretty vegetation. Instead you foolish humans will have the water create immense erosion problems as the water follows my rule of gravity on it's way to my San Pedro River (as it pours off all the cement drainages from subdivisions). Then the city council can have their "given" and build detention ponds in the guise of preventing erosion. An added benefit will be flood control for downstream Tribute at city taxpayer's expense. "

    To common scent wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:04 PM:

    " A parking lot in the wash not only disturbs the wildlife habitat but it is a visual black eye on the most lovely part of the wash. We understand that some may think cars and pavement would be real purty but those of us with actual common sense think it is a horrible idea. It is only selfish in the sense that we love the wash and we don't want people destroying it just because they are too darn lazy to make use of ample parking available outside the wash at St. Andrews and Cherokee. "

    Thanks! wrote on Mar 5, 2008 5:00 PM:

    " Thank you taxpayers of the city of Sierra Vista! What a nice concept to fund parks outside of the city limits! Please fund more parks in Nicksville, Bisbee, Tombstone, Hereford, Palominas, and Benson also. Thank you! "

    Common Sense wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:54 AM:

    " The public cannot fully access and enjoy the linear park unless the government provides them with places to park their cars. 99.999 percent of the wash can in fact remain natural, but dont go telling people how nice GCW is, and then limit their access to it. Imagine if the MLK access to Veterans Memorial Park did not exist but only the Fry Boulevard one did, or vice versa. There are a very small number of Kachina/Calle Encina residents who are a making a big fuss about this, and only for selfish reasons. "

    Ron wrote on Mar 5, 2008 10:28 AM:

    " For those who think it will be valuable, please buy my house on Eagle Ridge and you will have the chance to live on the wash. "

    To Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:56 AM:

    " You keep saying there are only a few of us, yet almost everyone at the Input Sessions said 'keep it natural without pavement.' That is reflected in the Number One design preference from the Input Sessions. Just because you keep saying we are few does not make it so. We know there were a few folks with some other real 'practical' ideas. You want a heliport and someone else wanted a star gazer amphitheater. Any clue why you are being ignored? Could it be that taxpayers just want to keep their feet on terra firma. "

    To Garden Canyon WISH wrote on Mar 5, 2008 8:16 AM:

    " Back to name calling again. You need to discuss the REAL ISSUE of tearing-up the most pristine area of the wash for parking or keeping it natural. A pedestrian gate would be a lot less invasive. From your bloggs, you are all about getting your own way and to @@%# with the native animals and plants along with the tranquility the public can find in the west end of the linear park. Did you notice all the people on the guided hikes? No one was kept out because of no parking off of Kachina. "

    Hope wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:54 PM:

    " I hope all the people who want to keep Garden Canyon Wash natural and the Linear Park south-west of Roadrunner Park and north to BST & 92 as natural as possible go to the meeting in the gymnasium of the Sierra Vista United Methodist Church Wed. 2/5 at 6:30-8:00pm or Sat.2/8 from 9:00-10:30am. Give your imput; keep notes and drawing of your group's plans along with the reports of the other tables. I hope we all attend the city council meeting on Thursday. Ask who, why, when,and how mowing or parking fit.."KEEP IT NATURAL" "

    Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 4, 2008 9:54 PM:

    " NIMBYS get over it, you aren't the only people that have a say. You have managed to have a number of your postings here under different names, but it doesn't fool most of us. Your just a few people that have nothing better to do, and think that your little area is yours alone. "

    Sorry Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:20 PM:

    " The city posted the no motorized vehicles signs in the wash off of Kachina. You and the city can't have it both ways. You forget the CC&R's travel with the land for single family homes; the city's using it for a public driveway isn't legal or right. Castle and Cooke donated their 9+ unbuildable/landlocked acres to the city in 2006; the city re-accepted it in May, 2007 when they got caught trying to sneak the deal throught for the driveway and later started the public input and consultants. "It aint right". "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 4, 2008 7:10 PM:

