Laserfiche WebLink
obtaining properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore <br />within Eugene’s UGB. However, there are some instances when it may <br />become necessary to look outside of the UGB. <br /> <br />Projects identified within the Project and Priority Plan will comply with <br />the required processes. The types of action necessary to implement <br />specific projects listed in the Project and Priority Plan will vary depending <br />on the type of land to be used for a particular park. If the implementation <br />of a specific project requires a amendment, zone change, <br />Metro Plan <br />refinement plan amendment or similar action, that action would follow <br />the normal land use process, including all of the required public hearings. <br />If, however, land for the project is already owned by the City and has an <br />appropriate zone, implementation of that project could occur outright <br />without additional public process. It should be noted also, that park <br />development projects typically go through an extensive public <br />involvement component to ensure that the proposed project is compatible <br />with resident’s needs and desires. <br /> <br />c)See staff response to item 8(c). <br /> <br /> <br />d)The Metro Plan does not require that private recreation facilities be <br /> <br />included in the Parks and Open Space inventory. Policy 4 of the Parks <br />and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan states: “Encourage the <br />development of private recreation facilities.” PROS Comprehensive Plan <br />strategies A-16, A-23, A-37, C-2, C-27, H-12, H-16 and H-17 address this <br />Metro Plan policy. <br /> <br /> <br />15.Kevin, Matthews, Friends of Eugene, testimony (December 30, 2005) states the <br /> <br />following concerns with the PROS Plan: <br />a)The PROS plan does not address how to move the Ridgeline Trail Project <br /> <br />forward and also deletes more than 100 specific policies from the Metro <br />Plan <br />b)The PROS Plan lacks a basic technical planning foundation, is unclear <br /> <br />on how it will by synchronized with statewide planning Goal 5, and does <br />not adequately document and discuss land and facilities owned or <br />operated by, for example, 4J, Lane County, federal agencies, the city itself, <br />and others. <br />c)The PROS planning process is disconnected from neighborhood <br /> <br />association involvement and neighborhood dissatisfaction has not <br />resulted in an amended plan. <br /> <br />Staff Response: <br />Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 14 <br /> <br />