CC Minutes - 12/12/05 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Taylor asked Parks Planning Manager for the Parks and Open Space Division, Carolyn Weiss, to present the outline of the new Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Weiss stated that the PROS plan provided concepts, goals, and strategies to guide the enhancement and preservation of Eugene’s parks, recreation, and open space system for the next 20 years. She underscored that the plan was the result of over three years of planning and public involvement, overseen by a Mayor’s advisory committee made up of eleven community members. She stated that extensive public outreach formed the basis of the plan including a statistically valid survey, a youth questionnaire, speakers’ bureau presentations to over 44 groups, and 7 community-wide forums, among others. Staff also met with the Lane County Board of County Commissioners and the Lane County Planning Commission, as well as the Eugene Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on October 11. She reiterated the Eugene Planning Commission’s approval of the plan with amendments. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association (LCHBA) and the Home Builders Construction Company, underscored the LCHBA’s support for parks. However, the LCHBA did not support the PROS Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the document contained all of the projects and maps included in it originally, but the list had been removed. She asserted this would allow staff to promote a “legal fiction.” She said though there was an identified need for 1,626 additional acres, assumed to be acquired within the existing urban growth boundary (UGB), the plan assumed there would be no impact on the current land supply. She alleged that staff said it was “just a plan” and that the plan would not do anything. She said the project list that would come before the City Council to adopt by resolution in March would not be a land use measure. She felt this meant there would be no discussion on the impact on the land supply. She thought staff was saying that the City of Eugene could purchase “every single acre” of land designated for residential use inside the UGB with no such impact. She called this an abandonment of the basic concepts of the State land use system. She declared that the process should include how the plan would impact other land uses. John Dotson , 2447 Canterbury Street, said the reason he had come to testify was that he had not had time to read the plan. He was uncertain the plan was a step forward. He thought merely broadening the interpretation of what was planned might not be a good way to make progress. He felt there should be incremental ways to know the plan was moving forward and making progress. He said there needed to be performance standards to measure against. He requested more time for public input. Kate Perle , 4740 Wendover Street, requested that the record be left open for seven days. She related that members of her neighborhood organization had difficulty gaining access to the plan because it was only available online or through an office copy kept in the Public Works Department office. She averred that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session