HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Ordinance Adopting New PROS Comprehensive Plan
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
(“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene
Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the
Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a
Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: January 18, 2006 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4914
ISSUE STATEMENT
The PROS Comprehensive Plan is a comprehensive update to the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation
Plan (adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan by City Council Resolution No. 4127). As such, the
PROS Comprehensive Plan is presented for adoption as a refinement to the City’s Metro Plan in
compliance with Eugene Code’s Type V procedures (EC 9.7500 - 9.7560). Concurrent with the City’s
processing of the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the City is processing amendments to EC 9.8010 (listing
the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan - 1989 as an adopted plan) and EC 9.9550 (setting forth the
adopted 1989 plan policies). These Chapter 9 amendments are also processed in accordance with the
City code’s Type V procedures; thus, City staff is presenting one ordinance that both adopts the PROS
Comprehensive Plan and also amends the applicable code provisions.
BACKGROUND
A work session on the adoption of the Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Comprehensive Plan was held with the City Council on November 28, 2005. A public hearing on the
PROS Comprehensive Plan was held before the City Council on December 12, 2005. Thirteen
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 two additional
weeks (until 5 p.m. on December 30). Prior to the close of the record on December 30, staff received
written testimony from three additional people. All of the written testimony submitted before the close
of the record on December 30 is attached to this Agenda Item Summary (AIS) as Attachment F. Staff
response to the Public Hearing testimony is attached to this AIS as Attachment B.
Much of the public hearing testimony was directed at the separation of the project list from the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. The list was separated from the PROS Comprehensive Plan in order to give the
City Council the necessary flexibility to respond to shifting priorities, funding opportunities and
changing community trends and needs. The project list will be presented to the City Council for
adoption as part of the PROS Project and Priority Plan. The PROS Project and Priority Plan list is
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118A.DOC
intended to comply with state statutory system development charge (SDC) requirements set forth at ORS
223.304 and ORS 223.209.
If the project list required by ORS 223.309 were to be included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, it
would, by its location in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, be adopted as a land use decision. This would
mean that the project list would be subjected to the land use plan amendment process every time the City
Council wanted to change the priority of a proposed project because of funding opportunities or
demographic changes. So that the City Council can avoid having to go through the land use process
every time that it wants to amend the project list, the City Council is being presented with the PROS
Projects and Priority Plan (which includes the project list) separately from the PROS Comprehensive
Plan.
The Projects and Priority Plan is proposed for adoption by City Council resolution. Although a public
hearing is not legally required for this process, one will be held to ensure that the PROS Project and
Priority Plan is reflective of the community input that was collected over the last several years. This
public hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2006. Amendments to the PROS Project and Priority Plan
will be made by City Council Resolution. Whether or not a public hearing is held on a proposed
amendment will be a council decision. The project list will be required to be updated each time the SDC
methodology is updated. This process includes public hearings and occurs approximately every five
years. Another opportunity for amending the project list may occur with the annual budget process.
This process also includes public hearings.
A number of public hearing participants directed their public testimony at park and open space services
in the Santa Clara area. Much of this testimony was based on Table B-2 (attached to this AIS as
Attachment C), which established a baseline of the parks and open space inventory as of June 2004.
This table only reflects the parks and open space inventory as of June 2004; it does not reflect any
intended future actions in the planning areas. The strategies for the enhancement of parks and open
space in all of the planning areas, including Santa Clara, are described in Chapter 4 of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. For council reference, a map of existing park and school service areas in the Santa
Clara area is attached to this AIS as Attachment D. Additionally, a Santa Clara Park Update
Memorandum, prepared for the council in November 2005, is attached to this AIS as Attachment E.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The PROS Comprehensive Plan will replace the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan, which was adopted
by the Council in 1989 as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
A. Adopt the proposed ordinance that repeals the 1989 plan and replaces it with the PROS
Comprehensive Plan as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,
amends Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code and repeals Section 9.9550 of the Eugene Code.
B. Direct the City Manager to split the proposed ordinance into two documents: 1) an ordinance that
repeals the 1989 plan; and, 2) a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a stand-
alone internal document, i.e., not as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060118\S060118A.DOC
C. Direct the City Manager to bring back to the council an ordinance that repeals the 1989 plan, and
take no action regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan.
D. Take no action, i.e., leave in place the 1989 plan.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Option A
The City Manager recommends : Adopt the proposed ordinance that repeals the 1989 plan and
replaces it with the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan, amends Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code and repeals Section 9.9550 of the
Eugene Code.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to adopt an ordinance adopting a new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS
Comprehensive Plan”) as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan;
repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan adopted therein; amending
Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Section 9.9550 of that code; adopting a severability
clause; and providing an effective date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance Adopting the PROS Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit A to Attachment A, Findings of Consistency
?
B. Staff Response to Comments and Questions from Public Testimony
C. Table B-2: Parks and Open Space Inventory by Planning Area, June 2004
D. Santa Clara Park and School Service Area Map
E. Council Memo: Santa Clara Park Update, November 2005
F. Public Hearing Testimony
G. Eugene Outdoors! PROS Comprehensive Plan Special Edition
Note: For additional background information, notebooks containing the minutes of the Parks and Open
Space Mayor’s Advisory Committee, along with other informational documents, are available for review
at the City Manager’s Office.
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\M060118\S060118A.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW PARKS, RECREATION
AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (“PROS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”)
AS A REFINEMENT OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN; REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 4127 AND THE EUGENE PARKS AND
RECREATION PLAN ADOPTED THEREIN; AMENDING
SECTION 9.8010 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; REPEALING
SECTION 9.9550 OF THAT CODE; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Portions of the current Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan were adopted
by Resolution No. 4127 on July 10, 1989 as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
B.
Since the summer of 2002 the City has been engaged in a comprehensive
planning process to identify future needs for parks, open space and recreation
programs and services. The attached PROS Comprehensive Plan was developed
based on the results of public outreach to thousands of residents of the City through
meetings with neighborhood organizations, and City representatives meeting with
various youth, seniors, adults, people with disabilities and cultural minority interest
groups.
C.
The attached PROS Comprehensive Plan will provide long-range direction
for future strategies and actions to improve parks, provide recreation opportunities, and
protect natural resource values, and will replace the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation
Plan as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
D.
On September 15, 2005 the PROS Comprehensive Plan was referred to
the Planning Directors of the City of Springfield and Lane County for review for
consistency with the Metro Plan. Notice of the proposed Plan adoption was delivered
by the City to the Land Conservation and Development Commission on September 2,
2005. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register
Guard on September 21, 2005.
E.
In addition to the above, the PROS Comprehensive Plan and related
materials have been made available on the internet through the City’s web site.
F.
Based on the public testimony received, and the recommendations of the
City’s Planning Commission, and Planning Division staff, the City Council finds that the
PROS Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Ordinance - 1
General Plan, other adopted City policies, and the Statewide Planning Goals. That
Resolution No. 4127, and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan adopted therein
should be repealed; the entry for Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan – 1989 in Section
9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971 should be deleted; and Section 9.9550 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, the Eugene Parks and Recreation Policies, should be repealed as
hereinafter set forth.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Resolution No. 4127, and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan
adopted therein, is hereby repealed, as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 2.
Based on the above findings, and the legislative findings attached
hereto as Exhibit A, which are adopted in support of this Ordinance, the PROS
Comprehensive Plan a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby adopted
as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. A final copy
of the complete PROS Comprehensive Plan shall be attached to this Ordinance.
Section 3.
Table 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is hereby amended by
deleting the “Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan – 1989” entry therefrom,
Section 4.
Section 9.9550 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed.
[9.9550 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Policies.
(1) Physical Access.
(a) Provide safe parking at parks and recreational facilities that commonly
draw crowds arriving by both automobiles and bicycles. (Policy 4)
(b) Provide safe and convenient access to parks and recreational facilities
for persons with disabilities. (Policy 5)
(c) When possible, require land divisions and planned unit developments to
provide for pedestrian access to parks and potential park sites. (Policy
6)
(2) Urban Design.
(a) Protect the unique geographical features, buttes, and other natural
landmarks in parks and other recreational facilities for their contribution
to the community’s identity. (Policy 1)
(b) Use the Trees for Eugene street tree planting guide when designing
streetscapes next to and within parks and other recreational facilities.
(Policy 3)
(c) Minimize the impacts of park use on surrounding lands through:
1. Buffering borders shared with residential, commercial, industrial,
and agricultural uses.
2. Expanding sub-standard sized parks, when possible, through
acquisition to improve access, visibility, and aesthetic quality.
3. Careful siting of access roads, parking areas, and activities that
require lighting or produce high noise levels. (Policy 4)]
(d) Treat environmental enhancement as a component of recreational
development. (Policy 5)
(3) Willamette and McKenzie Rivers.
(a) Use the January, 1985, Willamette River Greenway Management
Ordinance - 2
Proposal as a source for identifying natural vegetation and wildlife areas
as well as possible management techniques and specific land use
actions and decisions that will provide a balance among physical access
areas, visual access areas, and areas where access should be limited
or discouraged. (Policy 1)
(b) Preserve and enhance natural habitats and scenic corridors that
deserve special merit along the rivers. (Policy 6)
(c) Assure that developments within the established Willamette River
Greenway boundaries comply with State and local Greenway standards
and regulations. (Policy 7)
(4) South Hills.
(a) Preserve the character and habitat value of the South Hills by siting and
developing recreational facilities and other improvements in a way that
preserves and enhances the natural conditions of the area. (Policy 1)
(b) Manage the South Hills as a passive recreational feature by providing a
variety of recreational facilities, such as trails, view points, and natural
areas, to accommodate a range of interests and activities. (Policy 2)
(c) Extend the Ridgeline Trail System along or near the ridge of the South
Hills and provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. (Policy 4)
(5) Delta Ponds.
Develop the Delta Ponds as a major recreational area and
corridor including a variety of recreational and educational opportunities.
(Policy 1)
(6) Amazon Channel.
(a) Develop the channel as a major recreational corridor by providing a
variety of recreational facilities along its length. (Policy 1)
(b) Provide access to the channel from adjacent neighborhoods. (Policy 3)
(c) Where channel street crossings are absent, install foot bridges that are
sensitive to wildlife for convenient access to recreational areas. (Policy
4)
(d) Improve the safety and aesthetic quality of the channel corridor to
encourage its use and contribute to its beautification. (Policy 6)
(7) Millrace and Other Waterways and Drainageways.
(a) Maintain and enhance the character and recreational opportunities of
the Millrace. (Policy 1)
(b) Protect natural stream courses, sloughs, and wetlands in connection
with parks and recreational facilities. (Policy 3)]
Section 5.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended or repealed herein.
Section 6.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 7.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Ordinance - 3
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2005 ____ day of _____________, 2005
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 4
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Adoption of New Refinement Plan The following criteria are applicable to the adoption of
a new refinement plan.
(1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and sets out requirements for such
1
involvement. The action taken to adopt this ordinance did not amend the citizen involvement
program.
Throughout the PROS Comprehensive Plan drafting process, the City provided numerous
opportunities for citizen involvement. The City initiated the planning process in the summer of
2002. The City engaged in significant outreach to community members to identify their key
issues, priorities and perceived needs. A Community Needs Assessment was conducted to solicit
feedback from a broad spectrum of City residents and staff regarding their needs and preferences
for parks and recreation services. The Community Needs Assessment included, among other
things, a survey of 437 households, questionnaires completed by 647 high school and middle
school students, focus groups, a speakers bureau with 44 presentations to community groups and
organizations, twelve stakeholder interviews with identified community leaders, and meetings
with the Mayor’s Advisory Committee and Steering Committee. The Community Needs
Assessment incorporated the findings from a variety of public involvement activities, along with
a community profile, a demographic profile, and a technical analysis of programs, parks and
facilities, and finances.
City staff, through the PROS Comprehensive Plan drafting process, provided the Eugene
Planning Commission and the Eugene City Council with periodic updates on the draft Plan. For
example, in December 8, 2004, City staff provided the City Council with a draft of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan and gave an informational presentation the Council. Additionally, on
January 24, 2005, City staff provided the Planning Commission with a draft of PROS
Comprehensive Plan and gave an informational presentation to the Commission.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that
notice of the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan be given and public hearings be held prior to
adoption. Consideration of this ordinance began with a Eugene Planning Commission works
session held on October 10, 2005. On October 11, 2005, a public hearing was held before the
Eugene Planning Commission on the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan. Department of Land
Conservation and Development notice, notice to interested parties and newspaper publication
1
The term “this ordinance” refers to the ordinance that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan and makes two
amendments to the City’s acknowledged land use regulations that are necessary to update the land use regulations to
reflect the adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan in place of the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 1 of 10
was provided for that hearing. The Eugene Planning Commission left the public record open for
additional written comments until October 17, 2005.
The process for adopting this ordinance complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the
State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record
show that there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed
ordinance.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2
coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unity and when the City uses the
information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. Because the PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not regulate when or how park land will be acquired, but rather is an
aspirational plan that sets forth the needs of the community and strategies for satisfying those
needs, no other governmental units are affected by this ordinance.
Even though no other governmental units are affected by this ordinance, in an effort to educate
neighboring jurisdictions about the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the City took steps to provide
neighboring jurisdictions an opportunity to comment on the proposed PROS Comprehensive
Plan. Specifically, in accordance with the Metro Plan, notice and a copy of the proposed PROS
Comprehensive Plan was mailed to the Planning Directors of Springfield and Lane County.
