Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

Public Testimony Deborah P. Jeffries Page 2 The parks, recreation and open space planning area for the Eugene PROS Comprehensive Plan extends beyond the City limits to include all areas within the urban growth boundary (UGB), including unincorporated areas. In addition, several recommendations for future park and open space areas involve land beyond the UGB. Exist/no statutes allow areas outside of the UGB to be included within the Dlanninq area. This plan is not intended to have any leaat regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. On/v if such Dropertv is annexed to theC/tv, or alternativelv. if the Countv also adoDts the DIa" for areas outside Cltv limits. would the plan have Jetlal or retlu/atoN effects for such land. Questions: So, what are those "existing statutes" anyway or did Staff just make that up? It is pretty clear from the two week old version that Staff and the City of Eugene plan to use this document when property is "annexed to the City", even if the property is currently outside the City's legal planning area. II. Staff does not recognize existing land use permits in effect. On August 8, 1988, Ric and I received a Greenway Development Permit to allow a golf course within an E-30 District, with an exemption of the 100 foot WiIlamette River setback requirement (Appendix A). This permit was approved by the Lane County Hearings Official because the property in question (the same property the City has included in the PROS planning area) was OUTSIDE the City's planning area and administration. Although the County Planning staff had not required a Greenway Permit for the golf course construction, the City of Eugene Parks Staff did because of the desire to guarantee the future construction of a bike path along the Willamette River. Despite numerous conversations with Staff that a 200 fUsee flying object (golf ball) and bicycles do not mix, the City staff insisted that County staffmake the permit a contingency to the golf course construction approvaL (Appendix B: Chronological summary) The County did as demanded by the City. However, neither staff had bothered to review that an exception to the Greenway setback is water dependency, which the golf course obviously is. Consequently, the Greenway permit was issue with the exception to the 100 foot setback. This above summary is pertinent to this discussion because at present City Park staff is quick to say during their presentations that they do not regulate outside of the UGB. Well - not exactly. Question: How can this property have a linear park (bike path) drawn on the City's Trans Plan and the City's Park Plan when there has been a Greenway Development Permit with an exemption ofthe 100 ft. setback in place since 1988? How can the very City Planning Department and Parks Department who insisted on this pennit conveniently forget the rulmg and document exist when "planning"? I don't have an answer. However, it does support the fact that Staff does not provide the professional expertise and research that should be offered to the Planning Commission, City Councilor citizens committees when developing or reviewing planning areas and documents. If Staff does not get their way, do they simply ignore what is in place? This