AHSCC | Alpine High School Citizens Committee

This Is A Re-Print Of A Previous AHSCC Civic Report
for background info... this was before Prop U was conceived

The Alpine High School Citizens Committee (AHSCC) would like to say, Thank you to all who participated in making your preferences known on the Grossmont Union High School District’s (GUHSD) Online Survey of the proposed Alpine area high school sites.

The AHSCC will be following up on our efforts in bringing a high school to Alpine, and will keep the public posted via e-mail and future press releases. There will be future public meetings much like those of the past, wherein GUHSD representatives will be invited to address and inform our community on the progress of the Alpine area high schoolland purchase and State of California approval process.

Numerous representatives of the Alpine High School Citizens Committee, and others from the Alpine community were present at the Grossmont Union High School Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday, September 14th. At this meeting the results of the web-based survey performed across June & July, ('06) requesting opinions from Alpiners and residents of the Blossom Valley area was presented to the public and the GUHSD Board by the district's consulting firm.

     The Information Presented Was As Follows...

There were 700 responses and 254 general comments. Out of the 12 potential study areas, citizens ranked the following four (4) as the most preferred:

1)         Site J - the Lazy-A ranch and other adjacent properties along east Alpine Boulevard with 287 votes.

*2) ---- Site C - the industrial zoned properties along Tavern Road, just north of the I-8 Overpass with 257 votes.
     *Removed from consideration Prior to EIR Study -----

3)         Site G - the chicken ranch property at the end of Chocolate Summit east of Dunbar Lane (Blossom Valley) with 244 votes.

4)         Site B – The Wright's Field property with 175 votes.

  Further, the responders ranked their principle concerns regarding a high school site and its selection as follows:

#1 - traffic and its management;
#2 - opposition to displacing homes & businesses;
#3 - opposition to using eminent domain powers;
#4 - opposition to Wright's Field.

Based on the site selection consultant's work to date, and considering the outcome of their non-scientific survey, the Grossmont Board instructed an expedited detailed analysis of each of the 4 sites above, with the intention to pick 2, maybe 3, for submission to the State Board of Education for its final approval of one site. Submission to the state and use of its site selection process are necessary to qualify for the(approximate prop h) $50 million in state matching funds.

While the "cost of turning the first shovel" will be a major determinate to the board, the detailed analysis of the 4 sites will generally follow the state site selection criteria, which are listed in the generalorder of importance below:

1.         Safety
2.         Location
3.         Environment
4.         Soils
5.         Topography
6.         Size and Shape
7.         Accessibility
8.         Public Services
9.         Utilities
10.       Cost
11.       Availability
12.       Public Acceptance.

With respect to the 3rd criteria, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that alternative sites be reviewed in a comprehensiveEnvironmental Impact Report

(Final EIR is said to be released: May 4th, 2009)