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. | |
|---|---|
| Lisa McGuire | 4/18/2022 7:03:09 PM |
| As a Russian Jack neighborhood resident, member of the Community Council, RJ Park Master Plan Committee and long time daily Russian Jack Park user, I want to express full support for the newly revised Master Plan and the inclusive and thorough process that went into the development of this plan. We have been working on this plan for nearly 5 years with ample opportunity for community involvement and comment throughout this time period. In a world full of challenges that prevent forward progress of any kind, it was a minor miracle that this plan came to completion. Parks and trails have a significant impact on the health of residents in the surrounding areas. As such, I am in full support of the recently updated Russian Jack Master Plan to further our shared vision of an improved and healthier community of Anchorage. | |
| Bruce | 4/18/2022 4:20:02 PM |
| I live on Glacier St a block and a half south of RJ Park and have lived here for 14 years. This street from Northern Lights to the park gets used a lot by kids hence the speed bumps which were long over due. Any development by the city that increases traffic up this street would be a disaster in my view. The neighborhood isn’t designed for it. Also, Parks and Rec can barely keep up with all the trash that gets dumped in the park as it is and, if you haven’t all ready noticed, the street is breaking up on the southern part of the park by the ponds adding more traffic would only exacerbate these problems. B. Elgin | |
| mgrober | 4/18/2022 11:26:58 AM |
| FYI: Steve Cleary and Alaska Trails were the folks whose project for single track in RKSP was taken up by Parks and Rec and then killed by DNR because it was such a shambles. Material submitted to DNR by the public showed that the project had a fraudulent Environmental Impact Report and was intended to adversely impact protected wetlands In other words, you really can’t trust anyone who is supportive of the plan because they in fact have a history of dubious conduct with respect to this park. If you wish to inquire of myself and others about the “real” park history then you need to schedule a further meeting where we are invited as your witnesses. | |
| T. Nott | 4/18/2022 11:17:26 AM |
| Pushed through by a contractor during a pendency when public involvement was life threatening and promoted on the basis of a committee that was hand-picked by Rafuse but still could not be bothered to meet for months and months at a time One member even thought that a municipal golf course had not been built yet, and Rafuse (who seems to get very angry when he doesn’t get what he wants) did not correct her! I don’t think you want to be known as just another rubber stamp, intent on ignoring community councils, and public concerns. Don’t approve this plan and send it back to the parks people with directions that they should go back and listen to the community council. | |
| Marc Grober | 4/17/2022 6:28:08 PM |
| The Park, used by thousands, was based on the comments of a few handful of people, in no small part because the drafting process DID NOT involve the community. Had it involved the community the contractor may have populated the plan with information about the orchard in the park (completely missing, apparently because the contractor never communicated with anyone in Horticulture). It might have spent more than a paragraph mentioning the 2012 wind storm (but the contractor never spoke to the MOA arborist nor sought any real plan for addressing the thousands of trees still down in the park). It might have actually included the management documents prepared at my request for use with planning for the park by ADFG and F&WP in 2018 (when P&R attempted to promote a project that would have run trails through protected wetlands without regard for the wildlife present), but the contractor never obtained or referenced any documentation about wildlife management and simply muttered a half accurate listing of wildlife in the park without planning for management at all. It might have fully addressed the fact that Park trails have become transportation thoroughfares focusing as much on commuters, shoppers, and the like as recreators and the fact that the park is a critical nexus for no less than FIVE regional trails systems, but as with the NMP, the contractor had no interest in talking to anyone about such issues. The "plan" was always intended to be a shallow "visioning" document which in fact gave P&R carte blanche, NOT a master plan guiding future management of the park, and in fact P&R have NEVER acted to accomplish any goals set out in the first and only adopted Master Plan, the one adopted in 1979, whose guidelines have been studiously rejected by Parks and Rec for over 50 years! | |
| Robert Kapke | 4/15/2022 10:51:13 PM |
| I live in the first home outside the tunnel in Nunaka Valley . I have never received notice of any meetings regarding changes to south Russian Jack Park . This park , both north and south could be an amazing asset to east anchorage. Unfortunately no one east of Boniface has safe access to the north end of the park . The bike trails within the both sides of the park are unsafe and in need of repair . The most unfortunate aspect of the park is personal safety . In recent years the Municipality has ignored illegal activities inside the park . All the new items proposed for the parks are a waste if user’s don’t feel safe . | |
