Two Heritage Trees Slated for Cutting!!
PARD has obtained a permit to remove the large pecan #18 by the SW corner of the BSP bath house, approved 9.2.11 , and a second permit to prune 40% of the canopy of the tree next to it, #19. Both of these permits, approved by the City Arborist office, are to address safety issues to the public that according to PARD can’t be addressed in any other manner. (See permits pasted below.)
Please, email Mayor Leffingwell, city council, Sara Hensley, other PARD upper management, the BSP Joint Committee and other boards (see email addresses below) as soon as possible and ask that these 2 trees not be removed, or pruned significantly, until an independent tree inspection is done by Don Gardner. Please, ask that this issue be discussed at the next BSP Joint committee. These trees may be removed as soon as tomorrow, or on Thursday when the pool is closed!
lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us, Kathie.Tovo@ci.austin.tx.us, mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us, sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us, bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us, chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us, Laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us, Sara.Hensley@ci.austin.tx.us, kelly.snook@ci.austin.tx.us, Kimberly.McNeeley@ci.austin.tx.us, Cora.Wright@ci.austin.tx.us, Charles.Vaclavik@ci.austin.tx.us, Tom.Nelson@ci.austin.tx.us, Gary.Gregson@ci.austin.tx.us, Walter.Passmore@ci.austin.tx.us, Michael.Embesi@ci.austin.tx.us, shannon.halley@austintexas.gov, barbara.rush@ci.austin.tx.us, andrew.moore@ci.austin.tx.us, Robert.Levinski@austintexas.gov, heidi.gerbracht@ci.austin.tx.us, marc.ott@ci.austin.tx.us, Bert.lumbreras@ci.austin.tx.us, marygaymaxwell@sbcglobal.net, jennifermwalker@earthlink.net, lhg@grandecom.net, clee.parks@gmail.com, jerry.perales@gmail.com, maryannneely@me.com, pbrewer@bartlett.com, tdhayes3@gmail.com, wildewoode@yahoo.com, maceostudios@aol.com, nclassen@austin.rr.com, whabell@gmail.com, janehrivera@austin.rr.com, jfrancell@tnc.org, lynn.osgood@mail.utexas.edu,
Pasted below is what Don Gardner, consulting arborist, said about these 2 trees in 2009. I’m attaching his report (tree #18 included there) and his 06.16.09 letter after doing some root excavations (tree #19 included there):
- “#18 Pecan, NW bathhouse, risk rating not high enough for removal, no obvious structural flaws. Monitor. (provide) Tree health care.”
- “#19 Pecan, no evidence of decay in the lower trunk, root crown or roots. Needs care but not removing.”
These 2 trees were part of the 28 trees targeted for removal in 2009. Tree #18 is the large pecan that lost a large branch in July (see picture attached). When the branch fell down, AHTF obtained permission from PARD-Tom Nelson to water the trees by the bath house, following city water conservation guidelines. Since we started watering, no branches have fallen off and the trees look fine. As a side note, a large branch fell off a pecan by the Tree Court entrance to the pool in September, and that was because we hadn’t been watering the tree court due to the high traffic in that area. Once that occurred, AHTF watered the tree court every 3 weeks, and again, not a single branch has fallen since then.
These branches fell off because the trees were not getting any water in a time of severe drought. How can mature trees do well without any water in a time of severe drought that has lasted several years? Even established native trees need a little supplemental water in times of severe drought. In addition, the soil where these trees are is very compacted. A team that met on site in January agreed to soil aerate these trees. This team included Walter Passmore, forestry Manager (Tom Nelson, Gary Gregson, APF Charlie McCabe, and Zoila also attended). However, it took several weeks for APF to get permission from Forestry to do the soil aerations, and finally the aerations were delayed until fall due to the need to water the dripline for a year after this process. However, now due to the lack of water, all soil aerations have been put on hold by PARD.
Regardless of not having received the soil aerations, these trees have been doing well with regular watering. They have responded well and the canopies look fine. We (AHTF) are observant of the leaves, branches and canopy, and we water the trees when we see the need for water, about every 3 weeks now. We have spent many volunteer hours watering and caring for these trees.
