Item 5: PH on PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

“natural areas”. While the portions of existing parks which function as natural area elements have been inventoried, the exact acreage of portions of future parks to provide the function of natural areas has not been established. It is impossible to identify the portions of future parks that might be designated as natural area until specific sites are acquired and park design is complete. The natural area portions of a developed park are designated and improved based on needed park functions and natural resource values of the individual park site. A clarification was requested as to why the “March 6 memo to the council states that there are no existing deficiencies with respect to neighborhood parks when that position is in conflict with the PROS plan adopted by council”. The first point of clarification is that the March 6 memo on growth allocations shows no existing deficiencies in neighborhood park land acquisition while it does show an existing deficiency for developed neighborhood park acreage. As explained in the previous memo, growth allocations are based on examination of system-wide capacity using an analysis of the future level of service (LOS) resulting from the proposed Project Plan, with land acquisition and park development levels of service evaluated separately. In the case of neighborhood park land acquisition, the future LOS resulting from the projects in the proposed Project Plan is slightly less than the existing level of service. After allocating existing neighborhood park land to meet the needs of the existing population, all of neighborhood park land acquisition in the Project Plan is needed to meet the capacity needs of growth. In contrast, the future LOS for developed neighborhood parks resulting from the projects in the proposed Project Plan is higher than the existing LOS. When the future acres of developed neighborhood park are allocated to existing and future population, an existing deficiency is shown for developed parks serving the existing population resulting in 51% of future developed acreage needs allocated to existing population and 49% of future park development needs being allocated to growth, again on a system-wide basis. Comparisons between the LOS planning analysis reflected in Table B-1 of the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the LOS resulting from the project plan are irrelevant to growth allocation percentages. Growth allocation percentages must consider the capacity provided in the system by projects in the Project Plan rather than a conceptual planning analysis contained in PROS Comprehensive Plan document. Because LOS and capacity is evaluated on a system-wide basis, rather than on an individual project basis, the proximity of future projects to developed or undeveloped neighborhood areas does not affect the growth allocation percentages. A system-wide analysis and the simplifying assumption that capacity needs of the existing population are met first by the existing parks inventory avoids the complexity of an overly detailed and speculative analysis of the exact location of individual parks and park service areas in relation to the exact location of, and resulting population related to, individual developments. We hope that this additional information and clarification is helpful to the public in providing informed and meaningful comment on the proposed Project Plan. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at 682-5216 or by email at fred.mcvey@ci.eugene.or.us. April 4, 2006 Memo page 2