CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Claire Steffens | 6/5/2011 5:47:49 PM |
| I am one of three persons who initiated making Section 36 a Municipal park in 1984. The park is for all citizens, now and future generations. It meets the needs of citizens they cannot have met anywhere else in core Anchorage: quiet; three ecosystems of flora; diverse fauna; dark sky viewing/aurora viewing; "get away from it all" experience; contemplation for creativity and problem-solving. No lights. Minimal trails designed to provide the wilderness experience below tree-line. LOW IMPACT USES; INDIVIDUAL USERS; NO TEAM SPORTS/COMPETITIONS. Thank you. | |
| Jeffrey Brown | 5/4/2011 11:09:47 AM |
| No Chalet !!!! the windeerness and Alpine aspect of this park is excellent counterpoint to the develpment that is destroying and clearcutting the hillside. If you want alpine skiing and a lodge, then go to a remote lodge/chalet. A chalet will only increae non-recreational use, and enco9urage non-park related events and create huge user loads on the park and the area. A chalet is a terrible idea for the park, the residents, the animals, and the hillside. A chalet turns the place into a place to "stay", not a place to "play". It would be like putting a chalet at flattop, or potter marsh, or Glenn alps. No thanks. | |
| Jeffrey Brown | 5/4/2011 11:01:27 AM |
| any lights should be small, led, and with skirts so it doesn't make the valley (chugach) look like another christmas tree. They should turn off at 9:30 at the latest, and have small guide lights along the trail for idiots who don't know how dangerous winter int the wildreness can be. | |
| Jeffrey Brown | 5/4/2011 10:55:53 AM |
| The wetlands in section 36 are delicate. Only after snow cover and complete freeze can they be utilized without harming the wetlands. Lot's of animal are there in the summer (lot's of little ones and predators. The little ermin and "lot's of lynx" are in that area. Keeping trail away from the southern wetland areas of Section 36 is a no brainer for anyone who cares about the ecology in the area. Not only does it provide a buffer between the users and the neighborhood, protect the most delicate habitat, protect the watershed that ends at potter marsh, but also it provides a corridor for the animals, including moose and bear. Like I said; No-brainer. Development of flat ski trails should be limtied to months with complete freeze and snow cover. Speed loop in and around the existing park area. Hiking trail should be limite to north of the wetlands at the base of the rise paralell and below Clark's road, ideally incorporating a pass under trail culvert under Heights hill road below the steep bend. The Trail could continue east to the mailbox area at the top of Clarks road. This trail should accomodate skiing in both directions, possibly seperated to accomodate skiers wanting the 1/2 hour work out. for the world class alpine skiers, the trail should cross Clarks (another culvert?) and continue a switchback trail to the top of the ridge and along the top through the high alpine woods (providing some protection from the wind, yet world class views). Above and east of the At&T tower the trail could have a gradual switchback descent for the cruise home and hit a third culvert under Clark's road incorporating the existing excavation at AT&T road and exiting on the south of Clarks road where the trail meets itself and returns to the main park. This solution provides a multitude of hiking and skiing experiences. It also allows for the eventual connection of the trail passing the AT&T tower to the long proposed hiking/skiing trail down the Rabbitt Creek drainage eventuall joing the greater trail system. Also, it allows eventual access to Chugach State park via the ridge. This solution protect the user, the residents, the wetlands, the animals, and provides for maximum use of the park for hikers and skiers, and only allows use of the flats (wetlands) in months that protect the park. No brainer. Also. If you are goin to put a large parking lot in Bear valley, it's entrance should be along a road behind the fire station and utilize the stop light that is being put in for the McMansions Kidsmeal subdivisions planned South of the school. the developers (Wuerch admin) used fire mitigation funds for their own personal road costing us how many millions, so why not use it to control that traffic flow and keep everyone safer? That said. Clark's road should not serve as the arterial to the park. There are over 1000 people living in Bear Valley. That traffic should be co-opted into a pattern that utilizes the school access. After all, weekends will see the big use. Anyway, that's what I see as the only way to repect everyone and get a good useable park. | |
| Lee Ann Hamerski | 5/2/2011 6:32:57 PM |