Additionally, on September 27, 2005, City staff met with the Lane County Board of
Commissioners to provide the Board information regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan. In
response to concerns raised by some of the Commissioners, the City made a number of revisions
to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. On November 1, 2005, City staff met with the Lane County
Planning Commission to provide the Commission with information regarding the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this ordinance.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any
agricultural land designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and
recreational needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land inside or outside
the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 3 is not relevant and the ordinance
does not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 2 of 10
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any
forest plan designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and recreational
needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land inside or outside the
acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the ordinance does
not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The adoption of this ordinance does not create or amend the City’s list of Goal 5 resources, does
not amend a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5, does not allow new uses that could be conflicting with a
Goal 5 resource and does not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. Adoption of this ordinance does not affect
the City’s compliance with Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people
and property from natural hazards such as land slides. This ordinance does not affect the City’s
restrictions on development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, this
ordinance does not allow for new development that could result in a natural hazards. Therefore,
Goal 7 does not apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. Implementation of the
strategies set forth in the PROS Comprehensive Plan will satisfy the recreational needs of the
residents of Eugene area in adequate proportions and in such quantity, quality and location as is
consistent with the availability of the resources to meet those needs. Adoption of this ordinance
is consistent with Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 3 of 10
The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not have a direct impact on economic activities. It does
not change the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS
Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide of a certain amount of park acreage per
1,000 residents and identifies the need to acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any
property for park use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories of
industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the ordinance is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential
land for needed housing units. This ordinance does not have a direct impact on residential
development opportunities. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning,
designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS Comprehensive Plan does
include strategies to provide a certain amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies
the need to acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park use. Thus, the
PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories of residential lands. Therefore, the
ordinance is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The provisions of this ordinance do not affect the planning or development of future public
facilities or services. Therefore, this ordinance is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy
framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) states that land use changes that
significantly affect a transportation facility shall require mitigation measures to address the
anticipated impacts. The rule states that:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land
use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure
that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ration etc.) of the
facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
(a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility;
(b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities to support the
proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division;
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 4 of 10
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce
demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes;
or
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and
performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle
congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development where
multi modal travel choices are provided.
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or
access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a
transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
Adoption of the ordinance will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility. Nor will it change standards implementing a functional classification
system. Further, it will not allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of
travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation
facility or reduce the performance standards of any facility. Therefore, Goal 12 is not implicated
by this ordinance.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
This ordinance does not concern energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Goal 14 does not apply to the City’s adoption of this ordinance.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Willamette Greenway area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary is governed by
existing local provisions which have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those
provisions are unchanged by this ordinance.
Goal 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources):
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 5 of 10
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
effected by this ordinance. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the ordinance will not
affect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
(2) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
1. Develop a system of regional-metropolitan recreational activity areas based on a
facilities plan for the metropolitan area that includes acquisition, development, and
management programs. The Plan should include reservoir and hill parks, the Willamette
River Greenway, and other river corridors.
In June, 2003, the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopted Rivers
to Ridges, a metropolitan regional parks and open space study. Rivers to Ridges was
developed based on extensive public input with an intended purpose of setting forth what
open space areas are vital to maintaining the regional quality of life and devising methods
to ensure these areas remain intact for future generation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan
does not amend Rivers to Ridges. The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following
strategies that ensure consistency with Rivers to Ridges while also addressing this Metro
Plan policy:
H-22 Continue participating in regional open space efforts with Rivers to Ridges
partner agencies.
I-11 Coordinate planning efforts with other City departments and regional agencies,
especially in support of the Rivers to Ridges region vision.
I-13 Maintain a regional planning approach by coordinating with Oregon State Parks,
River Road Park and Recreation District, Willamalane Park and Recreation
District, Lane County Parks and other neighboring jurisdictions.
I-22 Work with Lane County and property owners of local gravel mining operations
located north of Eugene’s urban growth boundary along the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers, to explore the recreation potential of those sites once mining
operations are concluded.
2. Local parks and creation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each jurisdiction and
coordinated on a metropolitan level.
In 1989 the City adopted the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan as the City’s local park
and recreation plan. The PROS Comprehensive Plan, being adopted by the proposed
ordinance, replaces the 1989 Plan as the City’s local park and recreation plan.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 6 of 10
3. Accelerate the acquisition of park land in projected growth areas by establishing
guidelines determining where and when developers will be requires to dedicate land for
park and recreation facilities, or money in lieu thereof, to serve their developments.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
B-40 Acquire property or obtain access easements from private property owners to fill
missing links and improve connectivity.
H-2 Develop programs to maximize donations, grants and partnerships to increase the
resources available for parks and recreation. Develop gift catalogs for key parks,
recreation, and open space facilities and programs.
H-17 Pursue and maintain effective partnerships with public, private, and non-profit
organizations to acquire, develop, and maintain parks, open space, and recreation
facilities.
I-20 Coordinate with developers to ensure that new residents will have access to and
be adequately served by parks and open space.
I-23 Acquire parkland and natural open space in advance of need to reduce land
acquisition costs and to protect critical resources.
I-24 Identify and pursue opportunities with willing sellers as the preferred approach
when evaluating parkland and natural open space acquisition options. Consider
willingness of seller as a key criterion when prioritizing acquisition opportunities.
I-26 Ensure that the City’s acquisition program provides a balance of natural areas and
developed parks for active recreation consistent with community values.
4. Encourage the development of private recreation facilities.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
A-16 Increase outreach to community groups and other organizations that support
seniors, such as assisted-living facilities and faith groups.
A-23 Explore partnerships to expand outdoor recreation activities and programs that
promote environmental awareness, volunteerism, and stewardship, including
options that are affordable.
A-37 Partner/collaborate with resident companies and other cultural venues to provide
cultural opportunities.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 7 of 10
C-2 Develop and maintain partnerships to increase access to recreation facilities
owned or managed by others.
C-27 Develop partnerships with gardening and horticultural clubs, such as the Master
Gardeners, the Hardy Plan Society, the Native Plant Society, and the
Rhododendron and Rose Societies, to enhance existing gardens and to provide
additional botanical gardens.
H-12 Pursue local business sponsors to subsidize fees for high-cost programs, such as
through an “Adopt-a-Program” effort.
H-16 Partner with businesses to provide services and amenities, such as vendors in
parks.
H-17 Pursue and maintain effective partnerships with public, private, and non-profit
organizations to acquire, develop, and maintain parks, open space, and recreation
facilities.
5. Develop mechanisms and processes by which residents of an area to be served by a
neighborhood park or play lot can participate in the design, development, and
maintenance of the facility.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
B-7 Prepare master plans for parkland and facilities prior to development, major
improvement, or renovation to promote cohesive, quality design and to ensure
plans are consistent with community needs.
D-10 Develop and maintain an interested parties list for natural resource issues related
to parks, recreation, and open space, and schedule periodic workshops for
feedback on issues, programs, and improvements.
F-1 Develop or update park designs or master plans before making significant
improvements to the site.
G-17 Continue facilitating and encouraging the formation of adopt-a-park groups for
each park and facility.
G-21 Provide public information to educate the community about parks maintenance
issues and benefits, such as invasive species, vandalism, play area safety, native
plants, etc. Partner with neighborhood associations.
I-34 Balance long-term, community-wide interest with the interests of neighborhoods
and individuals when planning and designing the City’s park, recreation and open
space system.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 8 of 10
I-70 Continue involving citizens in park design and development, as well as in
program development from the earliest possible stage.
I-71 Increase innovative strategies to improve citizen involvement in parks and open
space planning efforts, such s teleconferences, electronic on-line chat rooms, child
care at meetings, and partnerships with schools.
6. All metropolitan area parks and recreation programs and districts shall cooperate to the
greatest possible extent in the acquisition of public and private funds to support their
operations.
Chapter V of the PROS Comprehensive Plan describes potential funding sources for the
Plan improvements. The Plan identifies both public and private funding sources. The
identified public funding sources include: general fund, road fund, stormwater &
wastewater fees, and wetlands mitigation bank funds. The identified private funding
sources include: local option levy, private grants and foundations, public/private
partnerships, and fees and charges. Additionally, the following funding sources were
identified for capital expenses: system development charges, donations, local
improvement district, general obligation bond, public/government grant programs,
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, local government grants, urban
forestry grants, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, land trusts, Nation Tree Trust,
lifetime estates and property exchanges.
Additionally, the PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that
address this Metro Plan policy:
B-24 Coordinate long range planning of neighborhood parks with Eugene School
District 4J and Bethel School District 52, particularly with regard to school
consolidations, land disposal, or new school developments as school facilities
often function as focal points for neighborhood recreation.
B-33 Work with the River Road Park and Recreation District in long-range planning to
continue to meet community park needs in this area.
E-16 Coordinate with other agencies and providers to encourage the development of a
regional trail system linking Eugene/Springfield with Fern Ridge Reservoir, the
coast, the Cascades, and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. Provide bicycle
and pedestrian access through agricultural areas in the Willow Creek,
Bethel/Danebo, and Santa Clara planning areas of Eugene.
H-14 Improve partnerships with River Road Parks and Recreation District, School
Districts 4J and 52, Lane Transit District, EWEB, Willamalane Parks and
Recreation District, Lane County Parks and other public agencies to improve
service and maximize efficiency.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 9 of 10
Code Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following criteria (in
bold and italic) be applied to a code amendment.
(1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
The two code sections amended by this ordinance do not implicate most of the Statewide
Planning goals. To the extent that they do, see findings above.
(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted
refinement plans.
The two code sections amended by this ordinance do not implicate most of the Metro
Plan or Refinement Plan policies. To the extent that they do, see findings above.
(3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020
Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone.
The amendments do not establish a special area zone.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT B
Response to Comments and Questions from
December 12, 2005 Public Hearing
Public Hearing Testimony:
1.Roxie Cuellar, Home Builders Association of Lane County/ Home Builders
Construction Company, testimony (December 12, 2005) states that the Home
Builders do not support the PROS Plan. The project list and accompanying
maps have been removed from the PROS Plan. This enables staff to promote
a legal fiction that because it’s only a plan, it will have no impact on the
buildable lands inventory. With the acquisition of 1,600 acres of additional
park land, there will be an impact on the inventory.
Staff Response: An earlier draft of the PROS Plan included a detailed project list.
That project list was (and is) intended to comply with state statutory system
development charge (SDC) requirements set forth at ORS 223.304 and ORS
223.209. In order to preserve the necessary flexibility of the project list, the list
was separated from the PROS Comprehensive Plan and will be presented to the
City Council for adoption as part of the PROS Project and Priority Plan.
The PROS Projects and Priority Plan identifies projects and suggested priorities,
and is based on input from thousands of Eugene residents. By nature, the PROS
Projects and Priority Plan needs to be flexible to allow the City Council to
address shifting priorities and so that the City Council can respond to funding
opportunities, and changing community trends and needs.
To ensure that the Project and Priority Plan is reflective of the community input
which was collected over the last several years, there will be a public hearing
associated with the Council action to adopt the Project and Priority Plan by
Resolution. This public hearing is scheduled for March 13, 2006.
Amendments to the PROS Project and Priority Plan will be made by Council
Resolution. Whether or not a public hearing is held on a proposed amendment
will be a Council decision. The project list will be required to be updated each
time the SDC methodology is updated. This process includes public hearings
and occurs approximately every five years. Another opportunity for amending
the project list may occur with the annual budget process. This process also
includes public hearings.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 1
To meet the needs of residents in 2025, approximately 1,300 additional parkland
acres will be needed (as opposed to the stated in 1,600 in the question).
Individual projects identified within the Project and Priority Plan will comply
with required processes. The types of action necessary to implement specific
projects listed in the Project and Priority Plan will vary depending on the type of
land to be used for a particular park. If the implementation of a specific project
requires a amendment, zone change, refinement plan amendment or
Metro Plan
similar action, that action would follow the normal land use process, including
all of the required public hearings. If, however, land for the project is already
owned by the City and has an appropriate zone, implementation of that project
could occur outright without additional public process. It should be noted also,
that park development projects typically go through an extensive public
involvement component to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with
resident’s needs and desires.
2.John Dotson testimony (December 12, 2005) states that because the project
list was removed, the PROS Plan moves sideways versus forward. There
must be ways to measure progress such as performance standards.
Staff Response:
The PROS Project and Priority Plan is available on the City’s website. It is
proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a public hearing is not
legally required for this process, one will be held and is currently scheduled for
March 13, 2006. Once the separate adoption processes are complete, the PROS
Project and Priority Plan will be attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan
document as an appendix.
3.Kate Perle testimony (December 12, 2005) states that:
a) The PROS Plan does not come from the place of grass roots experience
and real needs analysis. It should meet the needs of residents and reflect
their considered input and ongoing work to better their own
neighborhoods. It is insufficient to stand alone as the guiding document
for Eugene’s parks because it has no plan for implementation.
b)Although the 1989 Parks Plan identified acquisition needs in Santa Clara
only five neighborhood parks have been purchased in the last 20 years.
c)Much of the project list for Santa Clara from the last bond measure is
still unmet.
Staff Response
a)Both the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the PROS Project and Priority Plan
are documents which are rooted in the public process. The commitment to
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 2
extensive public involvement and ensuring that the public’s opinion is
accurately represented will be carried through the formal adoption process of
both plans.
The PROS Project and Priority Plan is proposed for adoption by Council
Resolution. Although a public hearing is not legally required for this process,
one will be held and is currently scheduled for March 13, 2006. Once the
separate adoption processes are complete, the PROS Project and Priority Plan
will be attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan document as an appendix.
The amount of public input that went into the planning process of both
documents was extensive. This public involvement process was approved by
the Citizen Involvement Committee and overseen by the eleven-member
Mayor’s Advisory Committee. Specific outreach activities included:
Community Survey: A community survey was conducted to access public
?
attitudes, recreation interests, recreation participation, and opinions on
maintenance and financial issues. It included data on current participation in
50 recreation activities as well as data on preferences for recreation
participation. A comparison of current recreation participation and recreation
preferences helps identify activities that have significant differences between
desired participation and current participation. The data are based upon a
survey sample of 437.
Youth Questionnaire: Like the Community Survey, the Youth Questionnaire
?
included data on current participation as well as demand for recreation
activities. A total of 647 questionnaires were completed.
Eugene Celebration Questionnaire: This report included the results of 456
?
questionnaires completed during this annual event.
Speakers Bureau Questionnaire: This report included the input received
?
from 44 staff presentations to community groups and organizations. A total
of 1085 community members attended the presentations and 751 completed
questionnaires.
Organized Sports Questionnaire: A questionnaire was sent out to
?
representatives from 21 organizations; 15 sports providers responded or were
interviewed by telephone.
Focus Groups (LRCS All Staff, Maintenance Staff, Recreation and Social
?
Service Providers, Natural Resource and Open Space, Multi-cultural, LRCS
Communities of Color, Business Community): A total of 179 participated in
PROS plan focus groups.
Stakeholder Interviews: Twelve community leaders identified by the City
?
were interviewed.
Mayor’s Advisory Committee Meetings: A total of 24 public meetings of the
?
Mayor’s Advisory Committee were held.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 3
City-wide Community Forum: A city-wide community forum was held at
?
Churchill High School in April, 2004 to brainstorm and identify key projects
in each of the six planning sub-areas. Over 70 community members
participated in a four-hour community discussion.
Eugene Outdoors Special Addition: Eugene Outdoors, a publication of the
?
City of Eugene Parks and Open Space Division featured the PROS Plan and
projects in each planning area. The newsletter was delivered via mail to all
Eugene residents, including residents of Santa Clara. See Attachment G-
Eugene Outdoors!.
Planning Area Community Forums: Community forums in each of the six
?
planning areas were extensively advertised and held in February and March
of 2005 to collect input on the draft plan and individual projects.
b)The 1989 Park and Recreation Plan did identify numerous projects for Santa
Clara as it did for all areas of the City. Unfortunately funding shortages
made most of these identified projects impossible to implement across the
entire city. Not until the passage of the Parks and Open Space Bond Measure
in 1998 was funding available to begin project implementation on a
significant scale.
c)The 1998 bond measure identified several projects in Santa Clara, all but one
of which are complete. See Attachment D- Santa Clara Park and Service
Area Map. The bond measure specified the following projects for Santa
Clara:
Acquisition of five neighborhood park sites
?
Acquisition of one community park site
?
Development of Arrowhead Park
?
Development of Awbrey Park
?
All five neighborhood park sites have been acquired and include:
Lone Oak Park
?
Filbert Meadows Park
?
Wendover Park
?
Terra Linda Park
?
Ferndale Park
?
The development of Arrowhead and Awbrey Parks are complete.
The acquisition of a community park has been an active work item for several
years. Staff continue to work on this complex issue and are doing so in
conjunction with the Santa Clara Citizens for Sensible Parks.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 4
4.Ellen Hyman testimony (December 22, 2005) states that:
a) The PROS Plan should contain the priority list as a way to hold the City
accountable to the voters and measure accomplishments. Promises were
made but not delivered from the 1989 Plan and the 1998 POS bond
measure.
b)Additionally, there are concerns about how the bond measure has been
implemented including:
Four planned projects not listed in the expenditure history,
?
including a community park for Santa Clara
Expenditures have been made on items not mentioned in the bond
?
measure including planning, signage, the PROS Plan, and
additional projects. Only $387,307 has been spent in Santa Clara
of the total bond measure.
Staff Response:
a)See staff response to item 3(b) and (c).
b)There are inherent costs associated with implementing a bond measure.
These costs include the planning, engineering, and management of
projects. The dollar estimates for each category listed in the bond measure
include these inherent costs. Additionally, there are opportunities which
can be acted on during the implementation of a bond measure, such as
developing a new park sign standard for the numerous new parks which
are being developed. Bond measure dollars were leveraged in many
instances by grants, donations, and partnerships. The implementation of
the bond measure has exceeded expectations in most categories. The few
remaining projects are considered staff’s highest priority and will be
completed in the near future. In addition to $387,307 in park development
costs, $1,956,670 has been spent on park acquisition in Santa Clara to date.
5.Larry Reed, JRH Planning, testimony (December 12, 2005) states that the
PROS Plan is flawed because:
a)The inventory does not address private and other agency lands and
recreation facilities. By law, these facilities cannot be ignored. The
inventory also does not include the Willamette River and adjoining
vegetation and bike paths.
b)The Plan is out of balance with other planning elements of equal or more
importance than the City’s recreational elements.
Staff Response:
a)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:
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 5
School Districts 4J and 52;
?
The University of Oregon;
?
Eugene Water and Electric Board;
?
Lane County;
?
The Nature Conservency;
?
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 City does not own the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers. These are identified
as Waters of the State. Where parkland does border the River, the associated
riparian areas and bike paths are included in the inventory.
The Metro Plan does not require that private recreation facilities be included in
the Parks and Open Space inventory. Policy 4 of the Parks and Recreation
Facilities Element of the Metro Plan states: “Encourage the development of
private recreation facilities.” PROS Comprehensive Plan strategies A-16, A-23,
A-37, C-2, C-27, H-12, H-16 and H-17 address this Metro Plan policy.
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.
b)The PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and
strategies to guide preservation and enhancement of Eugene’s Parks,
Recreation and Open Space system. It is a reflection of the Community’s
values and is directly based on extensive public input. The Plan does not
attempt to balance the Parks, Recreation and Open Space needs with other
priorities such as public safety and transportation infrastructure.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 6
6.Debbie Jeffries testimony (December 12, 2005) states the following concerns
with the PROS Plan:
a)3,000 acres are omitted from the inventory, including the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers.
b)No notice was given to County residents that the planning area extended
beyond Eugene’s UGB and the Metro Plan boundary.
c)Priorities should be public safety and infrastructure.
Staff Response:
a)See staff response to item 5 (a).
b)Advertising for public involvement opportunities during the PROS
planning process was extensive. It included:
Speakers Bureau presentations to 44 community groups, including
?
the Chamber of Commerce and Homebuilders Association
Ads in Register Guard & Eugene Weekly
?
News releases
?
A Special Edition Eugene Outdoors! featuring the comprehensive
?
plan
Public Meeting Calendar
?
Fliers & posters
?
Neighborhood Group Newsletters
?
Thorough updates on our website and calendar of events
?
The March Working City episode was dedicated to the comp plan
?
and future of POS.
Staff acknowledge that advertising did not make it explicitly clear that the
PROS planning area contains land outside Eugene’s City limits and UGB.
As a result, staff have made every attempt to meet with property owners
on an individual basis who have expressed concerns.
c)See staff response to item 5 (b).
7.Terry Connoly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, testimony (December 12, 2005)
states that the PROS Plan is not comprehensive for the following reasons:
a)It is not integrated with the Goal 5 inventory and it does not include
lands such as the West Eugene Wetlands.
b)It does call for the acquisition of 1,600 acres of land but does not address
the issue of buildable lands.
c)The project list is not considered land use so also will not address the
buildable lands issue.
Staff Response:
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 7
a)Land within the West Eugene Wetlands inventory that is owned by the
City of Eugene is included in the PROS Plan inventory. The Bureau of
Land Management owns 742 acres of land in Eugene’s UGB. These lands
are not included in the PROS Plan inventory. The Goal 5 inventory is
regulatory in nature. The PROS Plan is not regulatory, but is aspirational.
While some lands identified on the Goal 5 inventory coincide with
existing park and open space properties, there is no direct correlation.
b)To meet the needs of residents in 2025, approximately 1,300 additional
parkland acres will be needed (as opposed to the stated in 1,600 in the
question). Table B-1 identifies the total net need for the current Eugene
population and also the projected population in 2025. The total acreage
identified in the projected 2025 population column is the total amount of
parkland to be acquired. It is not necessary to factor in the current acreage
deficiency, as that is already counted in the future acreage need total.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan includes Strategy #I-15. This strategy
states, “Recognize the need to balance the adoption of new planning
documents with the adopted Growth Management Goals and the
cumulative effect that existing planning documents may have on the
City’s ability to fulfill the Growth Management Goals. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not have an impact on the buildable land
inventories. However, future acquisition of additional park land may
have an impact on the inventories.”
c)Projects identified within the Project and Priority Plan will comply with
the land use planning process. The types of action necessary to
implement specific projects listed in the Project and Priority Plan will vary
depending on the type of land to be used for a particular park. If the
implementation of a specific project requires a amendment,
Metro Plan
zone change, refinement plan amendment or similar action, that action
would follow the normal land use process, including all of the required
public hearings. If, however, land for the project is already owned by the
City and has an appropriate zone, implementation of that project could
occur outright without additional public process.
8.Bill Kloos, Home Builders Association of Lane County/ Home Builders
Construction Company, testimony (December 12, 2005) states the following:
a)The PROS Plan violates state and local law because the Plan does not
identify planned facilities.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 8
b)The assertion that the PROS Plan does not impact the residential land
inventory is a fiction and, in fact, the City is on a “parkland buying
spree.”
c)The City does not have the authority to extend its planning into rural
Lane County.
Staff Response:
a)This testimony directs the Council to the ORS 195.120-.125 and to OAR
Chapter 660, Division 24, in support of the assertion that the PROS
Comprehensive Plan must identify planned facilities. We have looked at
ORS 195.120-.125 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 24, and can find nothing
that supports this contention. This testimony also directs the Council to
the statutory definition of “comprehensive plan” in support of the
assertion that the PROS Comp Plan must include specific projects. The
statutory definition of “comprehensive plan” in not applicable to the
adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. The Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area and is this area’s
“Comprehensive Plan” as that term is defined by state statute. The Metro
Plan includes a Parks and Recreation Facilities Element and the PROS
Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the policies set forth therein.
b)The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning, designation
or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS Comprehensive Plan
does include strategies to provide a certain amount of park acreage per
1,000 residents and identifies the need to acquire property for park use, it
does not rezone any property for park use. Thus, the PROS
Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the buildable land inventories.
c)Adoption of the PROS Comprehensive 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. The PROS Comprehensive Plan is not intended to
have any legal or regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. It
is strategy/planning document that is intended as a guide for the City as
it moves forward to meet the recreational and park needs of the City’s
residents.
The City of Eugene is a home rule city. The City adopted its charter
pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution governing
home rule powers of cities. Within the City charter, the citizens granted to
the City “all powers that the Constitution or laws of the United States or
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 9
of this state expressly or impliedly grant or allow cities . . .” As such, the
City Council possesses the legislative power to enact any ordinance that is
not prohibited by the United States Constitution or federal laws, or by the
Oregon Constitution or state statutes. Neither the constitution or statutes
prohibit a city from adopting a vision document that looks beyond its
jurisdiction in an effort to address future park and recreational needs.
9.Charles Biggs testimony (December 12 and 30, 2005) states the following
concerns with the PROS Plan:
a)The Project list should be included in the PROS Plan.
b)103+ policies of the 1989 Parks and Recreation plan should be retained
and expanded, in the PROS plan.
c)Objection to the proposed Striker Field project.
Staff Response:
a)The PROS Project and Priority Plan is available on the City’s website. It is
proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a public hearing
is not legally required for this process, one will be held and is currently
scheduled for March 13, 2006. Once the separate adoption processes are
complete, the PROS Project and Priority Plan will be attached to the PROS
Comprehensive Plan document as an appendix.
b)The PROS Plan uses the term strategies instead of policies. The PROS
Plan Strategies contain most, if not all of the same general content as the
“policies” in the 1989 Plan. Strategies is a more appropriate term because
of their aspirational nature. The same was true for the 1989 “policies”
which have no practical effect on subdivision, partitions or site review
applications. Chapter 9 regulations serve as the implementation of parks
related requirements.
c)Specific projects can be discussed within the context of the Project and
Priority Plan.
10.Charles Moss testimony (December 12, 2005) states the following comments:
a)Actions are not listed in the November 2005 Draft PROS Plan although
funding options are. He would like to know what projects the money will
be spent on.
b)The Santa Clara school and site should be preserved to meet the goal of
community identity.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 10
c)Table B-2 was not revised since November 2005 and shows that River
Road/ Santa Clara has 18% of the population and 1% of the developed
acres.
d)The Santa Clara label is left off the Planning Area Index Map in Appendix
B.
Staff Response:
a)The PROS Project and Priority Plan is available on the City’s website. It is
proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a public hearing
is not legally required for this process, one will be held and is currently
scheduled for March 13, 2006. Once the separate adoption processes are
complete, the PROS Project and Priority Plan will be attached to the PROS
Comprehensive Plan document as an appendix.
b)To date, staff have not pursued options around the Santa Clara School
site for use as a neighborhood park. The primary reason is that the area is
currently served by an existing neighborhood park purchased in 1999 for
that purpose. Lone Oak Park is an undeveloped, 4-acre site located at the
corner of Ross Lane and Lone Oak Avenue, and was one of the earlier
bond-funded acquisitions targeted to serve the neighborhood in southeast
Santa Clara.
The addition of a neighborhood park site at Santa Clara school would
result in significant overlap with the existing service area covered by Lone
Oak. The idea has been discussed about liquidating Lone Oak in favor of
buying a portion of Santa Clara School for a neighborhood park. While
this may sound appealing to some at first glance, we believe the
additional costs involved would pose a significant barrier to this course of
action. See Attachment E- Santa Clara Park Update Memo.
c)Table B-2 (see attachment) establishes a baseline of the Parks and Open
Space Inventory as of June, 2004. This Table does not reflect the proposed
additions to the Parks and Open Space Inventory. The strategies for the
enhancement of Parks and Open Space in all of Eugene, including Santa
Clara, are described in Chapter four of the PROS Comprehensive Plan,
while specific actions are identified in the PROS Project and Priority Plan.
d)The Planning Area Index Map at the front of Appendix B inadvertently
had the Santa Clara label left off. It will be added in the next draft.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 11
11.Zachary Vishanoff testimony (December 12, 2005) states that parks are used
as a weapon against neighborhoods with examples such as West University
Park, River Play, Nike Donations, and Santa Clara.