    " Jim you aren't gentle and you aren't a judge. The CCR&Rs are in place to prevent people for causing nuisances to the other neighbors. A road leading to a public parking lot is a nuisance to the neighbors. It is clearly not for the use of the residence. The City has already wasted money on consultants they couldn't afford, they shouldn't lose more taxpayer's money on a lawsuit. You are quite right we oppose the parking lot and we are willing to go to court if necessary. A trail is a different story but it must be done legally. "

    To Public Input wrote on Mar 4, 2008 6:53 PM:

    " I also noticed that that the City has started mowing the wash in direct contradiction to the overwhelming public input that they should leave it as is. The grasses they are mowing is wildlife habitat that people said they wanted to protect. This is just more evidence that the City could care less about public input. On Thursday, please ask why input is being ignored and why the train has left the station without the passengers. "

    Nearby Resident wrote on Mar 4, 2008 5:30 PM:

    " Stop spending this money. Why does the wash have to be a park? It's fine the way it is. "

    Where Is the Public Input? wrote on Mar 4, 2008 4:41 PM:

    " Why is the city mowing every shred of grass in the wash? Now the prison crew is working west of Cherokee. Has the "public input" been completed for the linear park? Does the "public" want every shred of grass mowed? Or should the city wait until the "public input" is complete before making this decision? This is yet another example of the city council making decisions for the "public" and circumventing the process because "they know (their friends) better". "

    Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 4, 2008 3:54 PM:

    " Mountain Shadows CC&Rs do not extend into the wash area. There was and still is only one dwelling on the lot. Walls, driveways, parking, RVs, etc is not prohibited. Any Mountain Shadows resident can allow a vehicle to drive thru their property.

    Parking up on top is fine but a few of the folks that live there have done everything possible to prevent parking and access. Please don't try to deny that.


    If you are still convinced that access is prohibited by CC&RS quite worrying about it. "

    Interesting wrote on Mar 4, 2008 3:14 PM:

    " Interesting that the city council on 2/28 approved two amendments to Vista 20-20 removing planned multiple-use paths "BECAUSE OF GEOGRAPHICAL HINDRANCES TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS NATURAL WASHES". Both paths had been planned to start near BST. Yet, the city has swapped for county land covered by CC&Rs (single family homes) that go with the land, planning to build parking in the wash in the west end of the linear park. The city's actions have been questionable from the get-go in 2007. Parking (15-20cars) is bigger than a multi-use path. "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:34 AM:

    " Access doesn't need parking; it could be a walk-in gate. Parking does need access in order to drive into the parking lot....unless you own a helicopter and can land vertically, but then you open a whole 'nother can of worms. Renmember, the public wants the linear park kept natural. Have a good day. "

    Myrna wrote on Mar 4, 2008 10:15 AM:

    " Access is an entrance or addmittance: Trail is a path: head is the beginning or end of a trai/path pointing in a certain direction if there isn't a fork in the trail....trail head a path pointing in a certain direction. Even the elementary children were given a dictionary to use to find the definition/meaning of words. Better yet, use a Thesaurus. This useful book gives synonyms (words/phrases with the same/similar meanings) definitions in the frequency of use. YOU WILL NOT FIND PARKING/ACCESS LISTED TOGETHER AS THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS, DEFINITIONS AND USAGES. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 4, 2008 7:04 AM:

    " Given the City's budget shortfall maybe the Council should stop wasting money on fu fu in the Linear Park that taxpayers don't want and cannot afford. We don't need high priced consultants to twist our input and cook the results to make it sound like we asked for things we don't want, just so they can build more to charge more. Use taxpayer's hard earned money on fire and police and finish their other half baked schemes before trying to mess up that which citizens say they want left alone. Keep it natural and stop wasting money. "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 4, 2008 6:15 AM:

    " CC&Rs are not "hollow threats." They are binding contracts to protect the property rights of all who live within subdivisions. A violation against one is a violation against all, which is why courts uphold them. Neighbors have never said they were necessarily against TRAIL access at Kachina. Indeed we would be the ones to use it most. However whatever happens must done LEGALLY. The City should have started the whole input process by meeting with the AFFECTED NEIGHBORS as required BY LAW. A negotiated resolution was quite possible. Instead the City chose heavy handed bulldozer tactics. Never a good idea. "