| My property boarders Section 36 on the south side and I have lived here for more than 30 years. A multiple use park in Section 36 has long been viewed as a good idea; however, it needs to be properly supported by appropriate facilities for the uses, should be contained and should be well delineated. Below are some of my concerns: Stork Park which borders Section 36 on the north side was not well thought out because it does not have enough parking or public facilities for the amount of use and traffic it has created in the area of Clarks Road and Rabbit Creek. It is presently being used by a wide variety of different groups from small groups who cross country ski, fly model planes or kites to baseball and soccer which brings in too much sporting activity that use up the existing parking and people park illegally all along either side of Clarks Road turning a two lane road into a one lane hazardous road. There have been many accidents because of this illegal parking as well as lawsuits. There are only a few Pota-Pottys in Stork Park which at times are overcrowded encouraging the patrons to use the bushes and/or private property to relieve themselves. So development of Section 36 park or even inducing one person to use Section 36 will require parking and facilities for the users and maximum usage needs to be considered for these previously mentioned health and safety issues. The planning aspect of Section 36 should not create liability for the City of Anchorage by the MOA creating an inducement to use a park that has no proper parking or facilities to maintain it in a safe and usable condition. Section 36 park must be properly marked as to its boundaries and as to its types of uses so that the general public will not be induced to go beyond Section 36 boundaries onto private property. Currently Section 36 has horseback riding, snow machining, 4-wheeling, hiking, picnicking, skiing, snowshoeing, wild life viewing, etc. and whether these are all legal or illegal does not seem to deter the present users; therefore, any uses need to be properly supported by appropriate parking, facilities and safety devices, etc. for the uses that will be determined. The uses should be contained and should be well delineated to solve many of the current problems such as teachers taking their classes to do everything from nature walks to biological experiments on Section 36 but by mistake the teachers often take their classes through people’s back yards trespassing and creating a legal nightmare of liability for both the MOA and the affected homeowners. It is imperative that the Section 36 park not connect to the greenbelts or other areas outside of Section 36 boundaries since there have been in the past numerous and various lawsuits relating to trespassing and the MOA should not allow overflow from the park onto private property and/or greenbelts. It is not environmentally sound or economically prudent for the MOA to encourage the public to damage the fragile Little Rabbit Creek watershed by not containing the park boundaries to Section 36; the boundaries of Section 36 park should not extend out to or in any greenbelt connections or their uses. Jamie Avenue is only 30 feet wide and does not meet city specs or codes; it cannot support even the local traffic it has now and has deep ditches on either side of it. Cars consistently go off into the ditch because there is nowhere to go to avoid accidents except the ditches. Part of Jamie road is already on Section 36 and will require at least an additional 30 feet for health and safety reasons and to conform to MOA specs and increased traffic flow. Because it was normal and customary here for each section to contribute 30 feet of road easement for section line roads, which Jamie is, the land will need to be taken from Section 36. Additionally, Heights Hill has been changed from its original location which now most likely will require additional easement so as to conform to MOA specs and the only land it can take from is Section 36. The MOA should not incur unfunded indebtedness or create traffic hazards or induce trespassing or damage to the delicate watershed. | |
| randy weddel | 5/2/2011 7:30:00 AM |
| sounds like a great idea that is a nice area would take some preasure off hilltop ski area. I vote for it Randy Weddel | |
| Dean Shannon | 4/26/2011 10:40:15 PM |
| I am not an Anchorage resident but I do visit Anchorage frequently in the summer and a few times in the winter. I would like to see Section 36 turned into a city park. I have hiked that area and found it to be a beautiful place. On the way up the hill there are great views of Anchorage, and once at the top you can look down Bear Valley. By turning this area into a park, more permanent trails can be established. This would make the area a more attractive place to go for simple day hikes and would relieve congestion from other parks and trails in the area. Also, the establishment of trails would lessen the environmental impact of summer users of that area and would more adequately preserve the wildlife and their habitat. I may not live in Anchorage, but I have been to section 36 myself and have first hand knowledge of the area and on how the proposed changes would effect it. With that being said, I feel that hiking, skijoring, skiing, and snowshoeing are appropriate uses for that area and that horses should be banned from the proposed trails. | |
| Scott Pexton | 4/23/2011 11:47:16 AM |