| Marc Grober | 4/13/2022 1:15:54 PM |
| The Staff Report prepared by Karlie Gedig and signed by Craig Lyon indicates at page 8 that the Northeast Community Council recommended approval of the Master Plan. This is absolutely false. The NECC made it very clear TWICE that it would not recommend approval of the plan because it was grossly inadequate and recommended that the plan be returned to P&R for community review and amendment (in as much as Parks and Rec refused to collaborate with the NECC with regard to its contents, refused to seat NECC designates to the CAC - despite claims by Rafuse to the contrary), whereupon it could then be resubmitted to the Park Commission for reconsideration and ONLY THEN considered by the PZC, I personally called Planning to speak to Ms. Gedig (as did others) and asked her to advise ASAP as to whether she intended to correct the staff report or whether community members would be forced to testify that the report was apparently an intentional misrepresentation of the NECC's position. The report contains additional misrepresentations, including the descriptions of the actions of other community councils and the claim that notices were mailed to property owners pursuant to AMC 21.03.020H | |
| Marc Grober | 4/13/2022 1:03:27 PM |
| I have polled property owners within 500 feet of the park boundary and can confirm that notice WAS NOT mailed out to every property owner of land within 500 feet of the Park boundary. I can also state without risk of contradiction that notice was not posted that was visible from each developed right-of-way adjacent to the property. Based upon the above I am led to believe that other mailing requirements may not have been met. I advised Planning staff that I had documented previous occasions upon which Parks and Rec contractors responsible for notice had failed to actually mail notice required but had billed P&R as if they had. I have asked for any kind of documentation from P&R (such as an affidavit) reflecting P&R's claim that notice was properly mailed and published but have yet to receive anything. | |
| Nicholas Abugel | 4/13/2022 10:56:21 AM |
| The Public Transportation Department would like to maintain the current stops as they are. | |
| Northeast Community Council | 4/1/2022 9:51:23 PM |
| Access to North Russian Jack Spring Park across Boniface Parkway Whereas, the Northeast Community Council recognizes the good faith effort that Parks and Recreation put into the Russian Jack Springs Park Draft Master Plan and the effort that was put into the Non Motorized Plan. Whereas, there is a very popular tunnel under Boniface Parkway connecting the neighborhood of Nunaka Valley, south of Debarr Road, to Russian Jack Springs Park, thus offering excellent uninterrupted access to Russian Jack Springs Park, but no such access exist for the more heavily populated neighborhood(s) north of Debarr Road. Whereas, after having two NECC Parks and Trails Meetings on the RJSP Draft Master Plan, talking with some residents and property owners in the neighborhood north of Debarr Rd. and East of Boniface Parkway, it is clear that there is an interest in having said tunnel or overpass to offer uninterrupted access to Russian Jack Springs Park possibly connecting Ira Walker Park and the general area by uninterrupted multiuse trail to Russian Jack Springs Park South of Mayflower Circle Mobile Home Park, as well as series of other actions as collected by the Committee and appended as Appendix A Whereas, not having the RJSP Draft Master Plan or the Non Motorized Plan recognize the possibility of having a tunnel or bridge crossing Boniface north of Debarr may result in plans being made and or projects being completed that may have to be redone when said tunnel or overpass becomes reality adding unnecessary cost to the community. And having projects already included in the RJSP Draft Master Plan giving more access to the park to people that already have comparatively good access while turning a blind eye to the neighborhood in question that does not have good access. Whereas, Where as there seems to be no evidence in memory of the residents in the area in question of being informed of the Russian Jack Springs Park Master Plan Effort or their opportunity to take part, or that tunnels (under Debarr Road or Boniface Parkway) and or an overpass would or could be included in the plan. Whereas, Where as it is clear that since the Russian Jack Springs Park Draft Master Plan currently includes a second new tunnel under Debarr Road but does not even mention the potential for a tunnel or overpass connecting the neighborhoods north of Debarr and east of Boniface, that the folks that took part in the process where from neighborhoods that already had reasonable access to the park and not from the Northeast Community Council neighborhood north of Debarr that has limited access. In short it is much easier to cross Pine Street than Boniface Parkway and it is much easier to cross through the tunnel from Nunaka Valley than to cross Boniface on a crosswalk. The reality of these facts made it less likely