Palo Corona Regional Park is one of the most gorgeous pieces of public open space in Monterey County.
But it's not particularly public yet.
As detailed in a news story in this week's print edition, the park's 3,853-acre back country is closed to the general public while officials work on a general development plan. And the 680-acre front country is only open to people who apply for parking permits in advance, with a limit of 13 spaces off Highway 1.
That parking permit thing will eventually change. Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District is planning a 57-vehicle lot inside the park and highway improvements to go along with it. When those are done, people will be able to drive in and hike or bike without permits.
But a threatened lawsuit could hang up those plans.
Diana Fish, who owns a 93-acre parcel in the front of the park, "asserts that she has potential claims against the district for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and other potential claims," according to a district document.
Fish's husband was a previous owner of the Palo Corona parcel, which was later purchased by Big Sur Land Trust and The Nature Conservancy, then sold to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife and MPRPD, according to a district staffer.
Fish claims the view from her neighboring home will be impacted by the parking lot and that the district did not sufficiently address weekend traffic impacts, added the staffer, who asked not to be named.
Fish's attorney, Christine Kemp of local law firm Noland Hamerly Etienne & Hoss, could not be reached Thursday afternoon.
Kemp has appeared repeatedly at monthly MPRPD board meetings to voice concerns about the parking lot project and urge the board not to adopt the proposed "mitigated negative declaration"—a document that, under California environmental law, means the project will not cause any significant environmental impacts that can't be taken care of.
In June, the board approved the mitigated negative declaration anyway, allowing the project to move forward through the county permitting process.
But Fish's lawsuit threat could stall the parking lot project enough for the district to lose a $250,000 grant that expires in May, the staffer says.
So last month, the MPRPD board approved a "tolling agreement" extending the time Fish has to challenge the parking lot project in court.
"This is preferable to Ms. Fish filing a court action immediately to preserve her rights, and it allows for additional time to try to address and resolve Ms. Fish’s concerns without resorting to litigation," the staff report states.
Under the agreement, the district agrees to extend the statute of limitations on potential claims through Dec. 16, 2014, and Fish agrees not to try to legally block the parking lot construction before trial, should she decide to litigate.