| Thank you to the P&Z Commissioners for taking the time to thoroughly review the draft Section 36 Master Plan and to evaluate and consider public comments. I have two specific comments regarding the Section 36 Master Plan presented as follows. Comment (1): In the section about the Anchorage Bowl Park, Natural Resource, and Recreation Facility Plan, please revise and correct text on Page 33 pertaining to the Southeast Park District as it is grossly misleading and factually inaccurate. The text states that "The Southeast Park District has the largest concentration of natural resource areas in the Anchorage Bowl, but the lowest amount of developed parks of any of the park districts." This is not a true statement. Text on page 33 further states: "The Southeast Park District includes FNBP's 4,000 acres, as well as an additional 375 acres of regional parks and open space at 18 sites." Again, this statement is untrue. The Southest Park District does not in fact include most of the Far North Bicentennial Park's 4,000 acres. Most of the FNBP is within the Northeast Park District boundaries, with a very small portion of FNBP within the Southeast District Park boundaries. This is shown on Figure 3-15 (Natural Resource Use Areas) on page 34 of the draft Section 36 Master Plan. Figure 3-15 depicts the FNBP and the five Subarea Park District Boundaries. The golden yellow boundaries of the Northeast and Southeast Park Districts show that FNBP is mostly within the Northeast Park District between Tudor Road and Abbot Road. Moreover, The 2006 Anchorage Bowl Park Plan includes Appendix A which is the "Park and Recreation Inventory". This inventory lists the actual acreage of Natural Resource Use Areas within each of the five park districts. It shows that Far North Bicentennial/Hillside Park is within the Northeast Park District and it lists the total acreage of NRUAs within the Northeast Park District as 4,548.19 acres. The Park and Recreation Inventory lists the total acreage of NRUAs within the Southeast Park District as 1,303.15. Based on the total acreage figures for NRUAs listed in the Park and Recreation Inventory, the Southeast Park District ranks third in total NRUA acreage behind the Northeast Park District and the Southwest Park District. The Southeast Park District does not have the largest concentration of natural resource use areas in the Anchorage Bowl when compared to other park districts. Please correct this error in the draft Section 36 Master Plan and any other planning documents with similar incorrect statements.---------- Comment (2): I request that the Unsurveyed Conceptual Trail Layout figure in Appendix D, page xii be deleted entirely or at least modified to eliminate the Class 2 and 3 trail segments depicted south of the wetland setback to the south of Clark's Road. This figure depicts a Class 2 Loop & segment and a Class 2-3 Loop south of Clark's Road within soils classified as Doroshin peat and Torpedo Lake silt. Doroshin peat is a very poorly drained soil formed in moderately deep deposits of decomposing peat. Torpedo Lake silt is a poorly to moderately well-drained soil occuring on muskeg borders and slight depressions on glacial till and ground moraines. These two soil classifications are graphically depicted in Figure 3-7 on page 22 of the draft Master Plan. According to Table 3-1 (Soil Constraints for Recreational Development) on page 23 of the draft Section 36 Master Plan, constraints for recreational development within the Doroshin and the Torpedo Lake soil classifications, particularly for trails, are "severe". Moreover, these two trail areas are depicted within Class A wetlands as described for Site Number 81 of the Anchorage Wetlands Managment Plan (page 91 of the AWMP). The Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan states that "development shall be concentrated at upland edges wherever practicable...", that "wetlands shall be preserved for flood control and water quality", and that the "creek corridor is important to large mammal movements, especially bears". It is bad policy and poor planning to intentionally endorse possibly building recreational trails within a known bear corridor in Class A wetlands within muskeg bog soils. Please delete entirely or modify the Unsurveyed Conceptual Trail Layout figure in Appendix D, page xii to eliminate the yellow conceptual trails depicted south of the 75 foot wetland setback south of Clark's Road. Thanks to all involved for the continuing efforts to finalize and approve the Master Plan for Section 36. | |
| Harry Walker | 4/10/2011 11:31:13 AM |
| For 27 years many people have dedicated an untold number of hours to seeing Section 36 become a multi-use, low impact wilderness park. As it stands now anyone can use Section 36 for a multitude of summer and winter public uses (including cross-country skiing) that do not require any additional development. Human beings contstantly feel the need to "improve" upon the natural world to serve their special purposes. There will come a time (perhaps not in my lifetime or yours) when residents of a much more populated Anchorage will wonder why we couldn't leave a few places in the Anchorage Bowl untouched to enjoy as nature had intended. I for one am wondering that now. Leave Section 36 alone. | |
| Claire Steffens | 4/4/2011 5:08:55 PM |