Staff Response:
The PROS Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide preservation
and enhancement of Eugene’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space system. The
comprehensive planning process included extensive public involvement.
See Staff Response to item 3 (a).
12.Jerry Finnigan testimony (December 12, 2005) states that because there is no
project list, he doesn’t have enough information.
Staff Response:
The PROS Project and Priority Plan is available on the City’s website. It is
proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a public hearing is not
legally required for this process, one will be held and is currently scheduled for
March 13, 2006. Once the separate adoption processes are complete, the PROS
Project and Priority Plan will be attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan
document as an appendix.
13.Dan Arkin testimony (December 12, 2005) states that he served on the
Mayor’s Advisory Committee that worked on the PROS Plan. The guiding
principle of the committee was “balance”. Regarding some of the criticism of
the plan:
a)The PROS Plan includes the possibility of cooperatively developing
facilities outside the City’s boundaries. The committee had no illusion
about controlling matters outside the city’s jurisdiction, but was focused
on integrating with the larger regional picture.
b)The committee considered including non-city owned lands in the
inventory and decided that given there is no guarantee that those lands
will remain open to the public, not to include them.
c)PROS staff was right to remove the project list from the plan. The
overall framework contained in the PROS Plan should be adopted and
leave the specific projects for later debate.
Staff Response:
No response required.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 12
14.Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of Realtors, testimony (December 12, 2005)
states that the PROS Plan is inconsistent with Statewide Planning and the
Metro Plan:
a)The exclusion of the facilities plan sites and maps is in direct conflict
with Statewide Planning Goals 9 and 10.
b)Where will the 1,623 additional acres of new acquisition come from and
how many zone changes will be required?
c)The PROS plan should not overlap with the Lane County General
Planning area without following the Metro Plan amendment process.
d)The PROS Plan is in conflict with the Metro Plan that requires private
recreation facilities be included in the park planning process.
Staff Response:
a)Statewide Planning Goals 9 and 10 do not require that facility plan sites
and maps be included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan. The PROS Plan
is consistent with Statewide planning Goal 9 and Goal 10.
Goal 9 - Economic Development:
To provide adequate opportunities
throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,
The PROS Comprehensive Plan
welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
does not have a direct impact on economic activities. It does not change
the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the
PROS Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide of a certain
amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies the need to
acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park
use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories
of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the PROS Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing:
To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of
buildable residential land for needed housing units. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not have a direct impact on residential
development opportunities. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not
change the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While
the PROS Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide a certain
amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies the need to
acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park
use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories
of residential lands. Therefore, the PROS Comprehensive Plan is
consistent with Goal 10.
b)The total target of 20 acres/1,000 translates into an additional 1,300 acres
of land by year 2025 (as opposed to the 1,623 acres stated in the question).
When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 13
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.
Projects identified within the Project and Priority Plan will comply with
the required processes. The types of action necessary to implement
specific projects listed in the Project and Priority Plan will vary depending
on the type of land to be used for a particular park. If the implementation
of a specific project requires a amendment, zone change,
Metro Plan
refinement plan amendment or similar action, that action would follow
the normal land use process, including all of the required public hearings.
If, however, land for the project is already owned by the City and has an
appropriate zone, implementation of that project could occur outright
without additional public process. It should be noted also, that park
development projects typically go through an extensive public
involvement component to ensure that the proposed project is compatible
with resident’s needs and desires.
c)See staff response to item 8(c).
d)The Metro Plan does not require that private recreation facilities be
included in the Parks and Open Space inventory. Policy 4 of the Parks
and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan states: “Encourage the
development of private recreation facilities.” PROS Comprehensive Plan
strategies A-16, A-23, A-37, C-2, C-27, H-12, H-16 and H-17 address this
Metro Plan policy.
15.Kevin, Matthews, Friends of Eugene, testimony (December 30, 2005) states the
following concerns with the PROS Plan:
a)The PROS plan does not address how to move the Ridgeline Trail Project
forward and also deletes more than 100 specific policies from the Metro
Plan
b)The PROS Plan lacks a basic technical planning foundation, is unclear
on how it will by synchronized with statewide planning Goal 5, and does
not adequately document and discuss land and facilities owned or
operated by, for example, 4J, Lane County, federal agencies, the city itself,
and others.
c)The PROS planning process is disconnected from neighborhood
association involvement and neighborhood dissatisfaction has not
resulted in an amended plan.
Staff Response:
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 14
a)The PROS Plan uses the term strategies instead of policies. The PROS
Plan Strategies contain most, if not all of the same general content as the
“policies” in the 1989 Plan. Strategies is a more appropriate term because
of their aspirational nature. The same was true for the 1989 policies which
have no practical effect on subdivision, partitions or site review
applications. Chapter 9 regulations serve as the implementation of parks
related requirements.
The PROS Plan contains 14 strategies which specifically address the
Ridgeline Trail. These strategies are the methods, resources, processes,
and systems the City will deploy to achieve our community’s vision and
goals. Specific actions related to the ridgeline trail are identified in the
PROS Project and Priority Plan. This Plan is available on the City’s
website. It is proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a
public hearing is not legally required for this process, one will be held and
is currently scheduled for March 13, 2006. Once the separate adoption
processes are complete, the PROS Project and Priority Plan will be
attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan document as an appendix.
b)See Staff Response to item 5 (a) and 7 (a).
c)See Staff Response to item 3 (a).
16.Terry Smith, Eugene Parks Foundation testimony (December 27, 2005) states
that the Eugene Parks Foundation (EPF) supports the adoption of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
a)It provides valuable information about current facilities and services that
can guide future direction.
b)It can act as a roadmap for a bond measure on the November 2006 ballot.
Staff Response:
No response required.
Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 15
Acres
Natural
Acres
Prop. Developed
Acres
Developed
Total Acres
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Acres
# of Parks
Count
% of Population
Santa Clara Study
1;~ Urban Grovvth Boundary
Parks
_ Schools
c--m~~: Taxlots
t!B' Park Serv!cEAre85
mBl S:::h::;.ol Sefvi(:8' l....rf~H::
[~~~~~~j Unserved Areas
~+,
o 600 1200: 800 Feet
~~~-
c,f:LTlY.:c
ATTACHMENT E
Public Works
Parks and Open Space Division
City of Eugene
1820 Roosevelt Boulevard
M
Eugene, Oregon 97402
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-4800
(541) 682-4882 FAX
www.ci.eugene.or.us/parks
Date:
November 30, 2005
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Johnny Medlin, Parks and Open Space Director
Subject:
Santa Clara Parks Update
In response to a request for information from Councilor Papé regarding the status of parks acquisitions in
the Santa Clara area, we’ve prepared the following summary of recent planning activity and some
perspective on current issues. The two-part question asked about progress on property acquisition for
Santa Clara Community Park, and requested information regarding the possible use of Santa Clara School
property for a neighborhood park.
SANTA CLARA COMMUNITY PARK – ACQUISITION UPDATE
Since the decision to discontinue consideration of the McDougal proposal, staff have made significant
progress on changing course and reviewing alternative sites. In addition, staff have met multiple times
with representatives of the community group Santa Clara Citizens for Sensible Parks and Open Space
(SCCSPOS) to discuss issues around community park selection.
The park selection criteria used to identify the McDougal site was developed in 2000 and strongly
encouraged a large site under a single ownership. Responding to direction given by City Council, the site
selection criteria has been revised to include looking at smaller sites and sites composed of multiple
properties. Additional criteria were added to reflect community input, and a revised scoring system was
developed to help rank top candidates on the basis of site suitability for park purposes.
Along with a number of sites specifically proposed by SCCSPOS, staff conducted a fresh analysis of
suitable properties in the Santa Clara area using the revised criteria, including options around Madison
Middle School. A total of 13 sites were scored against the criteria. Staff then met again with the
SCCSPOS group to review the new criteria, the results of this analysis, and discuss next steps.
A letter expressing the City’s potential interest in purchasing land for a community park was sent to the
owners of the 11 top-ranking properties. We have had no responses yet to these inquiries. Staff will
follow up through verbal contact with these property owners to determine each owner’s willingness to
discuss a sale. Staff will include the result of these discussions in the overall analysis to arrive at a new
set of options to acquire a community park site in Santa Clara.
SANTA CLARA SCHOOL – NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SERVICE
Thanks to a series of acquisitions funded by the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond, we’ve made
significant gains in closing the service gap for neighborhood parks in the Santa Clara area. Since 1999, a
total of five (5) neighborhood park sites have been purchased in Santa Clara, including Filbert Meadows
Park, Lone Oak Park, Terra Linda Park, and more recently, a park site near Ferndale Avenue and another
near Beacon Drive East. The net result is that once these neighborhood parks are developed they will
provide a well-distributed coverage of neighborhood park service that’s comparable to other areas of
Eugene. In contrast, Santa Clara continues to be significantly under-served in the categories of
community parks and natural areas.
To date, staff have not pursued options around the Santa Clara School site for use as a neighborhood
park. The primary reason is that the area is currently served by an existing neighborhood park purchased
in 1999 for that purpose. Lone Oak Park is an undeveloped, 4-acre site located at the corner of Ross Lane
and Lone Oak Avenue, and was one of the earlier bond-funded acquisitions targeted to serve the
neighborhood in southeast Santa Clara.
The addition of a neighborhood park site at Santa Clara school would result in significant overlap with the
existing service area covered by Lone Oak. The idea has been discussed about liquidating Lone Oak in
favor of buying a portion of Santa Clara School for a neighborhood park. While this may sound
appealing to some at first glance, we believe the additional costs involved would pose a significant barrier
to this course of action.
Our best current information indicates that School District 4J is expected to soon apply to change the
zoning of the Santa Clara School. The property was recently listed on the market at $7.2 million. If the
zone change application is successful, a portion of the former school property equal in size to Lone Oak
Park could cost as much as $4 million. This compares with an estimate of the current land value of Lone
Oak Park at approximately $695,000.
If you have additional questions please contact me by e-mail at johnny.r.medlin@ci.eugene.or.us or by
telephone at 682-4930.
Council Memo 12.1.05 Page 2
"'... ,'\Tl',~(']T"';I]fN'T F
t-", , -bi', l. i. < , ;''l ,'. _1;." '" --
tA. \ I ",. f'+<..-""'-n ~
\ '1.. t \ 1-1 {} s;-
Kate Perle
4740 Wendover St
Eugene, OR 97404
Esteemed councilors,
1 am here to share my opinion about the PROS pJaR
First., I would ask that the record remain open for at least one more week as members of our community
organiL.atioll wanted to l\.""\-iew the materials. When they went to the Parks office at Roosevelt Blvd. they
were told there was an office copy they could read there or that it w-as available on tine. Many of our
colleagues do not have access to computers and internet To elicit meaningful public partidpation and
review, the materials must be available to the citizenry. For a city of over 100,000 people, there should, at
a minimmn, be more than one copy available at the library and a copy sent to each neighborhood
organi.7..ation.
The original PROS plan was (,-reated as support for a projects list that has since bt.->.en remove.d from the
plan, As it no..", stands" this plan is insufficient to stand alone as the guiding document for Eugene's parks
for the nexl20 years, It is made up of a long list of possible parks improvements and acquisitions
accompanied by a long list. of potential fuuding sources, but has no plan for implementation. A bundT}' list
of possibilities with no attached policies or practices that win move us ever closer to implementing tlie
vision is not wliat I would call a plan. It is a good beginning, but is not complete and as such should not be
adopted in its present Slate.
TIus plan continues to pay lip scrvice to the idea of "creating a balanced and equitable system of parks
and recreation seryices" bm does little to get us there. When I looked at table B-2 which represents the
planning sub area of River Road/Santa Clara, it was clear that the inequity is fornridable, r took the liberty
of dividing the two neigllborhoods and came up ~1.th Santa Clard's total parks inventory, It consists of 6
neighborhood parks, one of which is developed. That's it No urban plazas, no natural areas, no
communily parks, no metro pa!ks? no linear parks, and no special nse facilities. Our total park acreage is
2636 acres. Five of these parks (2UQacres) \\'ere purchased since the passing of the 1998 bond measure
and one was given to thcylty by La'k~ County, When I looked at the 1989 Parks Plan the Santa Clara area
had 2 high priority ~4uiS:itt:mslist.ed:
" acquire and GevCIQP :{ neighborhood parks
· acquire and develop a comnnmity park
In addition it had .; medium priority issues;
· acquire and develop 3 neighborh~ parks
" improve Hileman park .
· improve \\'hitdy park
1 won't bore you with the low priority item.s as well, but as you call see, there has been a long history of
documenting the need for patks in Santa Clara without actually doing anything about it. To think that in
the last 20 years we have only purcbased 5 neighborhood parks does not im.-pire confidence in the
implementation of parks planning for Santa Clara.