The tree removal permit was obtained with a letter from Sara Hensley to the mayor and city council dated 08.02.11, based on the branch failure “compromising the tree’s structural integrity and balance”. It also asks for a permit to remove, or prune significantly, the tree next to #18, because based on the Davey’s Tree Report of 2009, removing tree #18 would necessitate removal or significant pruning of tree #19. The letter states that “both trees are a public safety hazard, and that no other treatment option is available to mitigate the public danger”.
I, [Zoila Marchena Vega, director of the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation] strongly disagree with this. This is the same situation we went through in 2009. The large branch fell off from tree #18 due to lack of watering and lack of maintenance that was promised 2 years ago by Forestry and never happened. These BSP heritage trees, even though they are irreplaceable, never get supplemental watering, except for the ones that AHTF has been providing. These trees also never get any care, not even adding compost or mulch. The extent of the care they received from Forestry is minor pruning in 2010. The AHTF has been mulching the BSP trees, a few at a time, trying to raise money, or find ways to get mulch and compost, without any support from Forestry, other than allowing us to do it.
Back in 2009, it became very evident to the community that the Davey’s report was faulty and highly inaccurate. Many certified arborists with good reputations stated that the Davey’s report was wrong. The scans shown are from an unreliable technology. The conclusions are not based on data, but are subjective. The city spent $57,000 on a faulty report to justify the removal of the 28 trees. Now, the same report is being used to justify the removal of these 2 trees that were in the list!
The City’s arborist office approved the removal of tree #18 based on the report submitted by Forestry. I hope that they did their own inspection. But I’m surprised and disappointed that the City Arborist did not tell the community. The permit for tree #19 is for 40% green canopy removal. The maximum canopy removal per year is 30%. Not much will be left of this tree when 40% of the canopy is removed.
A year ago, the Joint Committee asked PARD and Forestry to notify them before any BSP tree removal due to the controversy of 2009, where the community was outraged at the proposal to remove the 28 trees based on the Davey’s report. I’m assuming that the Joint Committee didn’t know since this tree removal was not discussed at the last Joint Committee meeting. AHTF adopted these BSP trees in 2010 and we have been watering them regularly since July, but we didn’t get notified of this removal. This is highly unacceptable and very disrespectful of volunteers, partners, and the community!
I was just looking at tree #18, and I don’t see the safety issue. This tree is not even showing signs of stress from the drought (since we have been watering it). Remember the way to calculate safety risk depends on 3 factors, one of them being the target. The risk can be reduced by removing the target, or pruning the tree so that if the branch falls down, it doesn’t hit anyone. The branches left of this tree are mostly over the soil island where the trees are. The long term plan is to soil aerate these trees and enclose the area with a fence, so people won’t be under the tree. This eliminates the safety issue. In addition, the traffic can be rerouted to the outer path, further eliminating any safety issue. There are other ways to reduce the safety risk of these trees than removing them or pruning them drastically! First of all, it should be recognized that the branches fell off due to lack of water, since no branches have fallen since the trees have been watered.
It’s almost like going back in time. Being a partner with PARD since 2010 for caring of these very same trees, I can’t believe that PARD would remove these 2 trees that mean so much to the community without letting us know, without letting us ask an independent arborist, all based on the opinion of the same Forestry department that wanted to remove these trees 2 years ago, and that has not provided any care for them since then (other than minor pruning).
This issue also seems to ignore the heritage tree ordinance, where if a 30 inch tree is to be pruned more than 30%, then the permit has to go through a public process. We discussed another instance of a case like this, a BSP tree, where in 2010 Forestry obtained an approved administrative permit to prune a 32 inch cottonwood by Eliza Springs more than 30%. The Urban Forestry board asked the City Arborist to correct this situation. I recall that it was agreed that cases like this have to go to the public process.
