Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

be in existing neighborhoods for the benefit of current residents. Just eyeballing the acquisitions, I would guess that 70% ofthe projects' capacity would serve existing residents and 30% would serve growth. How then does staff then justifY the 100% allocation of the neighborhood acquisitions to growth? Staff opted to use a level of service that is slightly less than the present level of service for existing residents. Staff then assumes in Table 2 that there is no existing deficiency of neighborhood park land for existing residents. What is the basis for that, particularly in light of the needs assessment in PROS that identifies an existing deficiency of neighborhood park land for existing residents at 64.17 acres? The first thing to note is that the level of services that staff and the consultant choose to use for the various park categories is very arbitrary. The table below demonstrates that. *Calculation of LOS for the project list assumes the acquisition of the 1,490.5 acres recommended by staff in Table A rather than the total project acreages of2,821.7 of the project list. If the total acreages ofthe natural area projects plus existing natural areas were assumed to serve Eugene residents, the LOS would be 20.4 acres / thousand residents. Park Type Current Project List Proposed LOS LOS LOS in PROS Neighborhood Parks 1.3 1.26 1.7 Community Parks 1.37 1.80 1.5 Natural Areas * 9.27 14.10 10.0 The important thing to remember is that there is nothing inherently correct about what level of service staff opts to use, because the project list itself offers a large array of choices. The asterisk above demonstrates that. There is also nothing inherently correct in determining the amount of existing deficiencies, because the determination of the existing deficiency is dependent upon the LOS selected. Staffs determination of existing deficiencies again differs widely from those identified in PROS: Current Deficiencies by Park T Park T e Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Natural Areas e in Acres PROS 64.17 21.53 117.92 Table 2 o 82.4 481.8 Staff claims that the existing deficiency identified in PROS is irrelevant. On the contrary, it is very relevant. It is the recognition by the community, and the council when it adopted PROS, that current residents are underserved with neighborhood parks. That is what an existing deficiency is, and what a simple level of service approach can fail to recognize. Staff also feels the fact that the land acquisitions would be located in existing neighborhoods is irrelevant. No, it's highly relevant. It is also a recognition that current residents are 6