If past performance is the best indicator of future perfOl'llliUlce, Santa Clara's outlook is bleak, The pace of
infiU development is brisk and the Parks department's willingness to either purchase land in front of that
curve or require that developers provide land for those necessary services seems to elude us. The 1998
POS bond measure allocated funding for a myriad of park improvemeJits and acquisitions, To alleviate the
need for field space acquisition, funding was allocated for partnering \'vith schools to upgrade existing field
space to accommodate a larger sector of our populatiQl1, both wifh progrdmmedrecreation and teanI sports,
We still look forward to that happening in our community, but to dale it has not We look forward to being
involved in planning parks in our are-a at the front end of the planning process, not the back end of the
dealings "With land~holders and developers. We look forward to being included. on ad\1.sory committees
and consulted as to what our conummity? s vision is for their parks before a plan is overlaid on onr
community. 'W'c want to advocate with parks for acquisition of lands that allow for access to the
WiUamette River, preservation of our remaining open spaces and historical sites, and the creation of a
community center that would be centrally located, Much of the p~ject list for Santa Clara from the last
bond measure is still unmet Where is tlmt fimding and how much is left? It is my sense that many
residents of Santa Clara are ready to roll up their sleeves and work on a real park plan for our area. One
that comes from the daYNto--day experiences of tho folks living there. This PROS plan does not come from
that place of grass roots ex-perience and real needs analysis.
It is easy for me to become myopic about the nnmet needs of my OW'll neighborhood, but I would be remiss
in my :responsibilities as a member of the larger community of Eugene iff did not also address the
inadequacies of this plan as pertain to other Eugene neighborhoods. Just as the protC\.,."tion of fannlands is
uppermost on my priority list and sometlring that everyone who eats should value, I realize that the
sensitive :resource lands of the South are of tremendous importance to my area, It seems that this PROS
plan, at its most pleasant and hopeful stage (visioning, not implementation) does not pass the citi7.-euo
support sniff test When it comes time for implementation of said plan, one could probably predict a future
of adversarial confrontations instead of 'wHUng collabomtion.Personally, I prefer the latter and find that it
creates better outcomes for us all. I want the 20 year vision for Parks in my city to be a success. I want it
to meet the needs of the residents and reflect their considered input and ongoing work to better their O\'\,'ll
neighborhoods.
Please consider asking the Parks department to make that Kil1d of collaOOf'dtion a reality by presenting us
with a more substantive plan that provides a means to the cnd.
Thank you for your consideration,
~~
EN 'Jr.JEER
PRe, ECT~..'li\r'..JAG p;:
F ,6, N N E R
December 12, 2005
T'.1avor Kittv Piercv
<' ." ..,I
and Eugene City Council
777 Pearl St1'eet, Room 105
EUfJene. Ore!!on 97401
{':1 . .......
RE: PROS
Dear Mayor Piercy and Council l'vlembers:
For your convenience, I have attached a copy of my previously \vritten testimony to the
Eugene Planning Commission, dated October 17,2005. In short, 1 continue with the premise
that the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan befi.lre you is fatally flawed and not ready for
adoption by the City Council. My position is based on the following:
1. The plan does not take into account (no inventory done) the open space ovrned by the
County, State, and BU.,.j (open space, \vetland areas, dC), nor even the \ViHametie
River itself and its adjoimng vegetation and bike paths. Further, the plan has not
counted open space of school sites, even though by policy the City and the school
distTicts are to do joint school! parks planning. In addition, pri vate1y-owned
recreation and open space t~lcilities have been totaJ1y ignored, such as golf courses,
nature conservancy land, etc. T believe by 1m,;, these other govemment agencies and
privately-owned parks, recreation, and open space facilities cannot be ignored. 'fo do
so, the City \vii.1 leave itself open to hl\vsuits.
2. The plan is premature and out of balance \-vlth the other planning dements of the
comrmmity, housing, economic deve1opn1cnt/ job growth, transportation, ek, are
equally, ifnot more, impOltant than the City's recreational element.
3. If you adopt this Hawed plan covering only parks goals and policies, the City
Council's hands will be tied in the future. The City Council will be told by City staff
in the future that you cannot reviSit these goals and policies because \vhat (in the
future) is before you are the maps and project lists that simply implement the City's
parks, recreation, and open space goals and poEcies, and if you had problems with
these goals and policies, your issues should have heen raised in 2005.
Please send the Plan back to staff (as a great vision) with direction to reviev/, incorporate, and
coordinate this vision into the community's hroader land use planning program (a plan
providing balance with your other plann.ing elements) and bring it back to the City Council for
adoption sometime in the future.
:Z;lrk/
Larry E. Reed
Principal, Land Use Planner
V G ; .; I; .) -+ 1 ,,8"7.: ()
'Ax .';4J..;,4.5 (;SC;'~
I ;'. I 11. H W :: !; . c " ~,j
,;I 7 () '3 \f t :. t :'\G t F L A l}\ i. () () p
S l.J : T r ~:'. 0 1
F U C " ,'i E
(l P. E G () N
~~7401
ENC:INEE
ROlfeT
~'~ ,)
1\,; ,\
..,'\ t\
N/\GEP
P l 1\ N N '-'
R S
'~
October 17, 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Eugene Planning Department
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Planning Cmnmission Melnbers:
As a land use planning consultant, I support and believe in land use planning. ClIO'Nth
in this area wiH continue to occur, and the key to manar:,ring this growth is to plan
comprehensively for this grovv'th; provide thr adequate transportation, housing, jobs,
open space, etc. in a balanced way.
I am very disappointed and concerned because, for reasons r win not idtmtify here, tbe
community has gone away from doing planning in a comprehensive manner. We have
not been looking at all of the elements that must be provided for in a community,
Long-range street/ transportation needs, including bridges, sanitary sewers,
stonmvater treatment, potable "vater supply, electrical, open space, and parks are being
looked at piece-meal (i,e., while ignoring the others), The connnunity has been
looking at only a single aspect one at a time and are, therefiJre, making judgments that
this one aspect or element is more impoItant than Hw other clernents. In today's
environment of limited tax dollars, alJ of the elements must be in balance, properly
prioritized and, as the Mayor continues to cOITectly remind us, our planning effOIts
must be sustainable.
The City of Eugene Parks, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan is
the latest example ofthis type of disconnected planning, To add insult to injury, the
use of the title "Comprehensive Plan" in the PROS plan is a misuse of the use of the
word "comprehensive" and distorts how Oregon's Land Use Planning La'\v '\vas
intended to be used, Oregon Revised Statutes 197.en 5(3) detlnes "comprehensive
plan", The definition reads as foHows:
"Cornprehensive plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map
and policy statement of the govcming body of a local government that
interrelates aU functional and natural ~:ysV;ms :,l11d activities relating to
the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and '\vater systems,
transportation systems, educational faci1ities~ recreational t~lcilities~ and
natural resources and air and water quality management prograrns.
"Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic
area covered and functional and natural activities and systems
occurring in the area covered by the plan."
\,' let )-:+1 ()8'7 10g"j
:/\!: :~41 3/{:) (5)9
'.1\' ~: t~ f R 1"1 \^/ L f; . C () :\.\
4 '] (..s V j L t. ;'\ C:!~ P L /\ Z A t, (i () P
SUJrf 20,
rUG!'"".
(i R [ G () N
974 (I 1
'1-'
?
.
There are three fatal flaws \\lith the PROS Plan. They are:
· The original plan located parks and open space in disregard to the other open
space lands owned by other government agencies and privately-o\vned parb
and open spaces, such as golf courses, miniature golf courses, private
ballparks, etc. Oregon Statewide Plmming Goal and Guidelines (Goal #8),
entitled "Recreational Needs", clearly indicates that recreational needs include
rnore than just the local government, by the use of such words and terms as
"destination resort", "private enterprise", "state and federal agency recreation
plans", The PROS plan offers no documentation of an inventory of the other
govemment (county, state, or federal) recreational or open space plans, nor
privately-owned recreational fa(~ilities. [n fact., contrary to Oregon's planning
laws, the PROS plan overlaps Lane CouKlty's R~lral Plan. Whieh one of these
two plans do property owners rely on?
· The original pian (maps) located parks and open space without kno\ving ho\V'
the surrounding lcmd is to he used; low-density single-fcmlily versus high-
density development. It may be assumed high-density population amas should
have a larger numher of park acres within or close to high-density areas to
maximize energy conservation (walking, bicycling, short-distances for autos to
drive, etc.). Employment centers, industrial areas, \vhile requiring some parks,
should have a lesser need for recreational acres, How did the City factor in the
City's Goal 5 Natural Resource, Scenic, Historic, and Open Space element
cunelltly before the City into this PROS plan? Where is this analysis, and
shouldn't such an analysis he based upon locating, including the halancing of
housilig and employment and. goods and service needs? This PROS plan is
prernature, out ofpbase, until the City decides its future land use and
transportation needs, inside and outside the Urban GrO\vth Boundary. There
are phuming goals, such as housing (GoallO), public facilities including utility
needs (Cloal11}, transportation (Goai 12) that are just as impOltant as the
City's recreational needs (Goal 8).
· In an effort to correct these fatal flaws, statJhas divided up the PROS plan into
smaller parts~ however, this change of strategy does nothing to coneet these
Haws but, simply, is an attempt to cover them up (i.c., leaving out rnaps and
project tist). This strategy is oftalking only about the goals and policies to the
Plmming COlmnission will be difi1cult, i1'not impossible, to pIioritize such
PROS goals and policies. The PlanningCoIlll1!ission needs the other hvo
pieces (Appendix C and D) and a broader discussion ofho\v and where the
tllIetro area is going to grow (i.e., impact on the mea's land supply). Are the
PROS goals more important than community policing or economic
development, or lo\v-income housing? I think not! I can almost visualize
what will happen in tbe tllture. The Planning Comrnission and the City
Council will be told they c.an talk only about the PROS goals and policies
(because that is what is bd()re them), Then later, when more specifics are
Testimony from Larry E. Reed! RE: PROS Plan! October 17, 2005 i 2
>.,
.
~
brought back to the Pla1ming Commission and! or the City Council, they \viU
be told the goals and policies were previously adopted, and they Calmot revisit
them, because what is nO\v befbre them (maps and project lists) simply
implements the City's recreational goals and policies,
Please recommend t.o the City Council that the PROS plan be sent back to Public
Works staff (as a great vision) with direction that the Public Works staff '"vork with
City Planning staff to review, incorporate, and coordinate this vision into the broader
land use planning prograrns of the City and bring back to the City Council for
adoption sometime in the future,
Yours truly,
4E:~
Larry E, Reed
Principal, Land Use Pla1mer
Testimony from Lan)' E. Reed iRE: PROS Pian i October 17,2005 j 3
7.& Eugene~TM
Association of REALTORS!!)
December 12, 2005
TO: 1'1ayor Piercy and Eugene City Council
RE: The Eugene Parks and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan)
The Eugene Association of REALTORS@ strongly advocate for healthy Parks and Recreation
facilities and progranls that enhance the quality of life within a community. The Eugene Parks
and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan will enhance the quality of life for Eugene
residents. As a commwlity plans for grO\vth the planning for parks and recreation and open
spaces must be included. Planning for transportation, utilities, public safety, housing and
economic development are the priority considerations for a cornmunities quality oOife with
social and enviromnental considerations closely associated and integrated. Comprehensive
planning includes all of these important components and it includes an opportunity for the
citizens to contribute their comments about the plan which they will be a recipient of and help
pay for.
No matter how well the PROS Plan has been prepared there are conflicts with Statewide
Planning and inconsistencies with the Metro Plan:
· The PROS Plan does not fbUmv the comprehensive planning requirements in state
administrative ruie and state statute for a metropolitan parks plan. The PROS Pian is also
in conil1ct with th(~ Metro Plan.
if There are no proposed park facilities included in the Eugene Parks Refinement
Plan (Eugene Parks and Recreation planning statY rernoved them before the plan
was submitted to the Eug{~ne Planning Commission), Without a facilities plan it
is impossible to calculate how rnuch land is identified within the UGB that will
n:~duce the buildable lands inventory for housing, and commercial and industrial
deve1opm{~nt The exclusion onb~Jaci1ities plan sites and frwn.S is in direct
connict witl1.S..t::llf;~~ide Planning Goals 9 and 1 Q.~
../ Acquisition of new properties, in Appendix B, estimate acquisition for 2005, tor
1623.46 acres. Vv1wre \vil1 these acres come from? How many zone changes will
be required to acquire the property? A properly and legally proposed
Comprehensive Parks Plan would have included the Facilities Plan as required in
statewide planning statute and rules. WithQHUh~J?roiect list and maps a$..~.Qm"1 of
the Facilities Plan. to in(ljS;f,!lt.Q9~~ible future acquisition sit~;?.....Hty land use
plamling.rnI~~f;.$..:~~J:; reqpirpd bv state\vide planninK;'i.tp.:tutes and rules, is
~lj1J1inated.
· The Refinement Plan includes lands outside of the Metro Plan's GoalS planning area.
There should be a boundary behveen the Metro Plan Goal 8 planning area and the Lane
County General Plan with no overlapping. They should only be adjacent to each other
unless otherwise planned for. Tl}ere is a Comprehensive Plal\.Qlrr~rldment process that
I!J1E'.l.h.y followed to aUow changes to the MJ;.ttQ..,p..lan,
· The Refinement Plan does not identify and include private parks, facilities and open
space or other public parks, facilities, and open spaces in the overall inventory. Open
spaces are not included in the Metro Plan as a type of park, and if Eugene intends to
indudt.~ open spaces then private and public locations should be indicated, The Bureau of
Land Management wetlands and the Willamette River and Greenway area must be
included in the open spaces inventory. The Nature Conservancy has pIivate open space
property that should be induded. Open space included in a Planned Unit Development
should be included along with all the other private facilities for recreation within our
community. The Refinement Plaqjs in direct ~9nf1ict with th~ Metro Plall that requi~~
m:lYJJte recreatiorLfacilities bejnc1uded in ~l1e park plaIl1]ing process. Also, the
Refinement Plan should go a step further and include Open Spaces as a type of park as an
anlendment to the Metro Plan.