In addition, another tree, also among the list of the 28 trees list, was removed with a tree permit approved by the City Arborist last January. This was the 18 inch pecan tree in the south hill, behind the cottonwoods by the diving board. It was called the co-dependent tree, that was leaning on another pecan. This tree had “heaved”, meaning that the roots have given up on one side and allowed the tree to lean due to lack of support on the opposite side. This was reviewed by Don Gardner, during an on site visit for other reasons, who agreed that the tree was leaning more and needed to be removed. The removal of this tree is OK. However there are two problems. First, again the community and Joint Committee were NOT notified (to the extent of my knowledge), and second, the 18-20 inch pecan tree that this tree was leaning on was also removed. I have pictures of the other tree showing that it was in good health and of good shape. I didn’t notice that both trees were missing until the on site visit in August. Forestry said that the second tree was removed because “the tree had fallen”. I’m having a hard time believing this because the second tree was a healthy tree. I think that the wrong tree was removed. The permit was only for the leaning tree, not the healthy one that the tree was leaning on. The result is that the area is now bare of trees. Two young trees were planted in the area, again without consulting the community or Joint Committee (who has requested that nothing be planted in BSP without public review), but both young trees died in summer due to the drought and lack of watering. In addition, the invasives (ligustrums) were removed by the fence, so the entire area is a bare desert now, bare soil, no trees, other than the cotton woods, which are most likely next in the target list.
The proposed Forestry BSP Tree maintenance plan does NOT include applying compost or mulch to the 2 cottonwoods, or the elm up in the south hill because these trees are considered to be beyond saving by Forestry. The Forestry tree maintenance plan also does NOT include 3 large pecans in the north hill because they are in a slope that is “too steep” to hold mulch. However, this slope is not as steep as the south hill’s, and the Forestry plan is to mulch most of the south hill trees, regardless of the steeper slope.
The trees outside the north fence need care, they need commitment, and they need water. It is NOT OK to deprive heritage trees of water in a time of severe drought, to NOT give the trees outside the fence yearly compost and mulch, and then remove them when branches fall off. These are the trees that have extreme soil compaction. It’s because of this lack of care that the trees become safety issues! These are majestic trees that are very important to the entire community, these are the trees that motivated the BSP Master Plan, these are the trees that have a large amount of money allotted for their care. Why are they being removed? Why is the community not being notified of their impending removal? This is NOT acceptable. I thought we had worked painfully through these issues in 2009. Isn’t PARD supposed to be working with the community?
Is this Forestry’s idea of tree care, to deprive mature trees of water and mulch when they need it the most, while concentrating all efforts into mulching the trees inside the pool fence where the trees are doing well, except for the 2 cotton woods and the other few that will not get any mulch because they are not that well? But, that is exactly when trees need mulch the most, when they are not doing well.
Open House – New Habitat Conservation Plan
[ October 18, 2011; 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. ] The City of Austin is in the process of renewing our 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow for “incidental take” of the endangered Barton Springs Salamander. The current permit expires in 2013. The City must complete a new Habitat Conservation Plan by the end of 2011 to stay on schedule with the permit renewal and ensure continuous operation of Barton Springs.
The City is hosting an open house event at Barton Springs in the Splash Exhibit on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, from 5 to 8 pm. This free, come-and-go public event is an opportunity for anyone to learn more about the new Habitat Conservation Plan and provide feedback directly to City staff. Please share this informational flyer, which will be posted at multiple locations at Barton Springs, with anyone else who might be interested in attending: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/downloads/bss_meeting_flyer.pdf
You may email any questions about the permit renewal process to salamander@austintexas.gov. You may also visit our website for more information on the renewal process, http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/salamander_guidelines.htm. A draft of the conservation measures to be included in the new Habitat Conservation Plan will be available from this website in early October.
Sincerely,
Chris Herrington, PE
City of Austin
Watershed Protection Department
Please Attend the BSP Joint Committee Meeting
[ September 19, 2011; 6:15 pm to 8:30 pm. October 17, 2011; 6:15 pm to 8:30 pm. November 21, 2011; 6:15 pm to 8:30 pm. ] BSP Joint Committee (Parks and Recreation Dept, Environmental Board, and Forestry) is to be held the third Monday of every month at 6:15 pm. At these meetings, it makes important decisions regarding our beloved pool, trees and grounds. These are the meetings where the Master Plan projects are discussed, and where staff updates the committee and the public of the approved Master Plan Short term projects.
