Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7: Resolution on PROS Project and Priority Plan ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: Resolution 4863 Approving the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan Meeting Date: May 22, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 7 Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4909 ISSUE STATEMENT The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan is presented to the City Council for adoption by resolution. The Project and Priority Plan contains specific information to guide implementation of parks, recreation, and open space projects over the next 20 years. BACKGROUND The Project and Priority Plan includes specific project information such as timeframe for project implementation, cost estimates, and maps showing existing and proposed resources for each planning area and for the entire city. The projects identified in the Project and Priority Plan are some of the specific means by which the strategies identified in the PROS Comprehensive Plan can be implemented. A City Council work session was held on the proposed Project and Priority Plan on February 13, 2006. A public hearing on the Project and Priority Plan was held before the City Council on April 10, 2006. Twenty-one individuals testified in person at the public hearing. Many of those individuals also submitted written testimony. Following the hearing, the council moved to leave the public record open for one additional week. Prior to the close of the record on April 17, staff received written testimony from 41 additional people. All of the written testimony submitted before the close of the record on April 17 was included as Attachment E in the May 8 City Council Meeting agenda. The staff response to the Public Hearing testimony is attached to this agenda item summary (AIS) as Attachment D. The proposed resolution is included as Attachment A. Exhibit A to Attachment A is the PROS Project and Priority Plan which was provided with the May 8 meeting materials. The Project and Priority Plan has been revised to reflect recent public input and City Council direction. The revisions are identified in Attachment B, and can be categorized as follows. ?Priority revisions based on public testimony - The priority ranking of these projects has been modified to respond to public input. ?Project revisions based on City Council direction - These projects have been modified or added to be consistent with current City Council direction regarding a 2006 bond measure. ?Project and priority revisions based on funding assumptions - These projects, or their priority ranking, have been modified to be consistent with funding assumptions, while accommodating the L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060522\S0605227.doc above mentioned revisions based on public testimony and City Council direction. ?Added verbiage to the plan to clarify the process for amending and updating the Project and Priority Plan. Additional questions from the City Council which arose during the Public Hearing and subsequent discussion are addressed in Attachment C. This response addresses questions and requests related to Systems Development Charges, jurisdictional issues, specific project related questions, and an explanation of funding assumptions. RELATED CITY POLICIES PROS Comprehensive Plan, adopted by City Council on February 13, 2006 ? COUNCIL OPTIONS A. Approve the proposed resolution that adopts the PROS Project and Priority Plan. B. Direct the City Manager to make modifications to the PROS Project and Priority Plan and return to the council. C. Take no action. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends Option A: Approve the proposed resolution that adopts the PROS Project and Priority Plan. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt Resolution 4863 approving the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Resolution Adopting the PROS Project and Priority Plan Exhibit A to Attachment A, PROS Project and Priority Plan (previously provided in May 8, ? 2006, meeting packet) B. Table indicating revisions to Project and Priority Plan C. Response to Questions from Council D. Response to Public Testimony E. Public Testimony (previously provided in May 8, 2006, meeting packet) FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss, Parks and Open Space Planning Manager Telephone: 682-4909 Staff E-Mail: carolyn.j.weiss@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060522\S0605227.doc ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 4863 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROJECT AND PRIORITY PLAN. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The City of Eugene’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Project and Priority Plan was created after planning and public input in association with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. The PROS Project and Priority Plan identifies, prioritizes, and estimates costs of proposed actions for parks, open space and recreation facilities, programs, and services. B. The PROS Project and Priority Plan is adopted in accordance with the state statutory system development charge (SDC) requirements set forth at ORS 223.304 and ORS 223.309. C. Public involvement was a major component of the planning process, culminating with a public hearing on April 10, 2006. D. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached PROS Project and Priority Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based on the above findings which are adopted, and the public hearing held on this matter, the PROS Project and Priority Plan attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution is approved. Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted the _____ day of ____________________, 2006. _______________________________________ City Recorder Resolution - 1 Page L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060522\S0605227-attA.doc Acquisition Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Prioriy 5 Project Revisions DevelopmentCostsCostsCostsCosts Type of Revision Previously Basis for Revision Beyond FY 26 TOTALSFY 07 - FY 11 FY 12 - FY 16 FY 17 - FY 21 FY 22 - FY 26 New Parks and Open Space - Neighborhood Parks $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Acquire a neighborhood park site to serve this area (B4) New Project na Previously omitted, added for bond consistency Listing Neighborhood Park separate from $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Acquire land for neighborhood park (WC1) Funding Revision $1,250,000 adjacent Ridgeline Listing Neighborhood Park separate from $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Acquire land for neighborhood park (WC3) Funding Revision $1,250,000 adjacent Ridgeline $ 480,000 $ 480,000 Develop neighborhood park site (B4) New Project na Previously omitted New Parks and Open Space - Community Parks Aquire Amazon Park inholdings along Hilyard for community park $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Priority Revision Priority 1 Priority adjustment to balance project timing use Acquire 100+ acres surrounding Golden Gardens ponds for $ 2,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,800,000 Priority Revision Priority 4 Public Testimony community park Develop Golden Gardens and acquired property as community park $ 3,600,000 $ 500,000 $ 3,100,000 Priority Revision Priority 5 Public Testimony with significant natural area components and trails New Parks and Open Space - Urban Plazas Acquire land in Bethel for urban plaza to be developed in $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Priority Revision Priority 3 Priority adjustment to balance project timing partnership with transit $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Acquire land to expand park blocks Priority Revision Priority 1 Priority adjustment to balance project timing $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Acquire land for an urban plaza in Santa Clara Priority Revision Priority 3 Priority adjustment to balance project timing New Parks and Open Space - Linear Parks $ 480,000 $ 60,000$ 420,000 Implement plan for Jefferson Area Greenway and linear park Priority Revision Priority 3 Public Testimony $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Priority Revision Acquire linear park along Roosevelt drainage channel Priority 3 Priority adjustment to balance project timing New Parks and Open Space - Natural Areas Bond Consistency: Increased funding from $ 2,700,000 $ 2,025,000 $ 675,000 Acquire additional river frontage, including property north of Beltline Funding Revision $600,000 previous low estimates Acquire additional ridgeline to complete Fern Ridge to West Eugene $ 5,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ - Priority Revision Priority 2 & 3 Priority adjustmnt to balance project timing Wetlands New Recreation Facilities $ 220,000 $ 220,000 Priority Revision Develop soccer field at N. Westmoreland Priority 1 Priority adjustment to balance project timing Provide synthetic surface fields in partnership with 4J and Bethel $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 New Projectna Bond Consistency school districts Improving Existing Facilities Renovate Alton Baker Canoe Canal for kayaking, recreation, and $ 5,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 4,900,000 Priority RevisionPriority 2 Public Testimony natural resource benefits Provide for replacement of synthetic surface fields in partnership Priority Revision/ $ 2,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Priority 5 Bond Consistency with 4JFunding Revision Project and Priority Plan - Revisions -May 2006 Acquisition Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Prioriy 5 Project Revisions DevelopmentCostsCostsCostsCosts Type of Revision Previously Basis for Revision Beyond FY 26 TOTALSFY 07 - FY 11 FY 12 - FY 16 FY 17 - FY 21 FY 22 - FY 26 Project and Priority Plan - Revisions -May 2006 ATTACHMENT C PROS Project and Priority Plan Response to Questions and Requests from City Council City Council Questions and Requests 1. Lane County Commissioners have indicated concerns regarding projects that reach beyond Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary. What are the jurisdictional issues? Currently, the City of Eugene can, and does, own property outside of its city limits and urban growth boundary. For example, the Eugene Airport and many segments of the Ridgeline Park system are located outside of the City’s limits. When acquiring and developing property that lies outside of Eugene’s jurisdiction, the City is required to follow the zoning and land use regulations of the appropriate governing jurisdictions. Adoption of the Project and Priority Plan does not amount to the City exercising any governmental authority outside of the UGB or outside of the City’s limits. As noted in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the document has no regulatory effect on land not under the City’s jurisdictional authority. Neither the PROS Comprehensive Plan or the Project and Priority Plan are intended to have any legal or regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. They are strategy/planning documents that are intended as a guide for the City as it moves forward to meet the recreational and park needs of the City’s residents. 