My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 11/28/05 WS
>
Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:15:08 PM
Creation date
11/22/2005 4:03:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
166
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Public Testimony <br />Deborah P. Jeffries <br />October 17,2005 <br /> <br />· location of facilities relative to residents each is intended to serve <br />· specific function each park is intended to serve <br />· the role private facilities play in providing recreational opportunities <br /> <br />Question: Why does PROS exclude private facilities in their analysis? <br /> <br />Item 5: Complete Inventory of Park and Recreation Facilities (Page 1lI-H-3) <br />This item specifically directs local government to develop, among other things, a <br />"complete inventory of park and recreational facilities", The PROS plan has not done <br />this. Staffhas acknowledged that they have excluded all "non-city" property and <br />facilities from PROS. Further; Staffhas excluded some of the acres of City owned park <br />property from the total acre analysis (for example - Shasta Ball Fields). <br /> <br />Question: Has anyone from the Parks and Open Space Department read the Metro Plan <br />Document? I can't believe Staff has submitted a "plan amendment" that is clearly <br />inconsistent with Findings of the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Item 6: Recognition of private recreational facilities (Page IIl-H-4) <br />The Metro Plan recognizes that "private facilities supplement and help meet the demand <br />for a variety of recreational opportunities". <br /> <br />Question: Why does Staff not count private facilities in their calculation when it is clear <br />the Metro Plan recognizes it as a contribution to meeting the demand? <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br />I can only think of one or two explanations for PROS inconsistency with the Metro Plan; <br />neither is very flattering to the City of Eugene Staff. <br /> <br />1. Staffhas not read the Metro Plan document as it pertains to Park. If that is true, <br />what exactly was Staff thinking about when they decided to do a "comprehensive <br />plan"? <br />2. Staff ignores the rules if they can get away with it. Harsh but true at times. Why <br />do we have a Metro Plan if the community does not agree to use it as the guiding <br />light of planning? <br /> <br />Frankly, there is no excuse for this. The private sector is continually required to follow <br />the Metro Plan as well as the local land use code for the area. When will the City start <br />doing the same? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.