This note was added recently to the BSP Master Plan web site. Meeting notifications and previous presentations are posted in this web site, which is at the following link:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/bartonspringsmp.htm
Location:
301 W 2nd St
Austin, TX 78701
And details about this meeting may be found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bartonsprings/message/5061
You must be a member (it’s free to join and easy to unsubscribe) of this yahoogroup to access the message.
BSP Joint Commitee Meeting
[ July 18, 2011; 6:15 pm to 8:15 pm. ]
BSP JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING
JULY 18, 2011 – 6:15 PM, PARD ANNEX – 919 W 28 1/2 St., SHOAL CREEK ROOM
Agenda:
C. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION
The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.
D. BRIEFS (Briefs are informational items only, no public comment will be taken)
1. Backflow Prevention Project for Potable Water Lines John McKennis, PARD
2. Update on signs from Interpretive Plan Clark Hancock, PARD
3. Update on Tree Treatment
Please, attend this meeting. The remaining BSP Tree Maintenance will be presented by Emily King, PARD Forestry.
There is a balance of about $170K left in the BSP tree maintenance Short term project. Forestry is recommending soil aeration to 7 trees inside the gate in the north shore, 5 of them young, and including the younger pecan right next to the leaning tree. Forestry is also recommending soil aeration to 11 inside the gat in the south hill, and 8 trees right outside the gate in the south hill.
The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation disagrees with these recommendations. Some trees need to be soil aerated outside the BSP gates, but almost none inside the gates. In December-January, Don Garden probed the soil around several of the trees in the south hill and confirmed that those trees don’t need soil aeration. He recommended a simpler method of tree care that would be gentler on the tree and less disturbing to the public: Apply organic compost to the dripline regularly. In addition, some trees that need work (recommended by several arborists in 2009) were not included in the Forestry draft.
This Forestry’s proposed work inside the BSP gates seems to ignore a previous agreement reached last January in an on-site meeting. AHTF met with APF and several PARD staff, including Walter Passmore, Forestry Manager, last January 27, 2011 and agreed on 14 trees that needed soil aeration outside the BSP gates. I explained Don’s recommendations to the group, and we all agreed that most of the trees inside the gate didn’t need soil aeration, except for potentially some of the trees by the rock path for the gravel bar project that was about to start. We agreed that Forestry would measure soil compression by the trees that were by the rock path after the gravel bar project was completed to determine if any of those trees by the path would need soil aeration because of excessive soil compression caused by the crane and trucks travels during the gravel bar project.
The 14 trees that the group agreed (in January) would get soil aeration were 7 trees outside the gate, close to the bathhouse. One of them is the tree from which a large branch felt down a few weeks ago. The work for the trees in that flower bed has been on hold for 2 years, waiting for the design of a fence to prevent the public from entering the area, as is required after soil aeration. It was my understanding that the soil aeration for these 7 trees was already approved by PARD, and APF and AHTF had agreed to delay the start of the soil aeration to fall when it’s cooler and better for the trees. However, these trees aren’t included in the tree work draft proposed by Forestry. Soil aeration was also approved back then for the 7 large pecans right by the south fence.
Soil aeration is the gentler process to aerate roots of established trees. However, soil aeration is NOT a benign process, and should be done only when absolutely necessary. This process doesn’t damage the larger roots, but does break the many smaller feeder roots that are critical to provide nutrients, oxygen and water to the tree. The idea is to revitalize the tree by providing a rich and loose soil environment for new feeder roots to grow, so that even though many feeder roots were damaged during the process, if the process is done correctly, more feeder roots will grow. However, the process is very dependent on many items that have to be done correctly. Otherwise, the process will actually stress the tree more, even to the point of causing its death. For instance, the soil aerated tree needs to be watered regularly for 6-12 months after the process, and sufficient water needs to be applied to keep the soil moist. Otherwise, the new feeder roots will dry up and die, leaving the tree with an insufficient amount of feeder roots to absorb nutrients, oxygen, and water.