Acquisition of property is expensive whenever it is done, and the maintenance and administration needs
for the extended programs are expensive, Without a properly completed PROS Plan it is very difficult to
plan t()!: any future development in Eugene and it is this future development that will help pay fbr the
PROS Plan. Eugene can not truthfully say there i.s no impact on the buildable lands inventory and no
zoning changes needed if the PROS Plan is not completed as required by the statewide planning process.
If the items above 'vvere appropriately addressed the PROS Comprehensive Plan could be
acceptable and possibly affci.rdab1e.
Contact:
Jim Welsh, Government Affairs Director
Eugene Association ofREALTORS@
54J-935~1504 Office
541-935-3932 Fax
541-554-8043 Cell
jg"I,iC lshco(q:!.m~n'.ggl.1!
Cory Neu, President
Eugene Association ofREALTORS@
2139 Centelmial Pla?,a
Eugene, OR 97401
(541 )484-3043
Pl4', PR.n~ t.u~e Ptc4j
\1.-~~os
Comments on POS Comprehensive Plan
First it was not a easy job to get hold of a copy of this plan. I am a board member of one
of the community organizations and it cost me $15.00 and I just was able to obtain it
today. Last Tuesday I went by to obtain a copy and the one out for the public to look at
was dated July 2005. Today I went by again and guess what copy is still out for the
public to look at. You guessed it. July 2005. Today the girl remembered me and went
and fount a POS employee who was nice enough to get me a Nov. 2005 copy.
On to my comments:
1. The draft. copy of No v 2004 and this copy of No v 2005 have some interesting
similarities and differences.
2. Chapter IV went from Strategies and Actions to just plain Strategies
3. The Actions that were deleted were priority lists of proposed actions for
Programs, Servkes and Projects.
4. Chapter V changed fh)m Plan Implementation to Funding Options and then did
not explain where you are going to spend the thnds from the funding options. I
would like to know where the money is going to be spent We all are going to
pay tor it.
5. In Chapter VI we now have performance measures that you say' you still have to
develop. I would rather see where the money goes and then I can measure your
performance.
6. I noticed that Appendix A under Urban Plaza-Benefits are:
a. provide opportunities for publk gathering and b. contributes to neighborhood
identity and under Community Parks and ~.1etropolitan Parks they provide
positive community identity. If community identity is really as important as you
seem to indicate then I wonder why do both you and the Eugene 4J School district
stand by and watch the identity of Santa Clara, that is its School, burn and t.hen
you scatter the ashes, Shouldn't you at least consider that the residents of Santa
Clara might want the historic school site and building as their community
identity.
7. Appendix B the tables are the same ones that you used in Nov 2004. No change
No update. Also on those tables I noticed that Willakenzie has 21% of the
population and 27 % of the developed a(.:res, South Eugene has also 21% of the
population and 39% ofthe developed acres while River Road/Santa Clara has
18~.-o of the population and 1% of the developed acres.
8, Finally on the Map in Appendix B that 5ho\v5 the various areas of Eugene there is
River Road where Santa Clara is;but no Santa Clara, when you just finished
saying that the benefits of parks contributes to positive community identity.
/)
r-lF ....
, 'J/ 7 47 /? ' /' 0"
\-----..... vt."C/ i.-.........L...t.~;:.::.t......-_.,
;::-' //<;.7'-;:
'./ ,// ....'." ,.,
- /' ,.y' ...... (/""'-:t-_/;>
r: . <:~.
/ _.f... -') \.. ~- c,-- l? I, I / '. j t)
r' l /'. -) - 0.- .........i, t '!...../'y;I'(./(,'7;r..;,?c;:{... !__'.--_)
. \ .......-
"
(""""~~~-...
f-. /p ;/(:,'" P /l/1 (7 (::? "-7 /J ctJ l-I
" -..- L,.~../ >........--1./ / L"~ 'I /. /
~-- . /.:.. 1- >---' - ( .. _'
/' ,/' // I /.., .,_. "',
1.../-- (. ! '---.' ... '" ,,/
,.'" ! , ..-"'"\ / / ,./:;> {/,":'o / ~_n_..__
SITE BACKGROUND
. /'1
<.~.-- . ---;:;.~- - /.r" j/ 'r"''' ___ .
-_.) t:t/7'{./,---c(, C/ ~?u_- 2-.l::t
/'}
_\-c:-.i~i-;r:-2:~'(~
The area now designated as Santa Clara was a part of a larger area known as Pleasant
Grove, which included six districts in addition to Santa Clara. This was one of the first
voting precincts in Lane County. The name "vas changed to Santa Clara in 1890 when
Cot AJ, Straight came in and bought the farms ofthe Potters and Grays, ,vhich were
subdivided for the purpose of selling in smaller tracts. It was called Santa Clara because
the new subdivisions were advertised under that name, given them by Cot Straight who
came from Santa Clara, Calit'(lrnia. It ,vas at this time that the school was moved from its
first site, on the Irving road a half mile west of the present site, In 1904 this was made
into a two-morn school building, In 1913 this ,vas raised and remodeled into a two StOlY,
four-room school building, and a high school was started. This required more room so in
1915 they built a one-roorn building in the corner of the grounds tt)r the t1rst three grades.
For the last tor years the school was so inadequate that the school used the kitchen of the
community hall for a classroom. But by January, 1931, Santa Clara had erected a six~
room modern schoolhouse and now had a standard public school of eight grades and a
high school.
We can look at tlus timeline in a number ofv'iays, such as;
1. That was only 75 years ago, that building is not so historic
2. Lane County was only created in 1851, a mere 80 years earlier.
3, It was not until 1846 (five years earlier) t.hat a pioneer home was build in Lane
County,
4, It was in that year (1846) that Elijah Bristow was granted a claim at Pleasant Hill
and shortly after Eugene Skinner was granted a claim \vhere Eugene now stands
5. The flrst. scheduled stagt1 coach route established out of Eugene was in 1860 and
ran along what is now Prairie Road.
6, The first railroad through Eugene came ten years later in 1870, a rnen.1 20 years
bet ore the Santa Clara school was moved to its prestmt site.
Our history might not be long as if measured by Europe or even the eastern part of the
United States but what it lacks in age and longevity it more the makes up in its rich
heritage and pride
^~N /1
/ V //
; //7 <?'
I //f.// . ,.%-~ k.~
\......-- " v/t't t>'<-{-..;;r..
-~--I
~:;)./;;>>::7 /
/.#~y..../ / - ...., _h-.,
""v // / ~"-h__" .~" ./
, P'/' /.' ?"/ ,.--/
, 1'. .. .' :;. _. . .........~d.."_
F .......- ~-...--_~~,
f j' 'I i
/..< <p./-~) ~)
l'2
/~ I.
i ...p"" ./1............... .' iT /../ 1'-....
...........- f/ ". .' ;./. " t
~/ v t ? i./. ,.r /'-'__"w,Y',- ~/ ,..I
//..~.. l...-f.' c/ <':/c'.......... .....- /._/.........-::.u
[:::' /~,;'.-: ~ C 'l} (.~:)
· / /' L.-'L'--l.fi-1 /1/1. . 1./ f<,
.,.,..,.""" /c......._/" .......... ." L ...........
/ '-
(7//L--,,;/ /
\~", I "'-;7'. Jf--j
! / (_/ /
, I
/ . r. /
L-f (~I
/ /'~_..
'--~ /' I',
"".-..... .' ". //
L::../ ~., .-j --.....-........
To:
From:
Eugene's Mayor & City Councilors
Dan Arkin
655 Goodpasture Island Rd #28, Eugene, OR. 97401
December 12, 2005
PROS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION - PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
Datc:
Re:
I am a member oftheMayor's Advisory Committee that worked for over two years on the
comprehensive revision of Eugene's long-term plan for parks, recreation and open space needs
proje(~ted over approximately the next twenty years. 1 came tonight to explain somt~ ofwbat. Ollr
committee tried to accomplish and to offer a few remarks about a couple of criticisms oft.he plan
raised by others.
I believe each of the PROS Plan committee members feels we did our honest, level best tt) craft a
plan that took into account as full a. spectrum of \vorthy goals and values as we could envision.
No one of us would pretend that we covered everything pt~rfectly or got each major or minor
detail ahsolutely right. But if pressed to sum up in a single word the guiding principle that we
followed above aU else, I believe the committee would agree on the word "balance." In fact,
here is how J said this a year ago, right after a committee meeting, as an idea for an introduction
to the plan:
Just as its beautiful rivers wonderfufly define and enhance the City
of Eugene I s famous natural setting, Eugene is known for the variety
and intensity of the many different views running like passionate
currents through our vibrant cultural bloodstream. Our committee
has tried to capture as many as possible of Eugene's multiple, often
competing aspects and values, and to fashion out of the best of
those an exciting yet practical long-term plan that honors and
captures the essence of everything Eugene. Recognizing how
difficult -- how impossible -- it is to please everyone here in Eugene,
nevertheless the committee members and participating city staff
hope we have created a visionary document filled with concepts,
actions, principles and goals worthy of this unique city.
From the several issues, suggestions and criticisms regarding the PROS Plan that I've heard
voiced in different hearings and settings, I want to select and address these three:
1. The fact that the plan considered and contains suggestions about not duplicating, and in
fa(.~t coordinating and possibly cooperatively developing, various kinds of recreation
venues and programs outside the city's boundaries caused much concem. The staif and
committee were under no illusion about how the plan and the city could control matters
outside the city's jurisdiction. Our thoughts were focused how to best integrate anything
Eugene might do into the larger regional picture without unnecessarily duplicating things
Dan Arkin
Page 1
12/12/05
already in existence. Everything we covered in this vein was based upon mutual
agreements and cooperation, not unilateral dictates.
2. The City's Planning Commission has r(~quested that the PROS Plan count in its inventory
of Eugene's available open spaces nearhy lands owned and controlled by the Federal
Bureau of Land Management. We considered that issue and deliberately chose not to
include such non-city pla(.~es. It was felt that, even though one ,"vould hope that those
places would continue to be kept in the same condition and operated so as to permit. the
same levels of public usage, there are no guarant.ees. The fact these areas are available to
City residents now does not mean they will be so forever, nor does the existence of such
places outside the city address what happens within Eugene's boundaries. Our feeling
was this plan must. provide for the best quality oflife possible inside the cit.y, and rnust do
so in the earliest timeframe possible in order not to lose oppOltul1ities or raise costs.
3. When the Comprehensiv(~ PROS Plan you are now considering was originally drafted it
contained much detail about a wide variety of specific programs and projects our
committee considered innovative, exciting and suiting the city's various tastes and needs.
Most ofthat detail was subsequently removed. iTom the plan and the tiraJl you are
considering leaves those matters for later debat.e :md deciding. I believe the PROS staff
was right to remove aU that detail hecause leaving it in invit(~d attacks on each separate
piece, which could have significantly delayed the adoption process. Worse stm, ther(~
was a great risk that no plan could ever be approved hecau.<;e no one would aUow that if
tbey were not pleased with some part of it. We need a long-term PROS plan, and 1 feel
the one before the City Council is an effort worthy of adoption. There will be
contentious battles lat.er over the specific proposed programs and p~jects, but it would bf.~
a shameful waste not to adopt the overall framework contained in the plan you have now.
Dan Arkin
Page 2
12/12/05
LA Vv O.FFICE OF BILl, KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
375 W, 4TH STREET, SUiTE 204
EUGENE, OR 97401
TEL (541) :343-8596
FAX (541) 343-8702
E.MAIL BlLU{LOOS@f.ANDUSEOREGON..COM
Decemher 12, 2005
Eugene City Council
City Hall
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: PROS Comprehensive Plan
Testimony of Home Builders Assn, of Lane County/Home Builders Const. Company
Dear Members of the Council:
The HBA has submitted detailed evidence and conunents to the Planning Commission, In this
letter and my oral testimony my client has asked me to hit the high points.
The BRA picks its land use issues with the cities with care, looking for issues that might pinch
the land supply and/or raise the cost of delivering housing, For such local decisions the RBA is
w'illing to ask fbr state review, The BRA always lets the cities know what its issues are., and how
the decision making should be done correctly, bet~)fe filing any appeal. Eugene's approach to
parks planning is an issue that needs state review, ifthe city stays on its current course,
At the broadest level, this plan is being adopted as the 11rst step of a t'\vo-step strategy, 'nii;,; first
step is a 11IZZY, fed good docurnent that purports to make no firm decisions and to regulate
nothing, The second step \vill be done outside the land use process. The City will adopt by
resolution a list of park acquisition and de'\'eIopment projects that ;,:vill be ihnded by SDCs by
landowners who \vant to build housing, This public fuzzy plan will be the rationale for the
project list.
The city's strategy violates state and local la\v iTI several important respects,
lIthe city is going to adopt a new parks plan (and repeal an existing parks plan in the
process) it must include in the plan the things that the lavv says must be in a parks plan, State
stat11tes spell out what rnust be in a city parks plan, ORS 195.120-.125. So do the LCDC's rules,
OAR Chapter 660, Division 24. So does the definition of "comprehensive plan." So, too, does
the Metro Plan,
Ifthere is to be a separate parks cornponent to the comprehensive plan, the parks plan
must identify plalmcd facilities. "Recreational facilities" are an element of any cornprehensive
plan. ORS 197.015(5), The parks planning statute and mk~ also require identifying facilities,
The City has, in fact, identified future park projects. It is just intentionally deciding not to put
them in the pIan. This omission can't be justified under the law that applies,
Eugene City Council
December 12, 2005
Page 20f2
The City is refusing to identify the impact of its park plan on the inventory of
developable residentialland~ Staff has explained to the Planning Commission that there is no
need to do this because the plan has no regulatory effect; it is the implementation that debits the
residential land supply. This is a fiction, which rests on the city's failure to include projects ill
the plan itself. The reality is that the city is on a parkland buying spree. III the past several years
it has bought about 182 acres ofResidential1and for parks (other than neighborhood parks). See
Exhibit A. Buying Residential land for parks is good, provided the residential land is replaced.