2. Include within the text of the Project and Priority Plan an additional discussion regarding the flexibility of the plan. This discussion should include how projects and identified priorities can be modified to respond to individual circumstances. The following text has been added to section C, page 3 of the Project and Priority Plan: “The Project and Priority Plan is intended to be a living document, and as such, individual projects may be delayed if funding cannot be identified within the shown timeline. Likewise, individual projects may be moved forward if funding is identified earlier than shown in the timeline. As challenges and opportunities arise in the future, City Council can amend the Project and Priority Plan by Council Resolution. This process may be initiated by a direct Council action, as part of the annual budget process, or in association with periodic System Development Charge methodology updates.” 3. Respond to public hearing comments regarding: Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Council Response Page 1 Ridgeline property acquisition south of Moon Mountain (McDougal Property). ? The Project and Priority Plan contains a Ridgeline Trail project titled “Acquire natural areas to complete Moon Mountain to Spencer Butte segment” This project encompasses the area described in the public hearing testimony. $1,625,000 is identified for acquisition in priority 1, with an additional $1,625,000 identified in priority 2. The Project and Priority Plan Riverfront bikepath acquisition in Willakenzie. ? calls for acquisition of a linear park along both the east and west sides of the Willamette River, extending from the current bikepath system north of Beltline to the confluence of the McKenzie River. This proposal is also identified in the Central Area Transportation Study Bikeways Plan. The Project and Priority Jefferson Amazon Greenway project implementation. ? Plan formerly listed this project as a priority 3. Based on public testimony, this priority ranking has been upgraded to a split priority ranking. This includes $60,000 in priority 1 for a feasibility study and the remaining implementation dollars in priority 2. It is anticipated that this project will be coordinated with the Metro Waterways study currently underway in partnership with the Army Corp of Engineers. . Staff is Placement of an emergency call box at Golden Gardens Park ? researching the costs and feasibility of installing a solar-powered cellular phone call box at Golden Gardens. Purchase and installation will cost $6,000- $8,000. 4. What dollar amount was allocated to Friendly Park in the previous CIP budget? What was actually spent? And what is proposed for additional Friendly Park proposed for phase 2? Friendly Park has an $80,000 budget from 1998 bond measure funds, and as identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. These funds are insufficient to do a complete renovation of the park. As a result, improvements will be phased in over time. Phase one improvements will be constructed this summer and fall and will be focused on play area improvements. Specific improvements will at a minimum include; replacement and relocation of the swing set, replacement of safety surfacing, construction of concrete edging around the play area, including an ADA access ramp, and bench upgrades. Additional improvements which are desired in phase one and will be constructed if funding allows include; additional plantings and site furnishings, and a drinking fountain. Plans for phase two improvements include an expanded play area, an extended path system, signage, a small central gathering space with picnic tables, and Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Council Response Page 2 potentially a picnic shelter. Phase two improvements are given a priority one ranking in the Project and Priority Plan with a $100,000 budget. 5. Provide clarification on the growth allocation percentages, specifically address: . All of the Testimony regarding existing deficiencies of neighborhood parkland ? growth allocation percentages, including that for neighborhood park land acquisition, are derived based on a capacity needs analysis. Growth allocations are based on examination of system-wide capacity using examination of the future 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. 