Passive is the only appropriate use for Rancho Potrero

The Oct. 18 story about the Rancho Potrero project described different visions and passions for these 326 rural acres by the Rancho Sierra Vista National Park at the edge of town along Lynn Road.

I know of no one, including myself, who doesn't support additional access and use by everyone in the community, including families, children, hikers, bikers, equestrians, wildlife watchers and vista viewers. Insinuations that the adjacent residents don't want others coming to the park are ridiculous and offensive.

With regard to recreation and public parkland, there are two very different kinds of uses, active and passive. In some places active uses are appropriate, and in other places they're not.

The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA) management plan, as adopted by the national and state parks, clearly shows that this property should be protected for passive recreational use. Passive use means "hiking, biking, trail-riding and low-impact picnicking."

Most everyone who drives by or enjoys the property agrees. However, the 2005 draft conceptual plan for this property, as approved by the Conejo Recreation and Park District (CRPD) board and the City Council, violates the SMMNRA guidelines with a high-intensity-use "event pavilion."

A passive-use vision for this property adds a trailhead parking lot, more trails and several groupings of two or three picnic tables each in various locations in the park, which would enable many families and community groups to gather and better enjoy this spectacular parkland.

An active-use vision per the 2005 conceptual plan allows corporations and private groups to rent a large portion of the park for their exclusive use by hundreds of people. This vision includes noise, lights, eyesores, alcohol, roads, parking lots and incompatible structures.

Do you think it's right for the city and the CRPD to thumb their noses at the adjacent National and State Parks and their own constituents? Do you think it is right for the city and CRPD to hoodwink the public by presenting the project as an educational facility "for the children" but which will instead be used as a revenue-producing event center? I'm tired of the weaselly sneakiness of our elected officials.

Will they get turned back when they approach signs that say "Do Not Enter, Private Party" or will they be welcomed with a drink and a cigar?
John Fonti
Thousand Oaks