It is critical that the process be done correctly, by an experienced contractor, that a sufficient amount of organic compost be incorporated deeply into the soil and that the soil aeration be done deeply, mixing the compost and aerating the soil well, not in the top 2 inches of soil, but into 8-12 inches of soil, as deeply as possible. It is also paramount that as much of the dripline be soil aerated to give the roots a loose soil to grow into, that the aerated soil be kept moist for 6-12 months (1 inch of water every 2-3 weeks), and that the aerated soil be prevented from being re-compacted by installing a fence surrounding the entire aerated areas for at least 1 year.
Providing the water required after soil aeration to all of these trees in the north and south hills can not be accomplished. Water trucks may roll down the hill, and if this is not an issue, their weight will compact the soil for the other trees in the hills. Fencing all of these trees for 1 year will reduce the amount of space available for the public. Compromises can not me made regarding fencing out the area. If people are allowed to use the soil aerated area a few months after the soil aeration, the soil will re-compact. The soil doesn’t bounce back after being compacted. All it takes is a few people walking on the dripline and the soil aeration effort would be wasted. The new feeder roots need time to grow in the loose soil, and for this to happen, the loose soil needs to be fenced out during that time.
There is a much simpler alternative to soil aeration in this situation, since most of those trees don’t have an excessive amount of soil compaction because they have been receiving some water due to the grass irrigation. The simpler solution that will help the trees, slower but with much less disturbance to the tree and public, is to apply organic compost regularly to the entire dripline area. The 2 cottonwoods by the diving board may need soil aeration.
Best,
Zoila
Speak Up Austin Swimmers
The City of Austin has launched a new online service to enhance community engagement and provide a forum for residents to offer suggestions on how to improve the way the City does business.
The new Web portal, www.speakupaustin.org, is a moderated online discussion forum where residents can offer ideas and comment or vote on the ideas provided by others. The website enables users to contribute ideas on any subject, by answering the question, “How can you make it better?”
Users can suggest a new service, a service improvement, a policy change or other recommendation. It also invites users to visit subject-specific forums on topics the City is currently exploring.
The Communications and Public Information Office will provide oversight to ensure comments remain civil, as would a facilitator at an in-person meeting.
Please distribute this information to the members of your organization and encourage them to log on and participate!
PARD Private Gain on Public Property Meeting
[ October 4, 2010; 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. ] The Parks and Recreation Department will hold a public meeting on October 4th from 6pm – 8pm at the Mexican American Cultural Center, 600 River Street, Austin, TX 78701 to provide information and get public input about the commercial use of City parkland.
The Austin Parks and Recreation Department is experiencing an increase in unauthorized and unregulated commercial usage of dedicated parkland. This discussion will be part of a comprehensive look by the department to revise its management practices to provide the best use of parks and facilities to ensure access for individuals or groups.
At the meeting, department officials will discuss what other major cities are doing as they face the same issue of a boon in private businesses using parkland.
The department has observed a growing demand for use of City parklands by a variety of private commercial entities: Swim, Yoga, Martial Arts instructors, personal fitness trainers, triathlon trainers, dog trainers, paddle boarding and other vendors etc.
In order to more efficiently and effectively manage the commercial use of parkland, the department will designate certain recommended park sites for this purpose. Geographic access has been determined and Special Needs access in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been ensured by the Park Manager of the recommended park sites.
Temporary concession permits will be issued to vendors for commercial use of dedicated parkland such as the recommended district or metropolitan parks, unless another activity or rental is in place. The temporary concession permit fees assessed will be as follows:
Neighborhood Parks/Other parkland – $500 for 6 months
District/Metropolitan Park – $1500 for 6 months
Definitions
Neighborhood Parks traditionally have been the backbone of Austin’s park system. These popular parks typically provide basic recreation opportunities close to home. Neighborhood parks usually range from two to 30 acres.
District Parks are larger then neighborhood parks and are more highly developed to serve the needs of neighborhoods within their two-mile areas. District parks range from 31 to 200 acres in size and are usually located on minor arterial roadways to encourage access by public transit, as well as other means.