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 analysis of the exact location of individual parks and park service areas in relation to the exact location of individual developments. If capacity in existing parks were allocated to both existing users and growth, the value of growth’s share of existing park capacity would need to be recovered through a reimbursement fee SDC. The capacity analysis used is less complex and relies on fewer assumptions while the net effect is anticipated to be generally cost-neutral, both to growth and the existing community. The Will SDC’s be charged for projects outside of the Urban Growth Boundary? ? Project and Priority Plan includes projects which are located outside of Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on obtaining properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within Eugene’s UGB. However, there are some instances when it may become necessary to look outside of the UGB. For example, it is a goal of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to provide a variety of outdoor experiences for Eugene residents, including the rural, natural qualities that one encounters in the Ridgeline Park system. Additionally, there may be times when the type and size of parcels which are sought to provide specific park services are not available within the UGB because of previous development. Because these projects are intended to provide park services to City residents, SDC’s can be collected for growth’s share of the proposed projects. The Clarify which project list will be adopted in the Project and Priority Plan. ? Project and Priority Plan proposed for adoption by Council is attached as Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Council Response Page 3 Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. Adoption of this plan includes the text associated with the plan as well as the tables and maps contained within it. There has been confusion about additional lists which have been provided to Council to help clarify questions around growth allocation percentages. These lists are for informational purposes and are not proposed for adoption. The System Development Charge methodology for Parks and Open Space is currently under review and will be brought before Council later this year. 6. Provide additional information on the funding assumptions used to distribute projects over the 20 year planning window of the Project and Priority Plan. The Project and Priority Plan anticipates use of a combination of existing resources and new revenues. All estimates of revenue are in FY-06 dollars and have not been adjusted for anticipated inflation. 1998 Park Bond – $2.3 million in FY-07. This funding is identified to complete the projects remaining from the 1998 Park Bond. After FY-07 this funding source is anticipated to be exhausted. Donations / Grants – $350,000 average per year through FY-11 and then raising to $500,000 per year for the remaining 15 years of the plan. The history of grants and donations as a revenue source varies greatly over the past 5 years from lows of approximately $325,000 to highs of approximately $1.5 million. We anticipate the newly created Park Foundation to further support outreach and generation of additional opportunities for donations and grants. Donation and grant funds are typically constrained to be used only for the purpose identified by the donor or in the grant. Land Partnerships - $650,000 average per year through FY-26 in partner funded land acquisitions. Building on a very successful partnership in West Eugene with the BLM and the Nature Conservancy, it is anticipated that these as well as other partnership opportunities will continue to further open space acquisition efforts. These partnerships are critical in meeting the overall open space vision for the Eugene area with regards to West Eugene, the Ridgeline Trail System, and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. Other City Funds - $200,000 average per year through FY- 26. Some projects identified in the project list have multiple benefits and may be able to draw from other City sources such as Stormwater and Transportation designated funds. Parks System Development Funds – $1.5 million average per year. Current revenues for this fund are approximately $1.5 million annually but can vary widely based on the level of building activity. Also, this fund is currently under review for methodology update. Assumptions anticipating the result of that Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Council Response Page 4 update have not been included. Park System Development funding is constrained to those projects that provide park services for new growth. 2006 Park Bond - $5 million average per year starting FY-08 and ending FY-12. City Council has requested staff to prepare a bond measure for the November 2006 ballot with projects focused on parkland acquisition, the West Eugene Environmental Education Center, and synthetic sports field development in partnership with local school districts. Future Park Bonds (or other new revenue source) - $5.3 million average per year starting FY13 and continuing through 2026. Providing this level of funding to 2026 may require multiple bond measures depending on the amount of bonding per occurrence or other new revenue that may be identified. It is assumed that this bond(s) would be a non-constrained measure providing funding for various park services. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Council Response Page 5 ATTACHMENT D PROS Project and Priority Plan Response to Public Testimony A public hearing on the Project and Priority Plan was held before City Council on April 10, 2006. Twenty-one individuals testified in person at the public hearing, many of whom also submitted written testimony. The public record was left open for one additional week, closing on April 17, 2006. An additional forty-one individuals submitted written testimony regarding the Project and Priority Plan. Response to testimony is grouped into the following categories: ? Specific project advocacy ? System development charge related questions ? Jurisdictional issues Specific Project Advocacy Golden Gardens ( Diane Shock, Mary Monette, Shauna Davis, Gary Davis, Sheryl Davis, Shanon Davis, Brenda Hansen, Lenore Davis-Woods, Carol Dower, Ruth Anne Paul, Deborah Craig, Anthony Johnson, Amanda Cantwell, Justin Huelsman, Gabrielle Williams, Liz Hayes, Britnee Klopp, Brandee Rhodes, Troy Richey, Brittany Noelle Burian, Travis Jones, Brittany Blake, Alec Meadows, McKenzie Sheherd-Davis, Blake Crawford, Taylor Hawke, Jessica Lovell, Kali Rescigno, Breuna Germyn, Bryce Englehardt, Brittainy Wilson, Alyssa Lujan, Brandon McGinnis, Keir Tasa) Friends of Golden Gardens Park testified and presented ideas for Golden Gardens Park. The group is requesting priority one status for the acquisition and development of Golden Gardens Park. The initial priority improvements include: a feasibility plan for determining the best course of action for future development, acquisition of a 100 foot buffer around the ponds to allow room to lessen the steep slopes of the pond banks, and park development to make the area more frequented by users of all ages. Additional testimony related to Golden Gardens Park includes the following issues and suggestions: Initiate a public education campaign; acquire additional property prior to adjacent development; improve pedestrian and vehicle access; develop the park for increased recreation; install no-swimming signs, floatation devices, and an emergency phone. The question was also raised whether the site could be considered a public nuisance under City Code. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 1 Prairie Mountain School 8 graders offered their assistance and submitted written th testimony. Comments and suggestions include: improving safety and educating people about dangers; installing a memorial; cleaning-up water and vegetation; making a garden and planting trees; installing signs, barbeque pits, a playground, sandbox, picnic tables, benches, garbage cans, trails, basketball courts, a swimming pool, turf, and fencing; re- sloping the pond banks, creating emergency access, filling the ponds with cement or dirt, and stocking the ponds with fish. Staff Response: A memorandum to City Council was included in the April 27 th packet which responded specifically to ideas for Golden Gardens Park which were submitted by the Friends of Golden Gardens. As a result of public testimony, projects related to Golden Gardens Park have been given a higher priority. $2,000,000 for acquisition of property surrounding the park was originally ? a priority 3. As a result of public testimony, $200,000 has been moved into priority 1 and the remaining $1,800,000 has been moved to priority 2. $3,600,000 for development of the park was originally identified in ? priority 5. As a result of public testimony, $500,000 has been moved to priority 2 and the remaining $3,100,000 has been moved to priority 3. These revised priorities will allow acquisition of a 100’ band on the east, west, and north ends of the park in priority 1. This acquisition will allow for future re- grading of the ponds to lessen the slopes. The remaining acquisition associated with Golden Gardens is given a priority 2 with development occurring in priority 2 and 3. Sports Fields (Joel Anderson, Regional Coach Administrator for Eugene American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO); Julia Pommert; Nancy Pollard; Jurgen Ruckaberle, youth soccer coach (kidsports, OUSA, EMFC); Chuck Tilby, Eugene resident; Lorna Roberts; Evon Smith, President Eugene Metro Futbol Club; Mark Bassett, parent; Eugene 4J School District) The Eugene School District submitted testimony requesting joint development of synthetic turf fields at Madison and Cal Young middle schools. The District would like the City to fund installation of lights and bleachers, and assist with field maintenance and operating costs. A number of sports enthusiasts – particularly youth and adult soccer advocates – also testified in favor of new synthetic turf fields. Much of the testimony concerned a perceived lack of available fields and inadequate maintenance on the school fields. Some requested the purchase of additional fields, in the form of synthetic turf fields to meet all- weather field space needs, while others testified that upgrading existing athletic fields to artificial turf would be sufficient. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 2 Staff Response: As a result of public testimony and Council direction related to a proposed parks bond measure in 2006, an additional project has been added to the Project and Priority Plan. This project identifies $4,000,000 in priority 1 for development of synthetic surface fields in partnership with school districts Eugene 4J and Bethel 52. An additional $1,000,000 is identified in priority 1 for the City’s share of replacement costs for the synthetic surfacing of the 4 existing synthetic surface fields. An additional $1,500,000 has also been added to this project to cover the City’s share of replacement costs of the proposed synthetic field surfaces approximately 10 - 15 years after installation. Alton Baker Whitewater Park/ Habitat Restoration (Ed Fredette, UO Outdoor Program; David Sonnichson, Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee Chair; Anna Hopt; Scott Bridgham, UO Environmental Studies Professor; Rob McKenzie, SEHS student) A petition with 114 signatures was submitted as part of testimony in favor of the renovation of the Alton Baker Canoe Canal into a whitewater park. Five individuals testified in favor of a Whitewater park, noting potential for funding partnerships and economic development, while integrating habitat restoration efforts and safety improvements into the project. Staff Response: This project was previously given a priority 2 ranking in the Project and Priority Plan. In response to public testimony, this ranking has been split into phase 1 and phase 2. $100,000 has been moved into priority one to fund a feasibility study. This study will provide an informed scope of work, while identifying potential partner funding opportunities. Ridgeline Trail ? Land Acquisition (Bruce Mullligan, Hendricks Hills Homeowners Association; Azra Khalidi) Oral and written testimony was submitted in strong support of acquisition of the 120 acre McDougal parcel connecting Moon Mountain to Hendricks Park as part of an upcoming bond measure. Another individual requested that more areas in south Eugene be designated as parkland, noting the need for cooperation with the county. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan contains a Ridgeline Trail project titled “Acquire natural areas to complete Moon Mountain to Spencer Butte segment” This project encompasses the area described in the public hearing testimony. $1,625,000 is identified for acquisition in priority 1, with an additional $1,625,000 identified in priority 2. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 3 ? Mountain Bike skill riding (Anthony Beck; Mike Dials; Scott Taylor) Three individuals testified in support of ridgeline acquisition to include mountain bike amenities such as a mountain bike skill riding park. Staff Response: Approximately $9,250,000 and over 900 acres of additional ridgeline trail acquisition is identified in the Project and Priority Plan as priority 1 and 2 Projects. A specific project item titled, “Develop mountain biking trails and freeriding designated areas” is given a priority 5 ranking. Staff are currently working with mountain biking constituents to find a location which is appropriate for the type of skill riding facility which is requested. Once an agreed upon location is identified, partnership opportunities to develop the facilities may occur prior to the existing designated time frame. Additional projects related to mountain biking opportunities include development of primary ridgeline trails, currently priority 3 and 4. Many of these trails will be designed and constructed to accommodate mountain bikes. Land Acquisition (David Monk, Vice President of Southeast Neighbors; Kate Perle) On behalf of the South East Neighbors , one individual provided oral testimony in general support for a land acquisition bond measure and the need to move forward with the project list, as well as their preference for grass fields rather than synthetic turf. Additional written testimony was submitted in favor of fully funding land acquisition as the top priority of a bond measure, requesting that the bond measure be expanded if additional projects are to be included. Staff Response: Land Acquisition for neighborhood parks and natural areas is given a high priority ranking in the Project and Priority Plan. Jefferson Amazon Greenway (David Hinkley, John Belcher) Two individuals requested an increase in priority for the Jefferson Greenway project, currently listed as Priority 3, to capitalize on current partnership opportunities. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 4 Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan formerly listed this project as a priority 3. Based on public testimony, this priority ranking has been upgraded to a split priority ranking. This includes $60,000 in priority 1 for a feasibility study and the remaining implementation dollars in priority 2. It is anticipated that this project will be coordinated with the Metro Waterways study currently underway in partnership with the Army Corp of Engineers. Riverfront Acquisiton (Charles Biggs) One individual provided testimony advocating for Willakenzie area riverfront land acquisition projects identified in the Project and Priority Plan. In particular, providing bicycle access to Armitage State Park was supported. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan calls for acquisition of a linear park along both the east and west sides of the Willamette River, extending from the current bikepath system north of Beltline to the confluence of the McKenzie River. This proposal is also identified in the Central Area Transportation Study Bikeways Plan. Striker Fields (Charles Biggs) A request was made to remove the Striker Field sports complex from the project list; the individual feels that there are adequate sports park facilities in the area and that acquisition for active recreation should be balanced with passive, habitat-based land acquisition. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan identifies $5,000,000 for the development of Striker Fields as a priority 3 project. Options are being discussed for the development of this property with School District 4J who owns the property immediately to the west of the City’s parcel. It is both the City’s and the School District’s hope that a collaborative plan can be reached to meet the needs of a new school in this area, while also addressing the recreational needs of the community and the neighborhood. The PROS Comprehensive Planning Process clearly identified a need for additional athletic fields, particularly in a multi-field setting. A number of strategies in the PROS Plan emphasize this need with regards to accommodating tournament play, league play, and realizing maintenance and programming efficiencies. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 5 Downtown Covered Skatepark (Bob Chandler, owner of Tactics Boardshop) Two individuals submitted testimony in favor of the PROS project to develop a covered, centrally located skatepark facility, advocating for its placement in Washington-Jefferson Park. The testimony included reference to a previously submitted petition in support of the skatepark signed by over 1,600 local residents. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan identifies $200,000 for this project with a priority 1 ranking. System Development Charge related questions (Roxie Cuellar, Director of Government Affairs for Home Builders Association of Lane County; Doug Weber, SDC Rates Advisory Committee member) A member of the SDC Rates Advisory Committee testified that the amount of land to be acquired seems excessive and reduces the residential land inventory, recommending the list be ‘trimmed down’ or ‘broken into parts’ to be implemented as non-SDC funding is secured. Written comments were submitted by Roxie Cuellar of the Home Builders Association of Lane County related to preliminary growth allocation figures in the Project Plan and in additional information and clarification related to growth allocation percentages. Staff had provided this additional information to the Mayor and City Council both in advance of the public hearing and as requested following a February 27, 2006 council work session. Key points and concerns expressed in the comments included: Acknowledgement that the project list contains all of the elements required by ? SDC-related statutes. Park acquisition for natural area parks includes acreage which is anticipated to be ? funded by other agencies. Contention that natural area park projects beyond the 20-year planning horizon ? are allocated to growth. Concern that the growth allocation percentages for Neighborhood park land ? acquisition are not based on capacity needs of growth. Proposal to use the planning target Level of Service (LOS) contained in the ? PROS Comprehensive Plan as the basis for growth allocation. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan anticipates that certain projects are likely to involve partnerships with other agencies in terms of funding and land acquisition. While the results of such projects affect the existing and future parks level of service, funding through grants and by other agencies is typically excluded when calculating SDC rates. For this reason, staff provided a clarification of acres of park included in the project list that are anticipated to be subject to the growth allocation percentages as reflected in a column labeled “Acquisition Acres Net of Partner Funded” in Table A attached to Ms. Cuellar’s Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 6 comment and previously provided to the Mayor and Council. The growth allocation percentages provided in the Project and Priority Plan are reflective of the LOS provided by projects in the plan over the Plan’s 20-year planning horizon. If projected LOS and acres of parks is revised in the future due to changes in projected partner funding an update to the Project Plan, growth allocation percentages and SDC will be completed to account for these changes. The Project and Priority Plan also includes projects, including some natural area park projects, which are anticipated to serve the needs of the community beyond the 20-year planning horizon. While these projects were recognized by the community as important to fulfill Eugene’s vision for future parks and open space, they are not prioritized for funding in the next 20 years. These projects are included in priority 5. The level of service and capacity needs analysis used in deriving the growth allocations includes only those park acres and costs which will serve the community during the 20-year planning horizon. In developing the growth allocation and SDC rates, none of the projects listed in priority 5 are allocated to anticipated growth within the planning horizon. All of the growth allocation percentages, including that for neighborhood park land acquisition, are derived based on a capacity needs analysis. As previously explained, growth allocations are based on examination of system-wide capacity using examination of the future 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. 