Though it is difficult to tell anything from this hasty drawing provided to Neighborhood Groups in advance of the October 24th Audubon Commission meeting, the compromise plan ('Plan B'), devised by the Audubon Institute in response to the public's concerns is something of an improvement on the plan that they presented at the Public Meeting of October 15th.

The following are some thoughts that we have on this plan, and on how we got here

Clubhouse Location

The location of the new clubhouse has been changed. It will now be built on the edge of the parking area rather than in the Oak Grove. For many, this is a substantial improvement, since it eliminates construction in the Oak Grove, and also eliminates the need for a roadway into the Grove.

(At the Audubon Commission meeting, representatives from the Audubon Golf Club spoke in favor of the new location purely from a golfing perspective, noting that the new location eliminates the awkward additional drive upto the drop-off area and the return to the parking lot. As the new setup puts the clubhouse next to the parking this is an advantage not just for the users of the Oak Grove but for the users of the clubhouse too. We are too polite to note at this point, that an adequate process of public consultation by the Institute during the initial development of it's plans might have illuminated this crashingly obvious point somewhat sooner.)

Not discussed at the Commission meeting were any other alternatives for the clubhouse location. A recently renewed offer by the Audubon Golf Club to donate their existing building on Walnut Street was not raised. Critics of the Audubon Institute's planning and public-consultation procedures are left wondering why this option was never publicly discussed, and never became part of a range of options to be considered by the public and by the Commission.

Clubhouse Design

Some concesssions were made in Plan B with regard to the size of the kitchen and the layout of dining facilities to be constructed within the new clubhouse. Kitchen space has been reduced by around 50%, and the dining spaces have been reconfigured so that they cannot be used as one large contiguous area for large-scale banquets and other events.

These changes allay many of the fears of local residents that the Institute is planning a 'junior Tea Room' on this site. Nonetheless the redesign increases verandah space such that the overall size of the building has only been reduced by approximately 10%. The building still weighs-in at a wopping 7,800 square feet.

Parking

The new plan calls for the creation of an additional 51 parking spaces, bringing the total to 97. The previous version added 84 parking spots for a total of 130.

We are still wondering why a downsized clubhouse and reduced parking lot cannot be fitted onto the space currently occupied by the greenhouse buildings, which would save the Heymann Conservatory from demolition.

The existing clubhouse parking on Walnut St has 50 spaces yet occupies a much smaller area than that occupied by the Conservatory and greenhouses. Given that the new clubhouse is really between the parking area and the golfcourse, there would seem to be room for parking and clubhouse without needing the Conservatory's location.

Still not Happy

While the latest plan is undoubtedly an improvement on its predecessors, we still have some misgivings with regard some of the details. Even more so, we reject the Audubon Institute's methods for arriving at this design.

We would like to see the new clubhouse reduced in size.

Its location on the inside of the running track is still of concern to many. The Audubon Institute has still not explained why the old location on Walnut St was rejected.

Even if a Magazine St location were chosen, we believe the clubhouse should be built closer to Magazine St and further from the Oak Grove.

The demolition of the Heymann Conservatory is still part of the plan. We feel that some modifications to the clubhouse design and the parking requirements could save the Conservatory.

Given that the original plan by the Institute as presented on October 15th was so hugely inappropriate and the size, functionality and location of the clubhouse have been changed, isn't it appropriate for them to now present the modified plan for public approval? Instead, the old plan and the new revised plans were the only ones presented to the Commission for approval.

We demand that the Institute present its latest plan to the public.

The hasty progression from the outright silly (Plan A) to the merely half-baked (Plan B) suggests that there are many alternative configurations of clubhouse, cart-parking and parking-lot facilities that could be devised.

But for outspoken eleventh-hour opposition, the Institute would have gone ahead with its initial plan. In a short space of time they have come up with a substantially different layout, with different clubhouse dimensions and features and altered location. While we welcome the changes, we cannot help but notice that the Audubon Institute clearly needs the public's help, and we are more than willing to offer it.

Why then the ramming through of this hastily contrived compromise?

Why was the Commission only offered two alternatives, and one of these entirely unacceptable? Wouldn't this be a good time for other alternatives to be explored? If the Commission could vote unanimously, as they did, for Plan B, doesnt this indicate that the Audubon Institute which was championing Plan A until seven days ago might not actually have all the answers?

We believe that the genesis of the golf course development generally, and in this instance of the clubhouse and parking components, speak to serious issues of the accountability both of the Audubon Institute and of the Audubon Commission. We believe that the inadequate public input process embarked upon by these bodies, and the poor designs that have resulted indicate that significant changes are needed in the way in which these organizations operate. While disagreement over details in a development such as this are par for the course (so to speak), we believe that the public should play a more significant role in such plans in the future, rather than being forced to fight an eleventh-hour rearguard action against unacceptable encroachments on their own facilities.