    Don't Laugh wrote on Mar 3, 2008 8:49 PM:

    " Within the last two+ years, people did build a motocross track with jumps, etc. in the wash ...WITHOUT permission. "Moto Baby" were you part of that group? The wash was finally posted and the course removed, but until the gate went up, it was still being used illegally by ATVs, four wheel drives, motorcycles and dune buggies. The drivers where sometimes adults....not just teens. Even the people in the city were tired of the dirt and the noise. Castle and Cooke built fences first and now are building the houses to keep unwanted traffic out. "

    One chance wrote on Mar 3, 2008 7:37 PM:

    " You will get one chance at a nature park. Bring in the bulldozers and your chance is gone forever. Think twice. "

    Attorney wrote on Mar 3, 2008 7:08 PM:

    " Precedence regarding municipalities violating CCRs: See Rancho Vistas Subdivision v Trico Power, City of Mesa v Smith, Polos v Pima Co., Tucson Memorial v Cienega Corp, NE Development, Etc. Judges have decided against municipalities outside of city limits (sound familiar?), using eminent domain outside of city, crossing platted subdivisions for utilites, etc. The city and county approved the final plat for Mountain Shadows; it is not OK for them to disregard it now. "

    Hiker wrote on Mar 3, 2008 6:54 PM:

    " "Gentle Jim" the wash is already accessible to all. How did hundreds of hikers access the wash during the city's guided hikes? They certainly didn't come in from Kachina, rather they used Roadrunner Park for parking as planned for in Vista 2020. "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 3, 2008 6:01 PM:

    " You are hung up on a parking lot in the west end. The wash is accessible to all and always has been. You seem to be upset because private property was gated to prevent dumping and another piece was posted because some people not only cut their fences, but stole fence posts. How would you feel if someone knocked or cut holes in your fences, using your property as their own? It is strange that you don't blame the city and Castle and Cooke who have approved or built on both sides cutting more access points. "

    Myrna wrote on Mar 3, 2008 5:38 PM:

    " If we're to leave some natural settings for future generations, we must start here and now. Putting parking in the flood plain in the west end of GCWash linear park is irresponsible. Instead of showing responsible stewardship of the land, it teaches youth to "use short cuts", park as close as you can , do what you want instead of what's right and "cook" the information/input to get the answers you want. No wonder some youth want instant gratification and get into trouble. Children learn by watching, listening and imitating. What's being taught here? "

    Taxpayer wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:53 PM:

    " With state funding being cut (see today's article), why is the CITY doing anything in the COUNTY? And why is the COUNTY doing anything with HURF funds (illegal) on a NON-COUNTY maintained road, Calle Encinas? "

    Moto Baby wrote on Mar 3, 2008 2:00 PM:

    " Yes - this is the perfect place for an ATV and Motocross track. The length of the park makes it perfect. Placing a fuel station on the west end, near the parking area would be the best. Also, the plans need to expand the parking area as the trailers for ATV's are large. We are currently working with the Fort to allow us to extend a turn-around into the post so we don't have to shorten the riding are. I can't wait! "

    Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:26 AM:

    " Hung up on CC&Rs.
    If the CC&R folks are so sure that CC&Rs will prevent parking at the West end then just relax, why worry if you are so positive.
    It will be interesting to see in court if an easement to the city property is prohibited.I doubt it but hope the city is not intimidated by your hollow threats and makes the wash easily accessible to all. "

    To Karl Hallsten wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:06 AM:

    " Karl, you have got it right. For one thing the retention ponds are just an attempt to prevent flooding in a flood plane, where homes should not have been built in the first place. Nonetheless it is there so let's make the best of it by making every effort to make it look natural. But let's not repeat these mistakes and mess up the west side of the park as well. Leave it natural. No roads, parking lots, retention ponds. Work on repairing Road Runner not screwing up more of the park. "