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 analysis of the exact location of individual parks and park service areas in relation to the exact location of individual developments. If capacity in existing parks were allocated to both existing users and growth, the value of growth’s share of existing park capacity would need to be recovered through a reimbursement fee SDC. The capacity analysis used is less complex and relies on fewer assumptions while the net effect is anticipated to be generally cost-neutral, both to growth and the existing community. Growth allocation percentages must consider the capacity provided in the system by projects in the Project and Priority Plan rather than conceptual planning targets contained in PROS Comprehensive Plan document. The future LOS and capacity in the parks system is most accurately identified by the result of combining the existing parks inventory with the parks and facilities added by projects in the Project Plan. Use of the LOS planning analysis reflected in Table B-1 of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to determine growth allocation Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 7 percentages is less accurate and more speculative than use of a LOS and capacity analysis derived from the projects in the Project Plan. Jurisdictional Issues (Debbie Jeffries) One individual noted that the PROS inventory includes city property only and should include partner funded acres (1,500 acres BLM land). The individual also requested “county projects” (those outside the urban growth boundary) be removed from the project list. Staff Response: The Project and Priority Plan does not contain an inventory of existing resources. This inventory is contained in the PROS Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by City Council on February 13, 2006. This issue was also brought up during the approval process of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. The following response was provided at that time. There are numerous agencies and private entities which own land within Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary and provide recreation opportunities to Eugene residents. These providers include: School Districts 4J and 52; ? The University of Oregon; ? Eugene Water and Electric Board; ? Lane County; ? River Road Parks and Recreation District; and ? Privately owned recreation providers such as golf courses and tennis clubs. ? There is no guarantee that lands owned by the above mentioned entities will remain in perpetuity as public open space and/or recreation facilities. Although these providers are part of a system which contributes to the parks, recreation and open space services of the area, only lands which are actually owned by the City of Eugene are included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan inventory. The following agencies own land within Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary that is protected in perpetuity as open space through funding mechanisms or conservation easements: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and ? The Nature Conservancy (TNC). ? The Nature Conservancy owns 415 acres of land within Eugene’s UGB which is protected open space. While TNC does not restrict public use at this time, it does not facilitate public use, and has the ability to restrict use in the future. The BLM owns 742 acres of land within Eugene’s UGB which is available for public use. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 8 It is typical of Parks and Open Space planning processes to only incorporate lands which are owned and therefore controlled by the individual jurisdiction. The inclusion of private recreation facilities complicates the inventory of lands and resources because the mission of a private facility owner is often different than that of a municipality. In the case of both Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the City of Portland, inventory acreages are limited to those lands which are owned by the jurisdictions. School facilities are included in the facility analysis, but the acreage is not included. This is consistent with Eugene’s methodology. With regards to the issue of projects located outside of Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary, currently, the City of Eugene can, and does, own property outside of its city limits and urban growth boundary. For example, the Eugene Airport and many segments of the Ridgeline Park system are located outside of the City’s limits. When acquiring and developing property that lies outside of Eugene’s jurisdiction, the City is required to follow the zoning and land use regulations of the appropriate governing jurisdictions. Adoption of the Project and Priority Plan does not amount to the City exercising any governmental authority outside of the UGB or outside of the City’s limits. As noted in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the document has no regulatory effect on land not under the City’s jurisdictional authority. Neither the PROS Comprehensive Plan or the Project and Priority Plan are intended to have any legal or regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. They are strategy/planning documents that are intended as a guide for the City as it moves forward to meet the recreational and park needs of the City’s residents. Project and Priority Plan- May 8, 2006 Public Testimony Response Page 9