Metropolitan Parks
The department’s largest standard park type provides the greatest diversity of recreational experiences. They are usually over 200 acres in size and are preferably located on major waterways and roadways, although access is encouraged by all means. Metropolitan parks typically include trails, open playfields, picnic facilities, swimming pools or swimming areas along natural waterway as well as active and passive recreation opportunities.
More information about the definitions of parks can be found in the department’s Long Range Plan document in chapter 2.
Regulations
Permit for Park use:
(A) Except as provided in Chapter 8-5, Article 3 (Recreational Activities), the director may require and issue a permit to allow a person:
(1) to reserve or temporarily use a public recreation area; or… area § 8-1-12
Park Rule – Vending 1.06
A. Persons shall not conduct the commercial sale or offer to sell any goods, wares, drinks, food or items nor render or offer to render any service for hire, at any park, wildlife preserve or facility except as authorized by contract, or permit properly issued by the Parks and Recreation Department.
B. Persons conducting charitable solicitations shall have complied with the requirements of Chapter 8-5 of the City Code.
Town Lake Concessions:
If authorized by the director, a person may operate a food or beverage, rental, or service concession in Town Lake Park.
Source: 1992 Code Section 11-3-1; Ord. 031009-11; Ord. 031211-11.
Goals – To Receive Stakeholder and Park user Input on How to:
Optimize public access, use and enjoyment of our park system by all users
Reasonably accommodate the growing demand for organized privately-run outdoor vendors
Designate appropriate and desirable vendor spaces (“vendor zones) throughout our park system that includes natural or built characteristics that are compatible with the “vendor use-type”
Implement operational controls and program enforcement that promote park user safety and compliance with applicable ordinances and park rules
Provide sufficient public education, concession monitoring, and program enforcement to minimize user-conflicts and optimize public access and enjoyment for all park users
Optimally maintain, preserve and protect parkland for generations to come
Recommended Park Sites:
For public safety considerations, each recommended park site will provide a designated area for commercial vendor use which will be conflict from the traditional park user areas. Most of the district or metropolitan parks can accommodate more than one vendor park user; however this will be determined by the Park Manager upon review of each permit application.
Balcones District Park
Bartholomew District Park
Bauerle Ranch Metropolitan Park
Beverly S. Sheffield Northwest District Park
Bull Creek District Park
Circle C. Ranch Metropolitan Park on Slaughter Creek
Commons Ford Metropolitan Park
Davis-White Northeast District Park
Dick Nichols District Park
Dove Springs District Park
Emma Long Metropolitan Park
Garrison District Park
Givens District Park
John Trevino Jr. at Morrison Ranch Metropolitan Park
Mabel Davis District Park
Mary Moore Searight Metropolitan Park
Metz Park
Onion Creek Metropolitan Park
Pease District Park
Sir Svante Palm Park
Town Lake Metropolitan Park – E.R. Senior at Festival Beach
Town Lake Metropolitan Park – Lakeshore
Town Lake Metropolitan Park – Longhorn Shores
Walnut Creek Metropolitan Park
Walter E. Long Metropolitan Park
Zilker Metropolitan Park
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Why is the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) implementing this process?
A. PARD values fitness and enjoyment of outdoor recreation areas. The department has an established concession program process in place for the permitting of park use for mutually beneficial commercial purposes. The goal is to promote and coordinate successful partnerships with commercial entities and public park users, and to ensure the safety of park patrons.
Q. My work colleague and I get together sometimes to work out in the park or go for a jog, will I have to get a permit?
A. No, the process will be required when fees are collected, or when business is conducted on park property. You may still utilize park space first come first served in a shared manner.
Q. My friends and I meet occasionally to walk and we bring our toddlers in strollers, will we need a permit?
A. No, the process will be required when fees are collected, or when business is conducted on park property. You may still utilize park space first come first served in a shared manner.
Q. What will the permitting process entail?
A. The department has pre-identified over 25 sites for city wide permitting in an effort to create a citywide structure that enables and promotes fitness and health business opportunities system wide.
Apply for a permit and request an available site, and
Provide the required liability insurance, and
Upon approval, pay the required permit fee.
Q. What are the approved permit fees? *
A. Neighborhood and other park spaces – $500 for 6 months
District or Metropolitan Parks – $1500 for 6 months
* NOTE: These fees are the approved concession and permit fees which all other permitted concessions on park land have paid to establish and permit their activities in the park.
