|
|
May 2005 meeting minutes
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association
Regular and board meeting minutes: special focus on off leash area GNA
May 18, 2005
Board members present: Sharlane Blaise, Eric Bosler, Nadine Fiedler, Laura Gordon, Bill Guthrie, Charles Heying, Dave Hillman, Dave Hilts, Don Jacobson, John Laursen, Paul Leistner, Bunny & Gayle Marechal, Nancy Norby, Diane Redd, John Turner, Mary Ann Seth Wish, John Wish, and Bing Wong.
For other attendees, please see sign-up sheet.
Nadine Fiedler presented the slate of MTNA board members and officers for approval; the slate was adopted by voice acclamation as follows: officers Diane Redd, president; Gayle Marechal, vice president; Lois Heying, secretary; Bing Wong, treasurer; and Charles Heying, SEUL representative; new board members Mark Bartlett, Clifford Carlson, Cascade Anderson Geller, Cathy Kuehnl, Justin Leonard, and Remi Ogouma; and continuing board members Sharlane Blaise, Eric Bosler, Nadine Fiedler, Laura Gordon, Bill Guthrie, Dave Hillman, Dave Hilts, Don Jacobson, John Laursen, Paul Leistner, Gayle and Bunny Marechal (one seat), Nancy Norby, Jennifer Pultz, John Turner, and John and Mary Ann Wish (one seat). Diane Redd outlined the off leash area history and the process for the present meeting. Paul Leistner introduced the good neighbor agreement (GNA) that had been drawn up by the citizen’s committee, and said that having Gay Greger from the parks bureau in partnership was key to the process of defining the off leash area (OLA). Then attendees were able to write and hand in their questions.
Questions and answers included (just a summary):
• Can there be a fence on the north side? Not really possible.
• Can there be another OLA? Right now we’re trying to find a solution to this area, using good process.
• Why can’t it be open before 7 a.m.?
• 7 a.m. is too early.
• Can there be more lighting? Right now it’s too expensive.
• Why can’t the whole park be an OLA? There were too many conflicts before.
• The signage is incoherent. What can we do? Gay Greger of parks and MTNA will work together to fix them.
• The new area is not as useful as the area that was cut out. The old area was too close to houses, and noise and runoff were problems.
• Can there be kiosks? Can trees be thinned to let in more light?
• Why isn’t disabled access better? That can be considered later. But not all parks are ADA accessible.
• Will the area coming down from Reservoir 1 be improved? And what about speeding bikes? The parks bureau is creating terraced steps for a gentler approach.
• What about the environmental impact (as shown on environmental overlay map)? This led to a long discussion with many conflicting opinions about the meaning and import of low habitat, and the park master plan, and preventing damage.
• What about health issues (urine, feces, etc.)? The state veterinary edidemiologist says that dogs should be vaccinated, but that dog diseases do not transfer to people.
• Should we stick to the master plan? The MTNA looks at it as a guide that attempts to balance the needs of all users, but times do change and needs with them.
• Why did the MTNA environmental committee remove themselves as stakeholders? They weren’t invited to be involved in the beginning, although a committee member was in the group as a member in general.
• Concerns about erosion control, and dogs all over the park.
• Why should we make it okay for neighbors who bought houses next to a park?
• What will be the enforcement? Only the county can issue tickets. More rangers will be added in the summer. 20 rangers cover the whole city but can only issue exclusions.
• Diane R. passed a sign-up sheet for a stewardship group for the OLA.
• Is there funding to sustain the OLA? There are funds for the improvements outlined in the GNA, although the city has cut the budgets this year.
• How can we mitigate poop? We hope people bring poop bags. People who have been monitoring the area have found trash but not mush poop.
• How will we evaluate and monitor? We’d like to start soon. Members of the committee and neighbors have helped develop evaluation criteria. We want solid data.
Diane R. adjourned the general meeting and convened the MTNA board meeting.
The discussion included the following:
• Sharlaine Blaise: this park is not an appropriate place for an OLA. The decision was made without public input.
• Paul Leistner made a motion to approve the GNA. Then there was more discussion.
• Nancy Norby: went on a walk-through. Has concerns about the trails. The invasives are not all removed. The signs need to be carefully places. Can there be plants used to soften the noise? Will evaluation come from the committee or outside?
• Bing Wong: We’ve been involved for more than 10 years. The master plan is not a legal document. The issue has been divisive; how can we work with what we have? Can we make sure someone is accountable when things go wrong? The GNA is workable and has used good process. We can adjust as we go.
• Eric Bosler: Don’t set up a process that will fail. If signs go up and don’t work, let’s put up new signs. If something isn’t working, let’s fix it.
• Bunny Marechal: If we don’t approve this, where are we? Do we have a choice? If not, we hand the decision over to others.
• Paul L.: If we don’t approve, it defaults to city council.
• Dave Hillman: The master plan can be interpreted. Friends of MT. Tabor Park try to get ride of invasive plants. There’s good work in the agreement. Would like the parks bureau to put as much work as possible before the trial period.
• Dave Hilts: This OLA is not an area will people will gather in; it’s too linear. People will congregate at the entryways and make noise.
• Don Jacobson: Sent 11 reasons to reject the GNA. It was a mistake to not have talked about whether the OLA was appropriate in the first place, which limited the work of the committee. It’s a mistake to approve the GNA; we should look at the master plan, which is the environmental documentation for the park, and let the city know how we feel. The original concept was a refuge for flora and fauna.
• John Laursen: We owe the committee a debt of gratitude. The GNA is a one-year trial and is workable, especially if the parks bureau does fencing improvement. He respects the environmental argument—some of us don’t want the OLA at all—but the GNA is the best possible compromise. If there’s not an OLA, the whole park becomes one by default. If we can amend the GNA, let’s do so for the signage. Can we get a right to review the signs to make sure they are written clearly?
• Laura Gordon: We need two agreements: the GNA and a follow-up to make sure that it happens right. Would like an addendum to the GNA that includes signage.
• Eric B.: a second motion is in order, then, after the GNA motion.
• Mary Ann Wish: If we don’t have an OLA, dogs will be all over the park.
• John Wish: The current situation is unacceptable. We need to work together. Imagines a supplement that addresses these concerns that have been brought up.
• Paul L.: motion that we accept the GNA as it is.
• Diane R.: Gay Greger said we can tweak the GNA. Asked Gay if we can change the language about invasive species. and what kind of review we can have of the signs, and if Gay can form a sign review group. Can we include that in the GNA? Gay says yes.
• Nancy Norby: Can we put in a new trail? She thinks not necessary in trial period.
• Suggestion that the fence be put up before the trial period: Gay says they will do so immediately after the GNA is signed.
• Dave Hilts: Can we hold out money for trails if it’s important?
• John L.: We can ask the committee to look at how the money is spent.
• Diane R.: The committee is disbanded, but they agreed on the trail. Nancy N. says they did not see it staked out, and the walk-through made them question the trail.
• Elaine Cogan: the GNA was both a physical and political decision that all fits together. It was hard to get to where they ended up.
• Gay Greger: Proposed an amendment to revisit the trails when the fence and gate go in, to be evaluated by the evaluation committee no later than November 5.
• Motion to approve the GNA as is failed.
• John L.: motion that we approve the GNA with two minor changes (about signage and invasive species) and Gay’s amendment. The motion passed, with 12 in favor and 2 opposed.
—Submitted by Nadine Fiedler
|
|