| The Planning Department should strongly resist efforts of special interest user groups from unduly influencing the uses for which Section 36 has been set aside. Section 36 was contemplated and designed for minimal impact uses by low numbers of persons - to offer the experiences not otherwise available in Anchorage parks. The Jr. Nordic Ski Club, Skijoring Club, in particular, have been lobbying hard for "special consideration" that this land, (which belongs to the "Wild About Anchorage" residents), be made available to their particular needs. These groups always will want more: as their numbers grow, they will put pressure on the resources that should be available to other user groups for their uses. At some point, each user group needs to acknowledge that other people also have the right to have their needs met. It is not the intent or purpose of Section 36 park to serve any single special interest or special user group to the detriment of other users. Especially, lighted areas are offensive to multiple users: lighted ski trails are proposed by the special interest ski groups. The concept of a municipal park for Section 36 began in 1984, when the land was still in federal ownership. Hundreds of individuals, including 33 Community Councils, over the years, have endorsed the park concept as a multiple-use, low impact, wildlife habitat area where uses not otherwise available within the municipality are made available to those who enjoy parks just for their natural condition, and for other reasons. Such uses include, but are not limited to: in the winter: quiet activities and non-team activities, solo skiing and snow-shoeing is available on the northern slope; the southern slope is available for hiking, some snowshoeing, aurora-watching, orienteering, especially because there are wind-blown bare spots. In the summer: berry-picking, hiking, wildlife viewing, landscape viewing, orienteering, hang-glider landing are some low impact uses. Anticipated low impact trail construction would enable mountain-biking (both summer and winter) and facilitate hiking. The point is that this land is not, and should not be, made conducive to large groups, team competitions, etc. It is land best suited to provide the only location in Anchorage where an individual or family can recreate in relative solitude and enjoy the experience(s) we advertise as what is "Wild about Anchorage." The land itself is comprised of wetlands, rocky ridge, windswept southern slopes with little or no snow cover and a forested northern slope overlooking Anchorage city lights. The flora on the parcel has a unique three-ecosystem hybridization of flora. It offers a variety of fauna: wolves or coyotes, wolverine, weasels, lynx, birds (a migratory bird corridor), moose, rabbits, and other small animals. Engineering and soils tests confirmed the lands unsuitability for development for residential or other facilities uses (which might require septic facilities). Land for parking is poorly available, the best locations for parking is Storck Park (adjacent and flat) and, on the north side, a flat, triangular parcel adjacent to Hillside Drive, which bisects a corner of Section 36. Please provide to the citizens of Anchorage, now and in the years to come, the personal revitalization derived from having some place to get away from the pressure of crowds, noise, competitive sportspersons, and the density of the city parks. People need a place to go to think, to just enjoy the quiet beauty that so inspires us to be more productive at work and better members of society. Section 36 "Wilderpark" always was intended to be such a place. Please don't carve this last big parcel of land in the Anchorage bowl into pieces doled out to special interest user groups. | |
| Dan Stone | 4/4/2011 3:23:39 PM |
| Regarding plans for Section 36. A core group of people began trying to spare the section from development back in 1984 and have fought through 4-5 attempts to develop the tract for housing since, a long struggle. Our thought was based on the ideals of John Muir that some places are best suited to be left as wilderness. The intent was for Section 36 to be a natural link between Storck Park and Chugach State Park. Now I see a lot of Johnny-come- lately vultures after the heavy lifting is over. Please don't let them co-opt all our years of hard work, leave it as it is. | |
| Angelica Hayes | 4/3/2011 9:57:32 PM |
| I visit that area several times a year, when I am in Anchorage. It would be great to be able to bring our cross country skis and take advantage of the trail while visiting friends! Angel Hayes | |
| John Walsh | 3/31/2011 10:16:46 PM |
| Section 36. I am in favor of the development of multi-use trails for winter and summer activities including skiers,skijorers, hikers, walkers, etc. I feel that it would not be suitable for horses. This development is much needed to accomodate the expected increase in southside population. | |
| Rebecca Voris | 3/30/2011 9:58:41 AM |
| Section 36 - I am in support of its development to benefit multiple users. There is not a sufficient location currently in South Anchorage to meet those needs. I would like to see a loop planned wide enough for skijorers & skate skiers. I do not feel this area is well suited to horses being on the trail due to the hilly terrain & feel they should be prohibited in this area. I also favor a lighted section with a possible chalet with bathroom facilities. | |
| Dustin Shannon | 3/27/2011 9:08:16 PM |
