Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1-' <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There are three fatal flaws \\lith the PROS Plan. They are: <br /> <br />· The original plan located parks and open space in disregard to the other open <br />space lands owned by other government agencies and privately-o\vned parb <br />and open spaces, such as golf courses, miniature golf courses, private <br />ballparks, etc. Oregon Statewide Plmming Goal and Guidelines (Goal #8), <br />entitled "Recreational Needs", clearly indicates that recreational needs include <br />rnore than just the local government, by the use of such words and terms as <br />"destination resort", "private enterprise", "state and federal agency recreation <br />plans", The PROS plan offers no documentation of an inventory of the other <br />govemment (county, state, or federal) recreational or open space plans, nor <br />privately-owned recreational fa(~ilities. [n fact., contrary to Oregon's planning <br />laws, the PROS plan overlaps Lane CouKlty's R~lral Plan. Whieh one of these <br />two plans do property owners rely on? <br /> <br />· The original pian (maps) located parks and open space without kno\ving ho\V' <br />the surrounding lcmd is to he used; low-density single-fcmlily versus high- <br />density development. It may be assumed high-density population amas should <br />have a larger numher of park acres within or close to high-density areas to <br />maximize energy conservation (walking, bicycling, short-distances for autos to <br />drive, etc.). Employment centers, industrial areas, \vhile requiring some parks, <br />should have a lesser need for recreational acres, How did the City factor in the <br />City's Goal 5 Natural Resource, Scenic, Historic, and Open Space element <br />cunelltly before the City into this PROS plan? Where is this analysis, and <br />shouldn't such an analysis he based upon locating, including the halancing of <br />housilig and employment and. goods and service needs? This PROS plan is <br />prernature, out ofpbase, until the City decides its future land use and <br />transportation needs, inside and outside the Urban GrO\vth Boundary. There <br />are phuming goals, such as housing (GoallO), public facilities including utility <br />needs (Cloal11}, transportation (Goai 12) that are just as impOltant as the <br />City's recreational needs (Goal 8). <br /> <br />· In an effort to correct these fatal flaws, statJhas divided up the PROS plan into <br />smaller parts~ however, this change of strategy does nothing to coneet these <br />Haws but, simply, is an attempt to cover them up (i.c., leaving out rnaps and <br />project tist). This strategy is oftalking only about the goals and policies to the <br />Plmming COlmnission will be difi1cult, i1'not impossible, to pIioritize such <br />PROS goals and policies. The PlanningCoIlll1!ission needs the other hvo <br />pieces (Appendix C and D) and a broader discussion ofho\v and where the <br />tllIetro area is going to grow (i.e., impact on the mea's land supply). Are the <br />PROS goals more important than community policing or economic <br />development, or lo\v-income housing? I think not! I can almost visualize <br />what will happen in tbe tllture. The Planning Comrnission and the City <br />Council will be told they c.an talk only about the PROS goals and policies <br />(because that is what is bd()re them), Then later, when more specifics are <br /> <br />Testimony from Larry E. Reed! RE: PROS Plan! October 17, 2005 i 2 <br />