The city is extending its park planning into rural Lane County, witbout the concurrence
of the county, and without jurisdiction, This covvboy attitude win generate confusion and
litigation. (What would the City say if Lane County did parks planning inside the City?) The
City already owns and operates city parks in rural Lane County without cOlmty land use approval.
In recent years it has acquired another 200+ acres of county resource land fix city park use. See
Exhibit A.vV.hen the Wil1amalane District induded county land in its new parks plan, it had the
county coadopt the plan. \-Vhy is the City adverse to this jurisdiction and coordination issue?
\-Vhat would it be like Ii)r the City to secure county land use approvals for the parks it already
operates in Lane County, and then seek concurrence with the County for any parks plmming it
thinks must be done in the county?
The City has a lot of professional staff and volunteer resources invested in this plan. The higher
the plan has risen in the decision making process, the more content has been pulled out of it, and
the fmther the product has strayed from \vhat land use laws require~ The City should take a short
time out and be sure that: (1) the City plans only what it has authority to plan; and (2) the plan
contains what state and local law require it to contain - policies, maps and projects.
Thank you for your consideration.
,)
//} / .p
/'~2~/L~/~'
Ene!. Ex. A: City park acquisition data
C: Roxie Cuellar, Home Builders
Anna Morrison, Lane County Board of Commissioners
-. -.. V" N'"'''..,''..... tM <l~l lie": 401H:
- --...- ....-- - - '-'---- _. ~~-
'. .' )
bU\iJ::;Nl;; YI\' 1i....fUll.; & .PUS
fAalMlLE
T~: J;s u..- ~ ~ c;.,
Fut: ~l.f~ - .g1oz.,
PhODe II:
Date; It fir to,
Pagea: .3
. ,
~m:'~~N We:l~<?
SubJed: ~t? ~~~>
Comments:
!4JOO1
""
tel }Vt~ ~ 'IF "fn/ ~. ~~5
~l^1 ,J
f.,~1, - '11tJf t 1
Oity of Eugene
Parka and o~ 8pace
1820 RooAvtlt 8Wd
EUOIlVl. ORt7402
PMM: (541) 682-400
Fax: (60ft) $82-4882
EXmBIT A
'V ',.I' 1,J V
;MV ...V.I.;:! rll.A .Hl (\0'; 4.:;1.i';:
------ _.""'-""'~---
_ EUGENE PW MNTNC &. Pos
COMPLETED POS LAND ACQUISITIONS .1998.2005
@002
Rub
'toN IrV (
I "t/<fJ 1ft:;
Ridgellne
- ~ '." .... v .:. M~~'
Sl<.yview
Lone Oak
Filbert Meadows
Irwin
Chaae Commons
Rosetta
CreeKside
Terra LiI;lda
Golden Gardens
Tu man
Vicars
Wenaover
Ro Oanebo?
Femeslal
WUlal<.enz.le
Moon Mountain
Prefontain6 Memoli
Murray Hill
Ribbon Trail
Baile Hm
Spencer Butta
Murre H~l
~mel Ridge
*v.~~ r~ ~il Q~~
180411 2 ~059oo
1804112106000
1804112106100
1704123406200
1704123406300
1104034102400
1704163207600
Portion of 1704163202100 or easement?
1703284203500
1704231108700
1703062304700
170412200 1103
1104160000400
1803083212200
1804111200300
.1804111200223
\'1B04111105600
1804111 1()5500
1804111101301
1604S54408200
1704282100102
1104112400701
1704112400102
1703212200100
Portion of 1703212200700
~(!i.i;/
EUGENE PW ~TNC & POS
3,13 R1
3.93 R1
3.33 R1
Q,68 R1
4.09 R31PD
1.20 RA
3,17 R1
4.34 RAlUL
10.00 E40
2.04R1
5.88 R1
4.52 R1
2.00 R2
4.50 R1
5.00
35,00 Ri/F2 fZ -I
1.48 R1
19,52 F2
13.00R1/PD
5.12 F2
;,/ 1.26 J:V.JUL
v 6.57 RA & AG/Ul R.:..V lA .....
v. 7.00 R~
27.00 F2
3.00 RAlUl
13.00 F2
27.60 R1!PO
54.16 .RifPD & RA
20.08 F2
4.75 RR5
1803030000110
1703334303500
1804050005200
1804050003500
Amazon Headvv'ate 1803202100102
S encer8utte 1803190001103
Ribbon Tran 1803043104000
Ribbon trail 1803043402500
Arna2:Of'l Headwater 1803210000401
Murray HUl 1804090001500
1604090001502
1803043103900
1804150000501
1803190000300
1803190000600
1803190000005
1803191104500
Amalon Headwater Portion of 1603020000101
1803020000203
Portion of 1804080000104-
1804160001005
@OOJ
GIm Rlcl e
Slanton RIdge
Murra Hill
BaKel' Hlll
00
West Eugene WetJand$
Gudukut 1704383300202 V" 6.36 R2
Oak Patch west 1104354200900 \/ 4,25 R2
West aanl< 1704242100100 v ' 0.88 R1
~ \<tLb~ A:c-
"'IV'"'WI~
~~~~ 12:14 ~cade Title
. in __
\. .
.~ .
,4'
VQ:)
541 465 0302 P.06
cr 1.."'~. "
&.JOC;,_'" 00.
RE'fOIUIlO .
MEMORANDUM or SALE AGREEMENT
Btk~ mat OIl Oetober t:L 2005
JIA'lU F. 8vus_~ J. Evw, ~knoWftu Seller, aM n. City ofBqeM, ~
~ u~. made lad ~ Into.ctttala ~ for m. aal. ofpropeny, whcnla aM
WbenIby Sollcf IpId to aU ud the BU)'<<..... to ~ tbo foUowifta ~ fW
Propmy.
M FElt EXHlSTi 'N ATTACHED
Tht terms and coMltiooI oftht f&k ~ fully Mt fri m the kIe A&mmW tad Off Sf datod AuJU$l4,
100$ UId A~ by. mUM A&mmW d&led Oef.obcr " ZOO$ &IId,.fmMt tbtmo if MrWy ~
D_UUd.dayot~.%OO~ .. ~ ... .......
ct .d ~ r 01.1.1....' CIll., Oofulv CI...k - ftMlIIl
_ ""r. ~ LaM c..-\V 0..- ~ ...'1'8 ,~
.- ~_~~~FEvw 01 ,n I 1111111 $31.tc3
~1I~orffAJ. Evw it tOltlnrt6 12:43:10 Pft
~ Cfttlal .~ eRSHID ff1
TMC"'Jof~ / fiO.OO 110.00 IU.OO
llY, ~~~.I\oIIl'..,.ny-
St.I&c of~
~oftaM u
~ Ji. 2005
hnoMlly ~ WOI'4 ftI>I th& abovelWMd JIlMI P. 8VIJU and Norma J. EvaM aM ~Nd&ed
Uw fore&oWas ~ 10 be tbIlf vohmtlty let IIl4 4otd.
Iktort M<<
A ~ ~$1.'a.s
.1It~~~1,-
~
'Wy,~v"'u...sc !.l (" s.. e'
.~ '.>..-
~41 4B5 0302 P, 07
~ ,'0
,(-", ~~:
t-I" .
lfJ
.
SCIte ofOftp
COUIIty ofl.aM u
~~200S
p~ appwod before me ~ ~.... Mmtd bu Jtoyor II J.W Pfoptrtyomw!of" ~ty of
Eu&. _ ~plM fofsolai to be d\t volutlWy act Md ofRW.~~.
Wen )ok
_ _~ loot'
~i~wi."4\f;1 _ My~
.WltflHli'lllOl'lG~f.-
I IXHlJtT "A"
AU that property as deserlbed in Wamnty Deed &I recorded in In.stnunent 110,2003..110392 as
reeorded in tho Limo CouAty Oregon Deed Records in Lane County, <mion.
Ako: .
f$~g,fnDinJ It I point 0l1. the East 1= or~e laenon Wrlibl Donation Lanq ~llim no.. 41 in
Town~hJll n SoutbJllnp ~ WIU QfJhe Winll'Dette~mdi&n. nJ~ Mllrmini 'POint belV,I 142,1
f~t Sg~ ~f~ ~~~ eqrner of~ BtihV ~'J1ctJ~~tiQD tane ct,im no. ~,: 1h~
H2~ ,m~.trr Wm ~l ),39 fOft to ~e ~dm'9!nid ~ IS steseftbed In
Reel.679. In~l mOS~ thepee South SSEOQ'11" EDt ~~,3) (ttt ljon2 sa~
~ to ~~~er ofn~ o~ttx~wribed in Reet,m,l1utrument po. 01405:
th~ ~oyth ~~S9 fttt 110flt the J!aU boundarY otnid P.mRfrtr IS duorl~.in, RMl.~1?
InS\D)m~t n91 t740J ~ tMpoill1 o(beli~
ContJi1tt1'\i 48.380 1q\.W'CI feet
Except
~eiinning at I 'POint onJh~ ~Hi~ of ~\o JI~bon Wrlib! Donation Land t1.im H~J 41. in
jOWnshtR.11 So~, EJnie 4 Wm 2f~11mettf ~~ S9.~ or9\! ~outhweg
~r of the BUhu Undt~y DQnatioD WM 91lhn No.. 43. slid ~ttll Mjni also thd'lorthe~
~t 9fIst ,. BIQ9k S fJfCbmy..Lan~. u ,tatted and NeO~ed iq Book S. P.J~' t $~ we
CoUntY 0re2on Pl~ E!~~; llltnct.North 40~!.12 r~f 110n, uiq ~ lip9 $l( l&cbon Wri,ht
~ CJIlml391 ~J to the SQ~ ~tl1f1' oUbIt mopertv IS 4tserlbe(mlt,1.f1.2..
1"O~eD11)o. ~1~~ W.:.~rdUl.m fJlt we Co1Jnty ONion pm :&Prd.Un..~8 County,
9~i~11~~JlsO ~ini tbt 1RJJB mm O~ DO~1ht bfTtin..desm'bed tact thtn"
SousnJ~JE~.~~~ ~,S2S1~+ f~, to, point th_t Jntmeets 1h~ S9)1th pmMrtf liDutt.bat certain
~d N~mti~~mumentno. 2~1~~;~~rW..t2'O'oo
~~on, ;:~ s2jt1) Une 10 ~t o{~ l1c~son Wrlib! })Qnation WfJ ~Iim }to. 41.j
___ ~ 401 ~63 ffet mort or '0$. alone Rid_~ line to tho ~ POJ0l9fbe2iJUli~il.J!' in
~. Lar&t Countyt Oregon. .
Containing 55,4SZlql.W'O feet
'-'\"oL..,);;....VI~~ !:t. {" it"
541 485 0302 P,08
." ~ht~
".. City" ~
__ io.:~"''''2.K
~-
e
e
LA 0S48
NOTICE OF' APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
The City of Eugene, an Oregon municipal corporation. bas granted approval of & property line
adju:stment between pzoperty oWDed by lama F, Evw. Said adJuatmel1t (LA 0S48) mvolva
Tu Lots 4300, 5000, 5106 of Amssorts Map 18-()4..0J..OO as shown on the attached approved
msp (see Exlu'bit A) and as described on the attIChed updated legal de3Criptiooa (see Exhibit B).
The approved property line adju.stment to wbich reference i. horeby made is on file at the City of
Eugene Planning Division.
Be It heraltcr Gown and agreed that property deserlbed as Exhibit B mast be sold IS
aboWll Oil the approved map 00 me at tae City or Eugene Planning Divbioll. This doeament
roustitutet City approval of a property Slae adJustmeat. The property lioa do Dot ehange
until Dew deeds are recorded with Loe Couaty. Tax records wW not be updated BaUI the
Lane Couoty Department or Assessment Ind Tuation Is eontatted by tbe applicaDt.
'Y't
IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, the party hereto has set hislher hand and 5ea1 this I day of
October, 2005.
Sf ATE OF ORBGON
COUNn' OF LANE
On this ..2J!..~y of October, 2005, before me appeared Alissa Hansen, Senior Planner, to me
personally knovm.. who being duly authorize4:J to act on behalf Qfthe Planning Director,
acknowledged that thiJ instrument is the free act and doOO of the City of Eugene.
Seal:
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have here
unto set my hand and seal the day and year
last ve written.
-~~
" "WIV~.~
~~lI1mm
.~f"JNEJWll.
fHvllhln ., CId.' ~ty Clerk
L.aM ~f.y o.H& M4 ~
71(J/~Gw
- "' ...~.~ . ..- - .. ........ ....
am
$41.00
"" .-
". IIUIII!
10121/21>>5 10:36:11 M
R,.....,. Cft".l $t.nBl CMH1P "
$20.00 '10.00 $11.00
NO'I't: After ~rdbBc. piuw muna to tN Or)<" RICM"du'J 0fIke, m PM" ~ R_ 105. ElI'''e.. OK 9'1<401.
<<
-;;-------~.~.. ,--~--~._-~.-...~~
;.it;vtT.:;t- ~ 12: 16
~~._-'"""""""""-..............,.~~....,.~-
. -...--......n-.---____.-'_u__u____~_._~_u_..___...
.... .. 'T
.....&scad.e '1 tIe
541 485 e302 P.09
~ . .::-:.;:-~~. .;,--:'-:~~ '.1
s ~ . ;
it fl' '!
ihi, SEP 20 ;':'J) ,,'I,:
u ~'l' " ,
' .I ;
. ~ <. , ...