that the neighborhood in question would know to take part in the public process since they have a limited history of using the park. Whereas, the neighborhood north of Debarr and East of Boniface includes both mobile home parks and single family residences, the long term outlook is that the population density will only go up as mobile home parks transition to condo associations or high rises. The sooner we get the Boniface North tunnel or overpass and trail system up and running the better. Now Therefore be it resolved, that The Northeast Community Council again requests the Planning and Zoning Commission return the Russian Jack Springs Park Draft Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Department through the Parks Commission for public review of the draft plan prior to any review of same by the Parks Commission for the above stated reasons and others. Date: March 17, 2022 Votes for: 6. Votes Against: 2 Abstain: 5 Motion Passes | |
| Northeast Community Council | 4/1/2022 9:49:56 PM |
| Resolution regarding Parks Commission Actions Whereas, municipal ordinance provides that community councils shall have an opportunity to participate in the formulation of, and to review and comment upon, all land use, social and economic proposals which will have a significant impact on district residents and timely notice with regard to the processing, hearing, and appeal of matters is supplemental to other code-required notice to community councils, and Whereas, the NECC bylaws specifically undertake the rights and responsibilities with respect to such matters per Article V of said bylaws, and Whereas, municipal ordinance specifically provide the NECC with oversight responsibilities regarding RJSP in as much as the park is a regional facility within 1000 feet of the council boundary, and Whereas, MOA Parks and Recreation never presented the draft RJSP Master Plan for Council review, never corresponded with the council (which is to take place through the President of the Council), never requested Council response to the draft, and never formally considered the positions taken by the Council with respect to the park, and Whereas, the first notice that the NECC Board had of the publication of the draft plan was on or about November 1, 2021, and Whereas, MOA Parks and Rec. refused to honor requests from the Council’s Board, the Council’s Committees, and numerous members of the public requesting that the plan not be presented for approval by the Parks and Rec Commission until it has undergone a full public comment period of at least two months, and Whereas, the Parks and Recreation Commission presented with requests to delay consideration by the Board of the NECC, by the NECC Parks and Trail Committee, and by members of the public in order to accommodate adequate public comment and P&R response to the draft during this period of pandemic, refused to accommodate those persons in any way shape or form, and Whereas, Parks and Rec have an extended history and continuing practice of ignoring the aforementioned obligations with respect to the NECC as has been repeatedly documented to the Assembly, resulting eventually in Federation of Community Council action, and Whereas, community councils are barred from acting except at a general council meeting properly noticed, and Whereas, the first opportunity for the NECC trails committee to meet subsequent to the publication of the draft was January 5, 2022, and it made it clear to P&R and to the PRC that it would be unable to complete its work on the draft in time to address P&R’s request to have the draft approved by the Commission, and Whereas, this is the first council meeting since the committee met and there was no council meeting in December, NECC meetings occuring the third Thursday of each month, and Whereas, the draft plan is 150 pages and containing hundreds of unaddressed issues, and Whereas, in the matter of the draft RJSP has ignored the existing adopted resolutions of the NECC with regard to RJSP. Now therefore the council resolves, that it categorically rejects the actions of the Parks Commission as contrary to current ordinance in that it acted specifically to deny this community council an opportunity to be heard on the plan before adopting the plan, action contrary to both spirit and word of the Municipal Ordinances, and Be it further resolved that the council cannot endorse proposed any municipal plan absent the municipality complying with ordinance providing for the collaboration of this community council, especially where this council has specific park oversight, and Be it further resolved that the NECC request that the PRZ return the plan to the Parks Commission with instructions for the Parks to Commission to require that Parks and Rec create a public comment period, that it specifically collect and respond to comment for a period of no less than 90 days, whereupon P&R may resubmit the draft plan to the Parks Commission for consideration. Date: January 20, 2022 Votes for: 6 Votes Against: 2 Abstain: 2 Motion Passes | |
| Jakob | 3/21/2022 3:14:03 PM |
| Send the draft back to Parks and Rec for public review! Park Commission proceedings were a sham and the thousands of people using the park essentially excluded from participating because of shoddy management of the process. | |