New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: David Strom [strom @physics.uoregon.edu] <br /> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:51 AM <br /> To: Nancy Ellen Locke <br /> Cc: fanboard @lists .civil- tongue.net; STEFFEN Adam R; katjaheide c@gmail.com; HALLETT <br /> Jackie C; BALDWIN Loma J; RICHARDSON Philip S; BETTMAN Bonny S; MEDLIN Johnny <br /> R; HOSTICK Robin A <br /> Subject: Re: Friendly Park - Timeline <br /> Dear Nancy Ellen, <br /> I have a few comments concerning the timeline: <br /> (i) At both of the neighborhood meetings held by the city, comments that Friendly Park is <br /> very small and that any installation with a large footprint could irreversibly change the <br /> character of the park were made. There were also voices strongly favoring soft paths and <br /> surfaces. As I mentioned in another email, it didn't seem possible for the city to grant <br /> these requests. <br /> The meetings were not well attended. The first one had a dozen people or so. If I recall <br /> correctly the second meetings was only attended by two families (including my wife, Katja, <br /> and I) that live next to the park. <br /> (ii) The park was not designed by "the group" (I'm not sure whom you include in this). It <br /> was designed by Philip Richardson. Most of the undesirable features were imposed on him <br /> by city policy <br /> -- and as Philip can attest we very strenuously objected to these features. As I <br /> mentioned in a previous email these requirements caused the play space to eat up open <br /> space in the center of the park and caused a significant fraction of the critical root <br /> zones of some of the largest oaks that grace the park to be disturbed. The large footprint <br /> of the new play area was driven by safety regulations and the use of wood chips as a <br /> padding material as well as the requirement that trucks be allowed to be driven on the <br /> walks. This large footprint detracts from the charm of the park, even if the concrete has <br /> been gracefully designed. <br /> To say that we got behind this plan is an exaggeration, in terms of the overall plan, we <br /> acquiesced to Philip's professional judgement. <br /> (iii) Discussions about the adult play equipment were well advanced with the city before <br /> the direct neighbors were consulted about whether or not it was a good idea. (Early <br /> sketches of the park showed a few rocks for stretching on.) There was no notice of the <br /> motion to seek an NMG to install the equipment given to the direct neighbors before a vote <br /> was taken <br /> by FAN. We originally found out about the equipment from the city and <br /> not from FAN. When you canvassed the neighborhood, it was presented as a fait accompli. <br /> Nancy Ellen, you have a very strong personality I didn't have the feeling you would take <br /> no for answer. You asked me if I would support the adult play equipment if you agreed to <br /> move it a bit <br /> farther from our property. Thus I reluctantly signed the petition. <br /> (iv) There are good reasons not to have large pieces of adult play equipment. Anything <br /> high that a child could climb on needs to have <br /> 16 inches of wood chips under it (one could get by with less sand, but that doesn't meet <br /> ADA). By the way, when we talked last spring you were at pains to point out that you were <br /> requesting quite small items that would not be especially noticeable: low parallel bars <br /> and a bench to stretch on. <br /> (v) I asked in earlier email if a planting plan is available for the native plants. I <br /> generally support the use of native plates, but this should not be done haphazardly. <br /> Adding native plants to a park that was previously composed from mainly non - native spices <br /> takes some thought and should be done deliberately with a long -term plan as to how to <br /> 1 <br />