Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />