Item A: Ordinance Adopting New PROS Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

"'... ,'\Tl',~(']T"';I]fN'T F t-", , -bi', l. i. < , ;''l ,'. _1;." '" -- tA. \ I ",. f'+<..-""'-n ~ \ '1.. t \ 1-1 {} s;- Kate Perle 4740 Wendover St Eugene, OR 97404 Esteemed councilors, 1 am here to share my opinion about the PROS pJaR First., I would ask that the record remain open for at least one more week as members of our community organiL.atioll wanted to l\.""\-iew the materials. When they went to the Parks office at Roosevelt Blvd. they were told there was an office copy they could read there or that it w-as available on tine. Many of our colleagues do not have access to computers and internet To elicit meaningful public partidpation and review, the materials must be available to the citizenry. For a city of over 100,000 people, there should, at a minimmn, be more than one copy available at the library and a copy sent to each neighborhood organi.7..ation. The original PROS plan was (,-reated as support for a projects list that has since bt.->.en remove.d from the plan, As it no..", stands" this plan is insufficient to stand alone as the guiding document for Eugene's parks for the nexl20 years, It is made up of a long list of possible parks improvements and acquisitions accompanied by a long list. of potential fuuding sources, but has no plan for implementation. A bundT}' list of possibilities with no attached policies or practices that win move us ever closer to implementing tlie vision is not wliat I would call a plan. It is a good beginning, but is not complete and as such should not be adopted in its present Slate. TIus plan continues to pay lip scrvice to the idea of "creating a balanced and equitable system of parks and recreation seryices" bm does little to get us there. When I looked at table B-2 which represents the planning sub area of River Road/Santa Clara, it was clear that the inequity is fornridable, r took the liberty of dividing the two neigllborhoods and came up ~1.th Santa Clard's total parks inventory, It consists of 6 neighborhood parks, one of which is developed. That's it No urban plazas, no natural areas, no communily parks, no metro pa!ks? no linear parks, and no special nse facilities. Our total park acreage is 2636 acres. Five of these parks (2UQacres) \\'ere purchased since the passing of the 1998 bond measure and one was given to thcylty by La'k~ County, When I looked at the 1989 Parks Plan the Santa Clara area had 2 high priority ~4uiS:itt:mslist.ed: " acquire and GevCIQP :{ neighborhood parks · acquire and develop a comnnmity park In addition it had .; medium priority issues; · acquire and develop 3 neighborh~ parks " improve Hileman park . · improve \\'hitdy park 1 won't bore you with the low priority item.s as well, but as you call see, there has been a long history of documenting the need for patks in Santa Clara without actually doing anything about it. To think that in the last 20 years we have only purcbased 5 neighborhood parks does not im.-pire confidence in the implementation of parks planning for Santa Clara. If past performance is the best indicator of future perfOl'llliUlce, Santa Clara's outlook is bleak, The pace of infiU development is brisk and the Parks department's willingness to either purchase land in front of that curve or require that developers provide land for those necessary services seems to elude us. The 1998 POS bond measure allocated funding for a myriad of park improvemeJits and acquisitions, To alleviate the need for field space acquisition, funding was allocated for partnering \'vith schools to upgrade existing field space to accommodate a larger sector of our populatiQl1, both wifh progrdmmedrecreation and teanI sports, We still look forward to that happening in our community, but to dale it has not We look forward to being involved in planning parks in our are-a at the front end of the planning process, not the back end of the dealings "With land~holders and developers. We look forward to being included. on ad\1.sory committees and consulted as to what our conummity? s vision is for their parks before a plan is overlaid on onr community. 'W'c want to advocate with parks for acquisition of lands that allow for access to the WiUamette River, preservation of our remaining open spaces and historical sites, and the creation of a community center that would be centrally located, Much of the p~ject list for Santa Clara from the last bond measure is still unmet Where is tlmt fimding and how much is left? It is my sense that many