The meeting was held, the city presented its proposed plan to renovate the park to the commission. Representatives of the APC spoke in favor of including findings with the decision that would recognize the relationship between the park and the parking/access and the history of that relationship. Dave Smoker spoke of dealing with this very issue 30 years ago when he was president of the club and the current parking situation being the the agreed result of that series of meetings.  
The way the system works, the city presents it’s side, we respond with our side, then they get a final rebuttal. After that, testimony is closed and the commission decides.  
During their final rebuttal, city staff, including a representative of city legal department, presented new information, their contention that it would be improper for the LUCC to consider our proposed findings. We were unable to challenge that, though we believe the law is on our side. 
The LUCC did not include our findings. The point of these findings is to insure that we have constructive access to the multi-use area. Without that, the city may refuse us access by refusing to provide a key to the bollard(s).  
We have filed an appeal with the city. This appeal appeals the decision of the LUCC to the city council. The reasons for the appeal are specifically that the process itself was flawed by allowing the city to present new information during their “rebuttal” time while not allowing the APC the opportunity to respond.  
We are in contact with the city parks department and will be meeting with them early in January 2015. The hope is that we can reach a written agreement that satisfies both the parks department and the APC so that the appeal of the LUCC decision to the council may be withdrawn.  

Pin It on Pinterest