Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

Public Testimony Deborah P. Jeffries October 17, 2005 Eugene Planning Commission Public Hearing Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan October 17, 2005 This is a second piece of testimony submitted to the Eugene Planning Commission regarding the Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Compo Plan. This comment concerns the relationship of the Metro Plan to the PROS document under consideration. Park Definitions are inconsistent with the Metro Plan Within the Metro Plan, Parks and Recreation Facilities Element is presented on page III- H- I through llI-H-5. The MetroPlan categorizes parks and recreational facilities into six (6) types: Regional-Metropolitan Parks, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Play Lots, Community Parks, Special Recreational Facilities. The PROS uses a different delineation: · Neighborhood Park: includes play lots and neighborhood parks of the Metro plan · Community Park: similar to the Community Parks of the Metro Plan · Urban Plaza: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park or recreational facility · Metropolitan Park: similar to the Regional-Metropolitan Parks in the Metro Plan but does not included Natural Open Space. · Natural Area Park: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park or recreational facility · Linear Park/Greenway: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park or recreational facility. This type of Park/Greenway is a component of the Regional and Community Park categories in the Metro Plan. · Special Use Facility: similar to the Metro Plan but does not include the private recreational facilities that are included in the Metro Plan. Question: How can PROS use different categories from the Metro Plan? This is another example of Park Staff not doing the professional planning and development review of existing documents prior to development. Existine: Park Levels Under Findings of the Metro Plan (3.a. page III-H-2), there were sufficient gross acres of regional-metro park land to meet a future metro population of 246,000. The PROS uses inconsistent categories from the Metro Plan, making a comparison very difficult and open for debate. Item 4: Determination of Adequacy (page IIl~H-3) PROS does not follow the determination of adequacy criteria required in the Metro Plan The Metro Plan clearly states NRP A standards should not be the detenninant ofthe adequacy of the park and recreation facilities provided by each jurisdiction. Adequacy "must be based, not only on total acres or facilities, but.. . the values of the residents (within the jurisdiction)