| Section 36 is less than 500 feet from my front yard and I am in support of its development to benefit multiple users. Even though a large # of people that reside in South Anchorage like to participate in outdoor summer and winter activities, there is not a sufficient location currently in South Anchorage to meet those needs. This is the perfect opportunity to further improve the quality of life for Anchorage residents and further develop our great community. Done properly, this area can be maximized to serve many people, whether they are first time recreational, student, family, college, Olympic level skiers and more. Skijorers, bikers, runners, snowshoeing, hiking and even hang gliding could all fit cohesively together. Although I enjoy horses, I feel they are a user group that cannot fit well with others. Unfortunately unless the trail is paved, in the summer they can wreck the trail. In the winter, one horse can destroy a nicely groomed trail for hundreds of others. Developing this area has many benefits for our city. It provides the much-needed space for community events from recreational to organized skiing, skijoring, biking and running events. It will also help alleviate some of the traffic and congestion at other popular locations in town. The popular school skiing programs will have more places to train, closer to their own schools. It provides residents another opportunity to connect with nature and the outdoors. Development of trails will also help minimize fire danger on the hillside as they create firebreaks and give firefighters access points if the need to fight a fire arises. I favor a lighted section. It increases the safety and maximizes the time people can use the trail, spreading out any congestion. While some people are worried about light pollution, newer technology lights with a timer cannot be any worse than a neighbors unregulated ultra bright light pointed directly at my house. The school lights at Bear Valley Elementary and the Fire station nearby are already left on. I also think we would be wise to not rule out the possibility of class 4 ski trails with a few areas as wide as class 5. With the rapid rise in popularity of skate skiing, classic skiing, skijoring and winter bike riding, it is appropriate to make the trail wide enough in some sections that it is safe to pass others. We can maximize our existing resources by creating a winter link to Bear Valley Elementary where there is already plenty of lighted parking and warm facilities if people host an organized event. A link should also be created to Storck Park as it already has adequate parking. The soccer and ball field can be groomed in the winter, as they have been in the past, to create more trails and the flat land is ideal for practicing and lessons. The close proximity to the elementary school is ideal for students. The abundance of parking and large open area makes Storck Park an ideal location for hosting the start and finish of skiing/skijoring events. With or without further development, Storck Park is also an ideal location to build more permanent restroom facilities. A storage facility for maintenance equipment should also be kept in mind. I think the plan should be left open enough so that the designers have the ability to create a trail system that best matches the existing terrain. For example, it might make sense to have a single trail just north of Clarks Road and have it connect to the north side trails with a single trail west of the communications towers and another trail going north over the hill from the parking trailhead at just east of Heights Hill Road. There is also enough room on the north side to have three of four east-west trails with various connections to maximize the different routes people can choose to take. In addition to variation in exercise, this would allow events to customize 5k and 10k courses. With the amount of land available, it makes sense to eventually develop at least 10km of class 3 or 4 ski trails. It costs money to put a groomer in place. The difference in cost to groom 10km vs. 5km is marginal. The non-profit user groups would have more incentive to help maintain the trails, if there were more trails to maintain. More trails also allow for decreased congestion, increased safety and less conflict from various user groups. The north side is one of the best spots in town for developing ski trails. The almost immediate views of McKinley, Anchorage and the inlet are amazing. The higher elevation provides more snow and is shaded from the direct sun. Developed properly, this location could probably provide the longest skiing season of any in town. Even though this project will benefit many people, with the proper structure, funding for the development and maintenance can come from many different user groups such as running and biking clubs, Nordic Ski Association Anchorage and the Anchorage Skijor Club. I support this project and look forward to the day that I can take my family on these trails, skiing and skijoring in the winter and biking and hiking in the summer. | |
| Richard Hum | 3/27/2011 7:55:14 AM |
| Multi-use trails are what make Anchorage livable for many people. Skijoring is a great way to get out and shake the winter humdrums. Please do all that you can to promote increased multi-use trail development... I know I sure do appreciate it when we come to town on business! Thank you, Have a wonderful day, Rich | |
