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

Home Browse Search

and the metropolitan area. She said it had not included any participation by Lane County. She commented that as a property owner with property within the UGB but outside the city’s boundary, the council’s decision did impact her property. Ms. Jeffries stated that the council had its priorities and its priorities should be infrastructure and public safety. She opined that parks and open space would not make a “hill of beans” worth of difference if Eugene was not a safe place to be and there was not a safe way to get to the park. She suggested the council revisit it and return it to the Planning Commission. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, wished to reaffirm that parks made a positive contribution to the overall quality of life of the community including the economy. He said from a land use planning aspect and in consideration of the limited amount of land available within the UGB, the PROS plan was not a comprehensive plan as it was not being integrated with other ongoing planning activities such as the Goal 5 Natural Resources Inventory. He reiterated that it also did not take into account existing public lands such as the West Eugene Wetlands. He conveyed the chamber’s concern on what the potential impact would be on the buildable land supply within the UGB if the PROS plan was implemented. He thought a truly comprehensive plan would include such an analysis. He predicted that at the conclusion of the PROS plan, the City would have undergone another planning exercise that would ultimately result in actions that would reduce the buildable land inventory. He thought the council would take a comprehensive look to determine what impacts might be relative to existing inventory and then other planning activities would have been skipped on the technicality that the PROS plan and its project list were completely separate no matter how much future acquisition of land resembled implementation of the PROS document. He said the chamber wished the Planning Commission had been a little more assertive in its advice that the PROS Plan fell short of being a truly comprehensive plan. th Bill Kloos , 375 West 4 Avenue, Suite 204, speaking on behalf of the LCHBA, provided copies of a two- page letter he submitted to the City Manager. He shared the four points in the letter: 1. Adoption of the PROS Plan would bring other laws into play as the plan had to meet legal standards found in State statutes, Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) rules, the definition of a comprehensive plan, and in the Metro Plan. The City needed to follow through with the plan and state how it would be implemented. 2. The plan would debit the inventory of buildable lands and had already done so. 3. The plan extended parks planning “deep into Lane County.” He remarked that Lane County was not happy with the City of Eugene and was thinking it should co-adopt the plan with the city. 4. There was a surprising lack of funding for the plan. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, read a letter into the record. He opined that the 1989 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was more clear and concise than the present PROS plan. He thought the plan could not be called comprehensive without a project list. He noted the 1989 plan included such a list. He opined that the plan lacked policies, adding that he had listed 103 policies contained in the 1989 plan. He asked how many 1989 projects had not been built and wondered if they should not be moved to the top of the list. He echoed previous testimony regarding the removal of the project list. He asked if the PROS plan would be subject to annual review. He suggested that in the next 20 years, the City should include plant and animal habitat in the title and give it the recognition and attention it deserved. He questioned the methodology used to inventory lands and the goal of equitable distribution of park resource types as proposed. He objected specifically to the development of Striker Field in the Willakenzie area. He averred that this proposed project had not been supported by data received during public comment on the draft MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session