    Budget Cuts wrote on Mar 3, 2008 9:20 AM:

    " One of today's lead articles concerns the loss of funding for Arizona cities. With all of the budget cuts and loss of other revenues, it would be foolish to spend money for parking in the flood plain for the linear park. Even if the city plans to annex the area in the county, we the public want the wash to stay natural. "

    Givens wrote on Mar 3, 2008 6:44 AM:

    " Some people mentioned that they didn't mention the parking situation one way or the other because the givens stated the parking was to be at HWY 92 and St. Andrews. Participants were instructed to work within the Givens. Nor was an access point at Kachina and Calle Encina on the maps. That is probably because the City understands full well that there are CC&Rs at that location. The CC&Rs are legal, binding contracts. Consequently that issue must be resolved with the affected homeowners. It is a contractual issue, regardless of what might be most convenient for the rest of us. "

    Oversight or maniputlation? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:45 PM:

    " Putting "Parking/access into the same category is aking to comparing apples to oranges. PARKING...a place to leave your vehecile: ACCESS...entrance or addmittance. This is a huge oversight or calculated manipulation of the public input. Parking off Kachinna requires grading, massive amounts of fill dirt for an entryway and destruction of part of the most natural/peaceful area of the linear park. The public's 1st choice under both design and concerns is 'KEEP IT NATURAL". "

    John Muir wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:27 PM:

    " Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul. "

    Karl Hallsten wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:38 PM:

    " I neglectd to include in my previous input--except I did include it as restoring disturbed areas. The design of the retention pond area by St. Andrews is anything but natural in appearance. This should be enhanced to appear as a natural part of the wash with terracing, natural placement of rocks and vegetation for retion. Not a big dug hole with a wide ugly concrete road running to the bottom as is now the case. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:43 PM:

    " It should be noted that the city and/or consultants either intentionally or unintentionally made a serious error in calculating input. The most popular choice was leave it natural, now paving. However for #2 they combined Kachina access and parking lot. These items are not synonymous. Many of us are for trail access at Kachina but against a parking lot in the wash. By combining the two items the city counted support for a trail as support for a parking lot. This was either a serious oversight or cynical shell game. We hope the public was fooled. "

    CC&Rs wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:29 PM:

    " The City did a land swap with a property owner whose land was in a sub-division. The CC&Rs go with the land regardless of whom the land gets sold/traded. That is the whole point of property covenants. You don't want your neighbor selling his land to someone who changes the subdivision into something other than what you bought into. This particular subdivision's covenant clearly states the property can only be used for a single residence dwelling. The City might find it easier to negotiate with neighbors than to convince a judge that a road is a dwelling. "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:10 PM:

    " Please be more gentle and keep your bulldozer out of the Wash. Who cares whether there are unrecorded species at the West end of the park or not. It is unique due to its incredibly serene setting, graced by beautiful mountains. A parking lot with 20 cars will not add to its beauty. Or are cars as gentle as you and your bulldozer? "

    Hey wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:08 PM:

    " The west end of the linear park is not bordered by smaller lot subdivisions. Note the "No Parking" signs the city has installed along both sides of Kachina just at the curve. The couty has not installed such signs to date. The county area is more open and spacious looking with many natural features retained when the homes were built. "

    To Gentleman Jim wrote on Mar 2, 2008 7:40 PM:

    " The city is to the north in approximately a straight line from the curve on Kachina as the street heads west to a dead end. South of that line is county. The city even showed this on their original map for the council meeting on May 24, 2007. The city stated after they acquired an entry they would annex it so the city police could be called to handle any problems. Sorry Charlie, Gentleman Jim, the CC&R's cover the lots in Mt. Shadows that the city approved when the lots were sold and and homes built "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 2, 2008 6:33 PM:

    " Perhaps you should consult an attorney, as we have, if you do not understand CCRs. You will find that CCRs are a legal, binding, private contract that CANNOT be changed by ANY governmental entity. The Mountain Shadows CCRs specifically state that they "run with the land." The property that was swapped is part of Mt. Shadows subdivision. This subdivision was developed for "single family residential." If you do not think the property is part of a development, look at the map and CCRs on gardencanyonwash.com. "

    To Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 2, 2008 6:09 PM:

    " You are putting words in other people's mouths and/or bloggs. The west end is unique as it is the most pristine. The Fort borders the west end. It is county out at the south west. There is a large piece of vacant land to the south-west in the flood plain and acreage next to that with one home on it. The other homes in the area are on county sized lots. Tell everyone again how this looks like city housing developments heading to the east end.
    Did you go on the west end guided tour? "

    Living Legacy wrote on Mar 2, 2008 4:45 PM:

    " The S.V,Herald has had several articles stressing the importance of involving children/young people in: respecting their environment; valueing nature; growing plants from seed and planting a garden; using Water Wise methods to reduce water usage; reusing or recycling of materials to help extend the life of land fills; recycling plastic bottles, bags, aluminum cans, to raise money for school project that would go unfunded; and helping to conserve biological habitats by not dumping items or tearing-up washes. We need to leave our children a living legacy not a parking lot in the wash. "

    Montaigne wrote on Mar 2, 2008 3:43 PM:

    " Let us permit nature to have her way. She understands her business better than we do. "

    Gentle Jim wrote on Mar 2, 2008 3:41 PM:

    " I hope the city respects the vast majority of respondents desire that West in access and parking be provided.
    The argument that the West end is some how unique is false. There is not a single species that has been recorded at the West end that has not been recorded in the middle and East end of the park.
    As far as CC&Rs are concerned they do not apply to city property that is in no way a part of a development. "

    City Limits wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:07 PM:

    " This article states "the corner of Kachina Road and Calle Encina, on Sierra Vista’s far south side for the proposed linear park." This isn't even in the city!! This is county property. Why in the world are city taxpayers supporting ANYTHING that is NOT in the city limits? City council, you got it all wrong here.
    "

    To Garden Canyon WISH wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:47 PM:

    " Trying a "knock -off" on the name of the GARDEN CANYON WASH.COM group is a cheap and shoddy shot. I have read your posts on other blogs and your habit of resorting to name calling is also appalling. The disregard you have for public opinion is apparent. THE PUBLIC UNDER WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE DESIGN OF THE PARK AND WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS....1st CHOICE FOR BOTH IS "KEEP IT NATURAL". "

    Pretty Clear wrote on Mar 2, 2008 11:41 AM:

    " What was the most frequent design preference?
    - Keep it natural (minimal or no paving, preservation of native plants, minimal disturbance to wildlife)

    What was the biggest concern?
    -1. Disruption and denigration of natural state of wash (over-mowing native grasses, allowing invasive plants to take over, not providing safe connections for wildlife).

    Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

    Now, will the Council and their consultants please listen to the input.

    "

    Not natural wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:46 AM:

    " Trees, birds, deer, coyotes, javelina, jack rabbits, quail, hawks, dirt, rocks, etc. are natural. Cars, parking lots and roads are NOT natural. Keep it natural. "

    GardenCanyonWash.com wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:27 AM:

    " We appreciate the Herald following the Public Input process and providing this in-depth look at the various options of what the park might look like. There has been significant public interest in the park. We believe that is because so many people recognize what an asset a nature park can be to this community. This is our opportunity to show the younger generation the importance of being good stewards of the environment. Let's make them proud and keep the Wash in its natural state for generations to come. "

    Garden Canyon Wish wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:22 AM:

    " I hope they go ahead with the parking lot on the west end. "

Community Videos



Additional recent videos can be viewed here


Use the arrows on each side of the player to for the next/previous video

Lastest U.S. Videos


In Tomorrow's Herald


Hey baby: USA Weekend has 15 findings every parent should know

Subscribe Today!

Photo Galleries

Contact Us


Staff Directory

Advertisement




Reader Poll



Calendar

Upcoming Events:

Faith and Spirituality