| James Shore | 3/27/2011 7:25:44 AM |
| It is important to me and the community to support multiple- use trails including the sport of skijoring in this proposed plan. | |
| Bremnda Crim | 3/26/2011 11:07:32 PM |
| Please develop this trail for skiing/skijoring ! This is why I moved to Anchorage !! | |
| katherine faryniarz | 3/25/2011 8:22:18 AM |
| I totally support development of multi use trail in section 36 However in winter I think one loop should be wide for skiing and skijoring We need an area on this end of town | |
| Bud Rice | 3/25/2011 7:22:59 AM |
| Please assure new trails in the Section 36 recreational plan allow for multiple uses in witner to include skijoring, skiing, snowshoeing, etc. Numerous members of the Anchorage Skijor Club live on the southside of town and want a convenient place to exercise and train their skijor dogs. Thanks, Bud Rice President, Anchorage Skijor Club | |
| John Isby | 3/24/2011 10:18:58 PM |
| This area is large enough to be able to accommodate at least one dedicated ski loop trail. It would be a shame to have this large a chunk of land with such varied topography this close to Goldenview Middle School and South Anchorage High School and for the ski teams not to be able to use it for training after school. | |
| Richard Mize | 3/23/2011 10:28:53 AM |
| March 23, 2011 TO: MOA Planning Department FROM: Richard Mize – 345-1913 – 6500 East 156th Avenue, Anchorage, AK SUBJECT: Comments on Section 36 Draft Master Plan – PZC #2011-019 I am pleased to see that the plan calls for a variety of trails to be included. However, I do have concerns that they are all labeled as Multi-use trails. Mountain bike trails differ from cross country ski trails in both design and construction and should have experts in each area coordinate efforts in the final trail design. The Mountain Bike Club, under the direction of Janice Tower, has set an excellent example at Hillside and Kincaid Park in melding mountain bike trails with cross country trails. It should be clearly understood that the placement of the multi-use trails on Figure 5-4: Section 36, are conceptual only. We will continue to experience tremendous growth in winter biking and cross country skiing in the future. By having all user groups use the same trails you will not be able to maintain safety standards and the trails will not be sustainable. Speaking from experience in helping with the design and construction of the current cross country ski trails in Anchorage, Class 3 trails – 10’ wide – are not sustainable for both classical and freestyle skiing. Sections of the Spencer Loop are good examples of classical tracks that are destroyed unintentionally in a very short time by the freestyle skiers. The cross country ski trails should be constructed from the beginning to accommodate lighting and both classic and freestyle techniques. It is neither cost effective nor desirable to reconstruct trails after they have been constructed. Both special-use and multi-use trails should be included in the plan. Lighting will be essential in the future. With the new LED lighting used by the MOA, the light pollution should be minimal. In planning for the future, a warming facility with restrooms should be included in the plan. It will serve multiple groups throughout the year. The parking issue needs to be addressed so adequate parking is available without having to cross Clark’s Road. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Section 36 Master Plan. | |
| Win Beach | 2/22/2011 11:15:56 PM |
| Concept #2 that is said to be the preferred concept is very limiting for a park of this size, plus the fact that it is to serve as a community park. The vision that this concept provides is VERY limited. It does not foresee the use that this park might get as SE Anchorage's undeveloped areas grow. P/Z would be doing the city a service to recommend more flexibility for specific use trails such as ski only on the north with low level lighting and a warm up hut, biking/hiking on the south (north of Clarks' Rd) and multi-use for trails that would extend east from Storck Park's parking lot. It is very expensive to re-open a master plan and this one should be passed to accommodate the needs of the growing city and active population for many yrs. As it is now, it is far too narrow. There is a bias against providing safe ski trails where the Goldenview and South schools can have their teams practice without having to dodge dogs and horses. Please note that the Hilltop trail system is not able to absorb the numerous school teams who practice each winter day there and in fact it is reported that the Jr Nordic program is turning away children from their program at Hilltop/Service due to lack of space. If it is one thing we do not want to do, it is to turn away any child who could become an active, healthy adult. Starting children out young to be active in our climate is a big step towards reducing childhood obesity. Please pass this master plan with more flexibility that it now recommends so it will be useful for a few decades to come. If volunteers are expected to construct this park, they should know they will be working on something that will serve the wider community, safely, and with a trail system that will serve specific users, well. | |