Q. I have been using park land to conduct business activities, do I need a permit?
A. Yes.
Examples include: fitness camps, running groups, boot camps, martial arts classes, canoe or kayak lessons, stand-up paddling seminars or demonstrations, yoga classes, and dog training seminars.
Q. I’m organizing a group activity for my club/organization, but am not collecting any money for this activity. I do, however, plan to show up in an area, use it quite exclusively, and perhaps have a radio or amplified sound on site. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, all organized events must make a reservation and require permission to utilize park land.
Amplified sound by Code requires a sound permit.
In addition, without contacting the Parks and Recreation Department, activities may already be booked and permitted on the site in question.
Q. What are some of the Park Rules and permits that I need to be aware of?
A. Examples:
Glass and Styrofoam are prohibited in all parks.
Sound Permits are required for all amplified sound
Park curfew is 10 pm.
The hike and bike trail system are not a useable site for organized events or activities.
It is illegal to drive on non-designated or un-paved vehicular areas without a permit, including motorcycles, scooters and devices such as Segways.
For more information on Park Rules, see this web page
Q. What are some examples of potential public safety hazards on dedicated parkland?
A. Examples:
Blocking of sidewalks, trails and passageways from public use, and blocking ADA access areas.
Conducting primary business operations from public parkland. Examples: setting up business registration operations.
Conducting auxiliary business operations from public parkland.
Examples: selling food, water, and other products to the public.
Loud and/or un-permitted music in a public park.
Utilization of unsafe and park damaging equipment on dedicated parkland.
Conducting or performing such unsafe practices such as:
Swinging or pushing of large tractor tires over park grounds.
Use of railings, trees and plumbing fixtures to anchor resistance bands.
Up righting and relocating public picnic tables for use in activities.
Dragging commercial ship mooring ropes for long distances for resistance training purposes.
Utilization of tennis and basketball courts for setting up obstacle courses.
Q. I’m a park user and want to ensure my fitness activities are being conducted by a permitted vendor. How will I know if a vendor has been permitted?
A. All permitted vendors will be issued a permit they must carry on parkland. This also ensures that your park permit fees help offset the cost of park maintenance and upkeep by commercial users.
Why Pool is Being Closing Extra Early Thurs Aug 12
The following exchange between Peter Steinhardt, a BSP swimmer and Tom Nelson, head of the Aquatics Dept for Austin’s Parks and Recreation Department follows. Please read bottom up for correct chronology and to learn about the money interest that will be announced at the press conference on Thursday.
From: Nelson, Tom [tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Peter Steinhardt
Cc: McNeeley, Kimberly
Subject: RE: safety signsI understand your concerns. However, the company performing the testing will be brining in equipment that morning. We want to make sure that they have unimpeded space to mobilize the equipment. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but we will resume with our regular schedule for the next Thursday clean. Have a great day.
Tom Nelson
Division Manager, Aquatics & South District
City of Austin, Parks and Recreation
(512) 974-9337
tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot usFrom: Peter Steinhardt [peter at steinhardt dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Nelson, Tom
Subject: RE: safety signsTom,
Is there a safety factor that affects swimmers that does not affect press conferences regarding the rock anchor testing? My curiosity is active.. what is the deal about preparing for the rock anchor testing that would not allow swimming for the regular schedule?
P
Peter Steinhardt
Steinhardt & co
4518 Apache Pass
Austin, Texas 78745From: Nelson, Tom [tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Peter Steinhardt Cc: McNeeley, Kimberly
Subject: RE: safety signsIt is also to facilitate the rock anchor testing as well.
