Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

, " , . There are three fatal flaws with the PROS Plan. They are: · The original plan located parks and open space in disregard. to the other open space lands owned by other government agencies and privately-owned parks and open spaces, such as golf courses, miniature golf courses, private ballparks, etc. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal and Guidelines (Goal #8), entitled "Recreational Needs", clearly indicates that recreational needs include more than just the local government, by the use of such words and terms as "destination resort", "private enterprise\ "state and federal agency recreation plans". The PROS plan offers no documentation of an inventory of the other government (county, state, or federal) recreational or open space plans, nor privately-owned recreational facilities. In fact, contrary to Oregon's planning laws, the PROS plan overlaps Lane County's Rural Plan. Which one of these two plans do property owners rely on? · The original plan (maps) located parks and open space without knowing how the surrounding land is to be used; low-density single-family versus high- density development. It may be assumed high-density population areas should have a larger number of park acres within or close to high-density areas to maximize.energy conservation (walking, bicycling, short-distances for autos to drive, etc.). Employment centers, industrial areas, while requiring some parks, should have a lesser need for recreational acres. How did the City factor in the City's Goal 5 Natural Resource, Scenic, Historic, and Open Space element currently before the City into this PROS plan? Where is this analysis, and shouldn't such an analysis be based upon locating, including the balancing of housing and employment and goods and service needs? This PROS plan is premature, out of phase, until the City decides its future land use and transportation needs, inside and outside the Urban Growth Boundary. There are planning goals, such as housing (Goal 10), public facilities including utility needs (Goalll), transportation (Goal 12) that arejust as important as the City's recreational needs (Goal 8). · In an effort to correct these fatal flaws, staff has divided up the PROS plan into smaller parts; however, this change of strategy does nothing to correct these flaws but, simply, is an attempt to cover them up (Le., leaving out maps and project list). This strategy is oftalking only about the goals and policies to the Planning Commission will be difficult, ifnot impossible, to prioritize such PROS goals and policies. The Planning Commission needs the other two pieces (Appendix C and D) and a broader discussion of how and where the Metro area is going to grow (i.e., impact on the area's land supply). Are the PROS goals more important than community policing or economic development, or low-income housing? I think not! I can almost visualize what will happen in the future. The Planning Commission and the City Council will be told they can talk only about the PROS goals and policies (because that is what is before them). Then later, when more specifics are Testimony from Larry E. Reed i RE: PROS Plan I October 17,2005 12