Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

. Gov~lIleat A1I'aita. Continuedfrom page'" .' .... 'Springtie)d in its planning area. but tomorrow - who knows. , lntetestingly, at the end of September at least, Eugene is taking the llosition that extending its planning area into rural Lane County is essentially none of the county's business. Eugene staff told the oounty commissions at a presentation on the parks plan that the city was only required to permit the county to weigh in if Eugene's park plan was in conflict with the metro plan. Eugene staff have been told by Eugene's attorneys that there is no conflict with the metro plan as long as Eugene does not try to pass regulations that affect county residents. What is the impact on county residents and businesses? One the projectS that is currently on the list and is tentatively sched- uled for SDC assessments is a bikepath on both sides of the Wil. . lamette River to the confluence with the McKenzie. Property on ' both sides of the WiUamette involved in this project are owned by Eugene Saud and Gravel, Delta Sand and Gravel, Egge Sand and Gravel, the Wildish Company j and River Ridge Golf Course~ All of the relevant property is outside the Eugene UGB. Mike A1tucker has told Eugene staff and the county ,commis- sions that Eugene Sand and Gravel does not want t? have a bike path running through its gravel extractiouopet'ations. Seems reasonable. Debbie Jeffiies has told Eugene staff and the county commissions that River Ridge Golf Course is also opposed to ~e bike path project (it would go through the 1~ and 16th holes Of the golf course). The Eugene parks plan says that purchase of proposed park property from willing sellers ~ the pref~ method of acquisition but using the powers of enunent domam IS ~dently not ruled out. The problem with deleting the project list ~ the land u.se planning process is that no other good process exists for a reality '.. check. Should th~ city ofEugeno be imposing padt ploje..is on county residents without the county being involved? Is it practi_ cal to have a bike path traversing through gravel mining opera.. tions? Should bikers and joggers be in an area where they may be hit by golfballs? Should golfers tee off only to find persons fimn the bike path lounging near the green? I would guess that the parcels owned by the gravel companies have a metro plan designation of QuarryIMining with a zoning of Sand and Onwel? If so,' bas any one at. the city checked to find out if , parks are a permitted or conditional use on those parcels under the Lane County code? The reality is that many of the practical questions have not yet been asked, let alone answered. Eugene staff has told me that they still see the project list as a vision. However, a vision should be the merely the beginning of the pl~g process, not the end. . Eugene staff told. the ~ty commissioners that they do not want to put the projects m .the because they would have to amend the c:omp plan if they wanted to c4ange the projects or tweak them. Probably not for tweak- mg, but certainly if. they want to make significantly change the projects. That is tile whole point of the land use planuing pr0c- ess. It is to have the cooununity progress &om the vision to the practical. The planning process ends when the community de- cides what parks and projects it actually intends to acquire and construct and puts them in the comp plan. Just about everyone agrees that Eugene is not going to do $242 million in park pr0- jects in the next 20 years. Our issue is that Eugene wants to adopt the list for SDC purposes and begin to collect those SDCs even though they have made no decisions about what projects are actually going to happen. Should we have to pay upfront for part of the cost of acquiring 1000 acres to build a bike path to Fern Ridge before the actual decision to build that bike path has been made? We don't think so. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ContinfU/d,[rom Page 5 i : . , That is the issue that we are taking to the court of appeals. Can i i the jurisdictions adopt a list of significant projects for pmposes of i: collecting SDCs when no decision has been made through ~ i land use process to actually build the projects and when no stg- E nificant projects can be built until they g~ thro'fP ~e ~d ~e i process? I am not suggesting that MWMC s project list 18 a WISh :. list; it's not. We may disagree on whether we should spend m~e i 'money fixing leaky pipes versus simply ~ding. ~ capacity E of the treatment fuci1ity. but that is a policy deciSion for the ! elected officials to make. However, MWMC has. put forth ~e i argument in the courts that ~~ (and therefore any other Jll- i. risdiaion) can develop a project list for purposes of SD~s ~ i: collect those SDCs before the decision to build the proJ~ IS E ~ made, because the actual decision to build significant projects, E: according to LUBA. occurs only through the comp plan I PFSP i: amendment process. It is that position of MWMC that we are . i ' challenging. LUBA appeals are fast tracked and we should have ~. a decision before the end of the year. ~ : September football is over, so I guess fall is officially here. Go ~' Ducks 1 .... ....... ................... ........................ _.... ............l .... ......... ..... ........ ON THE LEVEL NEWSLETTER - October, 2005 Continued on Page 8 We like it here in Lane County. It's a good ,place to be. Not just because our job is here. but because our home is here. Like you. we want to have a positive impact on our com- munity. That's why we recommend using the highest-efrtciency natural gas appliances available. The higher t~e !!fficiency, tbe more energy (and money) is saved. And that's a positive impact on eveJYOne. For more information in Eugene caJl342-5661. e ~iilg.c~MI snMCES OCT 1 7 2005