Item A: Ordinance Adopting New PROS Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

In. other ways as well, the PROS Plan 2005 version is far from adequate as a policy document. lls approval as the Eugene parks and open space refinernent plan of the Metro Plan would in effect delete more than 100 specific guiding policies, with no comparable replacement If there is some regulatory benefit for the parks and open space refiI1cment plan to take such a divergent approach from other Metro Plan components, it has 110t. been made clear to the public. Technical Shortcomings The PROS Plan 2005 is severely lacking in the area of basic technical planning foundations, from an overall comprehensive planning perspective. In the several decades since the publication of Ian McHarg's semir'lal textbook "Design with Nature", the deep value of planning grounded in overlay m.apping of key resource and demand pararneters has made that approach common practice. The advent of GIS technology accelerated the potential cost effectiveness of overlay documentation for coordinating key geographic factors including social,. economic, and environmental dimensions. In the 1970s, sound overlay planning documentation developed (pre-GIS) as part of the South FUlls Study contributed significantly to the accuracy and persuasiveness of that community consensus project. Yet some 30 years later, ,ve are attempting to make much wider-ranging parks and open space planning decisions with much less comprehensive documentation. It would do our time a severe disservice to proceed on the basis of generalizations, with such a dear methodology for marshaling the relevant facts dis1'i::garded. \Ve note shnilar confusion ion the PROS docurnentation regarding land acquisition,with land in some cases having b(':en directly donated to the city being labeled (as in I{1DGE_map.pdf) as i'purchased". This unclarit.y blurs the important connections between budget priorities, and. acquisitions achieved. There is a huge unans\.-vered question about how the parks and open space planning in the PROS Plan 2005 is or could in the future be synchronized with state m.andated natural resource planning accomplished or underway with regard to statewide planning Goal 5. Frankly, the citizens of Eugene, Oregon deserve a higher standard of professional practice in parks and open space planning than .is reflected in the technical aspects of the PROS Plan 2005. Even such relatively simple components as accounting of the distribution of open space and recreational facilities around tmvn are blurred and obscured bv inconsistencies in the measurement of land and facilities owned and or operated by ~arious potentially relevant jurisdictions, including 41, Lane County, federal agencies, and others, as well as the citv itself. Without addition documentation, clarification, and discussion of these technical parks accounting dirnensions, the basis for determination made in the PROS Plan 2005 remain inappropriately mysterious. Process ShQrtcomings Friend of Eugene · 12/30/05