04/28/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e was a survey of parks infrastructure and recreation facilities. He read por- tions of the document (page Cl), stating that it "is not a parks and recrea- tion plan for the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area, . . . is not a detailed technical report of park and recreation facilities in the metropoli- tan area." He al so read from page C5: "Presently there are no local stan- dards for determining further demand for park and recreation facilities in the metropolitan area. . .. Private recreational developments meet some of the demand for recreational areas, particularly in the intensely developed urban areas. . .. (Item 11) A comprehensive park, recreation, and open space plan for all jurisdictions and population centers in Lane County is essential to accurately determine the overall parks and recreation needs; none is avail- able." Mr. Urquhart said the section on Special Recreation Facilities stated that, based on National Recreation and Parks Administration standards, the metropol- itan area lacked an adequate number of swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, and other recreational facilities such as ball fields, which he noted were being developed in the north campus area. He said a section dealing with the University of Oregon stated that new facilities were planned over time and were intended to meet the needs of various University departments. Mr. Urquhart said the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which had been added as a supplemental finding and had not been sent to LUBA, stated that its main purpose was to develop guides and recommendations that the Eugene Parks and Recreation District could use to provide parks and recreational services and facilities for the next 20 years, but it was not an inventory. He said a matrix listed an inventory, which included University sports facilities, but it nowhere identified that those were the only considerations. Mr. Urquhart said he felt the staff conclusion was not justified. Nena Lovinger, 1445 East 21st Avenue, spoke in support of preservation of the green, open space from the EWEB eastern boundary to the western edge of Springfield, on the south bank of the Willamette River. She said the space was needed and desirable for recreation, as a wildlife habitat, and as a place of easy retreat from nearby urban areas. Ms. Lovinger said the fields, black- berry bushes, orchards, and forestland combined to form a gracious link between Eugene and Springfield and an experiential alternative to the Franklin Boulevard connection. She also said that heron, osprey, and pheasant made their homes in the corridor and should continue to be welcomed. She said ample space for light industry, high-tech, and small-business development existed elsewhere in the metropolitan area, adding that she thought it foolish to appropriate prime green spaces, riverbanks, floodplains, and areas of top- quality agricultural soil for the type of development being pursued. She said the bit of wilderness within city limits should be honored and protected, adding that Eugene was known and appreciated for that type of amenity. She urged councilors to "support preservation of this emerald space, and not to dream of building upon it." Nan Cohen, 2526 Alder, said she was against the project on all grounds. She also said the proposed site along the Willamette Greenway was unique and was best left as open space. Ms. Cohen said the spot provided beauty, serenity, and relaxation, and she recommended that each councilor spend at least one ~ undisturbed hour experiencing the surroundings. She said the research park e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 1986 Page 6