Division Manager, Aquatics & South District
City of Austin, Parks and Recreation
(512) 974-9337
tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot usFrom: Peter Steinhardt [peter at steinhardt dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Nelson, Tom
Subject: RE: safety signsTom,
Thanks for the info.. but why close the use of the pool an hour early… it would make no difference to the press conference but a big difference to the public who use it everyday.. especially on Thursdays??
p
Peter Steinhardt
Steinhardt & co
4518 Apache Pass
Austin, Texas 78745From: Nelson, Tom [tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Peter Steinhardt
Cc: McNeeley, Kimberly
Subject: RE: safety signsPeter
Thank you for your email. We are closing the pool an hour early to facilitate both the council clean and to allow for setting up equipment for the rock anchor testing that will also occur on Thursday. We are excited to be able to continue the testing on the bypass in order to develop the most appropriate repair. During the event, Senator Kirk Watson will be presenting a check to the Friends of Barton Springs that will be utilized for the repair of the inlet grate on the bypass. These funds will be held by Austin Parks Foundation. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks
Division Manager, Aquatics & South District
City of Austin, Parks and Recreation
(512) 974-9337
tom dot nelson at ci dot austin dot tx dot usFrom: Peter Steinhardt [peter at steinhardt dot us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:53 AM
To: McNeeley, Kimberly
Cc: Hensley, Sara
Subject: safety signsKimberly,
Good morning.. As I was entering the pool today I saw a group of school children (Hates School District) who had come to swim with their coach. Just as I entered I saw 3 kids and the coach standing on the “RED Painted Stripe” ( the one we talked about not having any lettering), they were moving over from where the “no diving” sign was to the red bar to jump into the pool. I called to them to stop, just as another regular swimmer rushed up to them to stop them and to point out the submerged pipe. We stopped them and they were glad we did. It was obvious at that time that they had read the no diving but did not understand the “red bar” as meaning even more dangerous. And a question… why are we closing the pool an hour early on Thursday when it is already a short day and the pool is so busy in the morning? It seems to me the press conference could wait an hour until the normal use of the pool is complete. Many of the swimmers were taking notice of the announcement today and expressed irritation with the situation. Why not just move the press conference to the 9:am pool closing time? And another… Are you aware that Senator Watson is giving the FBSP/City money for the “bypass”? Where is this money from? Will the money go to PARD or Watershed?
Thanks for your attention
Peter
Peter Steinhardt
Steinhardt & co
4518 Apache Pass
Austin, Texas 78745
PARD Board Meeting about Charging at 8am BSP
[ July 27, 2010; 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm. ] PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 – 6:00 p.m.
Boards and Commissions Room, Conference Room 1101, City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street
3. Action Item Make a recommendation to the Director regarding morning charging
hours at Barton Springs Pool for fiscal year 2011
Location: 2201 Barton Springs Road
Request: To begin charging a fee at Barton Springs pool beginning at 8:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m.
Committee Recommendation: N/A
Staff: Jodi Jay:jody.jay@ci.austin.tx.us and Tom Nelson: tom.nelson@ci.austin.tx.us
PARKS BOARD MEMBERS
Linda H. Guerrero, Chair
Sara Hatfield Marler
Hill Abell
Carol Lee
Jeff Francell
Jane Rivera
Jerry Perales
City Council’s Laura Morrison Reveals Likely Changes to Free Swim
Austin’s City Council Place 4, our very own regular swimmer shared this news:
Hello All –
I’ve been following the free swim discussion with interest, since I’ve seen it offer real benefit in many ways. As I understand it, PARD will be proposing the following:
Morning –
currently 5-9am free swim, they clear out pool at 9 and charge.
proposed change – 5-8am free swim, will start charging at 8, but will not clear pool, so if already there will not be charged to stay (starting March 2011)
Evening – no changes to free swim
PARD is hoping to get this to the Parks & Rec Board soon, perhaps this month.
Laura
Laura Morrison
Austin City Council, Place 4
512-974-2258
512-974-1886 (Fax)
Laura.Morrison@ci.austin.tx.us
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/morrison.htm
ADA Access Not Needed on South Side – Per 1987 Study
In 2007 Fahad Amani of PARD commissioned a study by an expert, John N McGovern of EMC2 Playgrounds and Accessibility. The conclusion was that a second path on the south side was not necessary and specific recommendations were made including waiving the parking fee for people with disabilities and providing two water wheel chairs in the office.
Download the .pdf that contains the full report on
ADA requirements for Barton Springs Pool.
Barton Springs Weather
