Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7.& Eugene~TM <br />Association of REALTORS!!) <br /> <br />December 12, 2005 <br /> <br />TO: 1'1ayor Piercy and Eugene City Council <br /> <br />RE: The Eugene Parks and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan) <br /> <br />The Eugene Association of REALTORS@ strongly advocate for healthy Parks and Recreation <br />facilities and progranls that enhance the quality of life within a community. The Eugene Parks <br />and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan will enhance the quality of life for Eugene <br />residents. As a commwlity plans for grO\vth the planning for parks and recreation and open <br />spaces must be included. Planning for transportation, utilities, public safety, housing and <br />economic development are the priority considerations for a cornmunities quality oOife with <br />social and enviromnental considerations closely associated and integrated. Comprehensive <br />planning includes all of these important components and it includes an opportunity for the <br />citizens to contribute their comments about the plan which they will be a recipient of and help <br />pay for. <br /> <br />No matter how well the PROS Plan has been prepared there are conflicts with Statewide <br />Planning and inconsistencies with the Metro Plan: <br /> <br />· The PROS Plan does not fbUmv the comprehensive planning requirements in state <br />administrative ruie and state statute for a metropolitan parks plan. The PROS Pian is also <br />in conil1ct with th(~ Metro Plan. <br />if There are no proposed park facilities included in the Eugene Parks Refinement <br />Plan (Eugene Parks and Recreation planning statY rernoved them before the plan <br />was submitted to the Eug{~ne Planning Commission), Without a facilities plan it <br />is impossible to calculate how rnuch land is identified within the UGB that will <br />n:~duce the buildable lands inventory for housing, and commercial and industrial <br />deve1opm{~nt The exclusion onb~Jaci1ities plan sites and frwn.S is in direct <br />connict witl1.S..t::llf;~~ide Planning Goals 9 and 1 Q.~ <br />../ Acquisition of new properties, in Appendix B, estimate acquisition for 2005, tor <br />1623.46 acres. Vv1wre \vil1 these acres come from? How many zone changes will <br />be required to acquire the property? A properly and legally proposed <br />Comprehensive Parks Plan would have included the Facilities Plan as required in <br />statewide planning statute and rules. WithQHUh~J?roiect list and maps a$..~.Qm"1 of <br />the Facilities Plan. to in(ljS;f,!lt.Q9~~ible future acquisition sit~;?.....Hty land use <br />plamling.rnI~~f;.$..:~~J:; reqpirpd bv state\vide planninK;'i.tp.:tutes and rules, is <br />~lj1J1inated. <br />· The Refinement Plan includes lands outside of the Metro Plan's GoalS planning area. <br />There should be a boundary behveen the Metro Plan Goal 8 planning area and the Lane <br />County General Plan with no overlapping. They should only be adjacent to each other <br />unless otherwise planned for. Tl}ere is a Comprehensive Plal\.Qlrr~rldment process that <br />I!J1E'.l.h.y followed to aUow changes to the MJ;.ttQ..,p..lan, <br />· The Refinement Plan does not identify and include private parks, facilities and open <br />space or other public parks, facilities, and open spaces in the overall inventory. Open <br />