Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

underserved with neighborhood parks and that the level of service to existing residents will thereby be increased by these proposed acquisitions. Staff's position is: "A system-wide analysis and the simplifying assumption that capacity needs of the existing population are first met by the existing parks inventory avoids the complexity of an overly detailed and speculative analysis of the exact location of individual park and park service areas in relation to the exact location of, and resulting population related to, individual developments". There are two problems with staffs position: (1) It is not enough that the needs ofthe existing population are first met by the existing park inventory in order to determine there is not existing deficiency. Rather the needs of the existing population must be completely met by the existing park inventory. There is nothing is the staff's data or analysis that suggests that is in fact the case, and PROS argues strongly to the contrary. (2) Staff says they prefer this simplified approach to an overly detailed and speculative analysis of the exact location of individual parks. What staff is ignoring is that with respect to neighborhood parks, the acquisition locations of the projects on the project list are not speculative, but are in fact very specific. Everyone of the acquisitions is identified by a specific neighborhood planning area (Bethel, Willakenzie, etc.) and then additionally by a specific location within that planning area (B-3, R-2, W-II, etc.). Compared to the complexity ofthe growth allocation analysis for natural areas, the analysis for neighborhood parks is actually a cakewalk. The simplicity that staff wants really comes down to a fundamental question. Are all current residents of Eugene now adequately served with neighborhood park land? If the council believes the answer to that question is no, then the councilors also believe that there is an existing deficiency of neighborhood parks. In that case, growth can not be required to pay for 100% of the proposed neighborhood park capacity. Because the proposed neighborhood park acquisitions are principally proposed for existing neighborhoods, either there is an intent to cure an existing deficiency or there is an intent to raise the level of service for existing residents. It has to be one or the other and growth can not be charged for either one. We do not have a problem with a citywide approach to the other park categories. Current and new residents are expected to travel some distances to access a community park such as Amazon or the Ridgeline Trails. However, neighborhoods parks by their definition and function do not serve a citywide constituency. They are designed to serve the residents in the immediate vicinity only, and if the proposed neighborhood park acquisitions are located in existing neighborhoods, the capacity of those projects is to serve principally current residents. The Home Builders Association would like to propose a solution that we believe would be fair to current residents as well as future growth. It would also make the entire allocation process a lot simpler to understand. We suggest that the growth allocation be based upon the needs assessment summarized in Table B-1 of PROS. Staff has told you that PROS is irrelevant but it really shouldn't he. As staffhas consistently pointed out when discussing PROS, it is the result of a great deal of community input. An advisory committee met for two-and-a-half years to review the current 7