EXHfsrr A
1
TAX LOT 5101 1
MMAe :-
l
N
J
SC'ALI
1.....
_. liIM
tt 1\lO"M!' ,~
J.
lIIDC1III4 .". .. .1, ..
fl. numMr t.A ~-4 c.s
o
..PUBLIC .:WORKS DEPT.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
W flEML SlRUT
t.ugefts, ~ .,401
~~
~ \o\\~\os;-
Property Line Adjustment Map
S\ft 1/4. s(ClION 3. ~ 18 SCXJ1'H. MHGE .. VO'UiJ,t.
TAX lOTS 4300. SOOO << $106 w.P NO. llHM-OJ
.~ l..AHE COONTV. 0RE:Ga-l
~le.~
I
Public Tcsthnonv
.'
Date:
To:
From:
Re;
Decernber 12, 2005
Eugene City Council
Charles Biggs
Park, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
Dear Eugene City Council,
The 1989 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan (PRCP) was more clear and concise in its
72 pages (not including appendix) than the proposed 2005 Park, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (PROS) in its 108 pages (not including bibliography and appendix),
HOIV can you call the plan cornprehensive without a project list. The 1989 PRCP included a
project list \-Vhy is this any different?
How can it be classified as a refinement plan when it lacks standard features such as policies?
The 1989 (PRep) contained the fi)IJO\;vlng number of policies:
Plmming and Implementation (15)
Facility, Programs, and Services (18)
Physical Access (7)
Community Involvement (4-+)
Public A\vareness (5)
Coordination 03+)
Urban Design (4+)
Economic Diversification (5+)
Facility Redevelopment and Change (6)
Community Wide ResouTces Policies:
Willamette and McKenzie Rivers (7)
South Hills (5)
Delta Ponds (5)
Amazon Channel (6)
~jiHrace and Other W~f~t;;.tyYAy'Q (3)
Total (103+)
The 2005 PROS Plan contains no called out policies, Why v,;as this letl out? Omissions in the
proposed PROS Plan should have been revealed to the public, and not left tor the public to
discover themselves at this late date.
H(}\v many 1989 PRCP projects have yet been built that are still viable projects, Should not those
projects that have been on the waiting list for 16 years go to the top ofthe new list?
The public was not iniorrned that the plan \-vas going to be split in t\VO \vhen it was being
developed. "Vill this pian be annually reviesvcd as "vas the 1989 PRep was supposed to be
revie\ved?
Page 1 of2
Maybe in the next 16-20 vears we will include "Plant and .Animal Habitat" in the title and finally
." ,
give it the recognition and attention it deserves. The cunent proposed plan should balance
passive and active recreation land needs on the total costs (purchase, development, operation and
maintenance) incuned. These sbould not be balanced based on acreage! I question the
methodology of inventorying and goal of equitable distribution of park resource types being
proposed.
I have to object to the development of Striker Field in the Wlllakenzie area, as this proposed
project is not supported by the data received during public comment on the drall PROS Plan
when it 'Nhen to the separate project district areas. I am applauded by the .fact that without public
notice the Parks Department staff can re-designate a neighborhood park to a community park
without due public process! This would create three Sports Park Facilities within a 2 mite radius.
That is excessive, particularity when the Beltline and Coburg Road is already a congestion
nightmare!
I did not see how the plan is going to address the inherit conflict of City's goals of creating
greater housing and population density while retaining and expanding the need for parks,
recreation and open space.
I\vould like to request that the record remain open until sllch time that the Proposed Plan and
Project list can be considered at the same time. This would also ensure enough time to take into
consideration the policies that need to be put hack into the plan.
Respectfully,
~~
540 Antelope Vlay, Eugene, OR 97401
(541) 484-0769
Page 2 oU
WEISS Carolyn J
.
-
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
charles biggs [char!es_biggs@l1otmaiLcom]
Friday, December 30,20052:41 PM
WEISS Caroiyn J
"Eugene Mayor and City Council
PROS FOLLOW UP TESTIf\l10NY
m...;
- ~. ;.:
dO);:".
EPRPGOALS,pd
f (2 MB)
CaroIyn ana. et aI,
Please find the attached pdf file that contains the 103+ poUcies of the
1989 Eugene Parks a.nd Recreation Plan that: T referred t:o :i. n my previous
testimony that was submitted during the December 2005 public hearing before
the Eugene City
Council.
It is my sincere hope that these polices <,v:L:i.l be retained, expanded, and
called out in tbe new Parks I Eecreat:ion, and Open Space Plan.
~rhal1k llou {
1
~Ea
..~Ea4
1989
_........u...._~_~_~~....................~~.~~..............~.....______........M "._."................T~...Y........""'~....._'v.~.._...........,_~~_~,_.'.._~.~y.
.....".....~."-........-~~................._......"......'".-,.......,,................~........_..._~.~~.........".r.
Eugene Parks and
Recreati.onPlan
I~ugene, Oregon
Jul,Y 1989
..
..~.k__U."'_.A~""""""'~"'M".'._'A~~"""""""'''''''''''''''''"""_"._",,~_,.,,."_~.",
^'
J
, 'it'~
~., ..
,":w,
*. ,,:~ ':.. iff ~r' 4/
~'/1r#/ . . .-
~ ,~ . '
, .11
, <
~ .
<:.>xJ*~i-5:"".
...~>;..,
~~(
.,,-.
if;
I
~
I"f;c ,.'"
~
~
g
r
~
l
!
~lMiI
VISION STATEr\n~NTS
UlIUllIHK
IIf'
11Je following vi~infls are hroadly ~tated goals that underlie the entire Paris and Recreation Plan, They convey an ideal future as
embodk<i in the Plan's more specific component.... SC{~ the fOld out map for a graphic exprei>sion of these ....isions.
J, An ul1intermpttxf rel.-1'eation corridor linking the haflk~ of the WiHamCUe River, Delta Ponds, Sooth Hills Ridgeline Truil Sy~acm,
Fem Ridge R(~~rvoif, Hc.nctricks Park, Skinner Bllttl~ Park, AltOll Baker P~lrk, Spencer Butte, Gillespie Butte, the Millrac,~, the
AmalOl1 Channel path, and other similar locations to provide a variely of views, enviromnen!.S, teltains. and expene.l1Cf..:..
2. NexghbcrtlO(x1 parks within walking diskl!lCe or (tll residential ar(,~l$. (Pkase refer to Planning Dh,;trlct 1v1.ap'';,)
3. Physical Of visually perceived linkages h<.~wee.ll neighborhood parks and the recreation r..OrridOL
4. A variety of r(~c1'(~atkma] and cultural facilhie,~ and servic>~s to m<~et the diverse and changing neoos of lhe community's
citizens and visitors,
5. ConseJYe.d, pWII~(:ted, and enhanced (!lx~n ~llaJ::e, scenic, and natnral m!i<)HrCCS for recreational use and enjoymem by all ()f the
community's citizens and visitors.
GENEHA.L (;OALS /\ND PCHJCIES
''The la..r;Jsu;.pe f~~,l(UreS within read. of the papulation."
should lH-: proteded a" public parks; the r:anyol1's and thoe
great hills, "thus preseni!lg [hemfor
the luture generathms to come~ ,.
. John C and Fwderkk Law O!mst{,-d, Jr.
Tk foilowing g()ulsand policie.:> ared.(\Iidc.(1 into indi,,'idu,)kme.
g<:~rie$ th:.lt app I}' , in vary ing dl)gr<:.;.'}, to the entire commllfl it}'. In
ottll~r words, these go;::.!s and pnhd{~s aH: not llmited to on,~
PilXtieuhr f<K:ility, neighborhood. or are.a.
:'L P~anning, Imph.'nH:nh~Hon. and Evaluatkm
Gm!: Mn~t th{~ existing ,md future IC{:fcational n~x!s of lhz~
community through an orderly and systematic planning,
impkmem<ltio!l, and evaluation program.
Policies;
I. Acquire open :;l~lce and park lands in advalKc.l)fnetxL
2. Wl)rk with developers to ocqUlrC lund, (~r funds in fieu
t1H~f<~.Ot, if (a) L1eir development.;; will cre.ite Of add to
t111~ demand for additional rf'..cn~atioMI facilit.ks such us
ndghb()rho(!(l parks, and (b) those nldH tle~: that already
exi"t '.vin not tl{'A~(kquat<:: to 11H?d ale additional demand
hased on current l('~a{ standards, arld (c) me new fadii..
ti{~$ will <JiHx:!!y ben{',fit resident" of the dcvelopment.
12
3. Prepare geneml plans for major park land amI f<Kilities
prior to development or renovation in order to pwmote
project coordin3tiOfi and W conserve. and PW!tXt natural
open spaces wP^~r(~ appwpriate.
4. Ensure that acquisitioll, planning, and development
prowams arc flexible enough to mcct tx1th long and
short term need." and to take advantage of opponunities
as they ari:<<:,
:5, To achieve an appmximate halance among il.cquisition,
dcwelopmcnt, and renovmion, dllnng review of the
c{~pital improvement program, e~amilW (;~) short and
long term oc(~ds, (o) uvailabk fCWlnU(,.'; and r,~~OUfcei;,
(c) what hi% hCI~H emphasized and ;lccomphshed 1ft
previous year~;, and (d) the t:<lpacity to mainm.in existing
impfOycmc.f\t3.
6. Insofar as p,)ssihle, a<.:quire purk hmd in contSguwtions
that (a) minimil.e \Xlllflic!S with :;urwundingland uses
and (0) maximize accessibitity.
7. Explore the use of a "systems development assessnK~nt"
or "local. improvement distrid' us a possible way for
illtereStl?d citizens and groups to help finance the acqui..
sition and development (If !"<~cr(':.<ltil)nal facilities.
3. l\iX:q)/, donations of lanct and SIHlcturt~" when t'1ey have
active or passive flX.reatioll,'l1 iX~I(~ntial, unique Opz~fl
space charucterisfu;s, can be maimailllx! adcquatdy to
accomlwx!atf, int.;nde-.d uses, or can Ix: exchanged or
sdd to llerMfit the public,
9. When p<i$ible, recover an or a pmtkm of the. expense
of providing facilities anctprograms through user fccs or
charges,
~. I<:.~
Eugene Parks ~nd Reaeation Plan
10. When selling usex fe.es:, estahlish a Hnandal base iliat is
$uffkie.nt to maintain and enhance the affe.cted rocre.a^
tional assets and will provide me community with an
acceptablequaHty of rew'..ationill and cullura.! facilities.
t 1. Maintain City general fund supJXlft for pn'l, recrea-
tional, and cultural facHitic."> and pmgrams because of
!heir importance. to the community's liveability and
e,(::onomic welt-being.
! 2, In response W changing 10l.~11 population ch.aracteristic~
and community development patterns and needs, p'~r1'
odkally review and updme local park and recreation
standards as they compare to national standards,
13, Mak(~ a s~~ia! effort to m:lintain and improve buildi.ngs
and other facilities associated with community facHities
in a >>my that ensures puhlic Si'1fety and fe.duces maintt;-
nance cnsts,
14, Periodically a;,;sess t!leeommtmity'sexisting and futU1'(~
nXfe..ational net'A.Is and incor!.-Xlrate those finding.;;. into
the Parks and Reaeation Plan during the. llimilal n.:vkw
prO{~c~s.
15, A,<; an interim measure, rel.Om~ pubHdy Gwned p!lrk~
and rccn.>atioB.al oru~n spatc$ to PL, Pnblkblnd, wk~n
th<.:y aw within Eug(',ne':; juriAiction and ar(~ !lot al~
ready :wned PL, provided applieabk cril(~riaas C('qnir(Yi
by the Eugen,.:; Oxk can be Si'1tisfhxL Unks(" the PL
Di(,trkt is ame(l(kd to indudcprovi~ions forlh~: CQHse.f-
vat ion <!nO prol<.x:tionof poblk{y o\vlwd parks and opcn
~;WIC(:, develop .and adopt II n<.';I.>,' zoning district flliH
would achkve that intent.
rL FadHOt:S. Prognnus, <'{nd S~>n-k(:f.
Goal:;: l'\:bk(' ;:ival1ablc a wide range of park:<, programs, ;wd
1\.KiiltH.';:' for dtiz.(:ns and visitor~ of variou, ag(~s, cui-
tHralbackgfound~;. ~!billti~~.s, il1li:rc::.ls, incomes, and
panicipation levels.
EnsufC s;;tfety for all park OS(~fS,
Policies:
l. Ofk~r a range of recreational and cullural oPPofll.lnities
to Inw income and to physically challenge.d persons
who have similar accc$sibility f\'.quifcmcllt<;, i.e. lRf-
sons with diJ,;abHitks, the e1de.rly, and youngster::;,
1, Provid~~. facilities and programs for ttl(~ ieisure !K.-:cds of
the commwnty's growing ~~niQr population,
3. Om:cly a.lign 8p(~ciaHzed f<.~~reattona! r<trilitk~$ and
pwgmms for pt)rS(l:ilS with disahilitks with cnmmunity
centers,
:- '1'rnr I
;.;o:r. 1'.. ~ .oflO''''M->>'
Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan
4. Provide naturill areas, cultural amenities, and unique
npen spa{'..es fOf educatiooal and passive ki~>l.u'e use.
.5. Use neighhorhooo parks to pfovi<k a focus [or socia!
and recreational activities of neighborhood resident",
6. Continue the scholarship program to enable potential
users, including low income residents, to partkipate in
nx:reational and cultuntl activities.
7. iw~orar as funds are available formai.ntenance, pmvide
parks from ttw neighhor!lond level to the metropolitan
level as well as sf){.'{:ial purpose Hx:wauonal facilities
sm::h as, but oot limited to, bicycle paths, joggi ng trails,
hotankal garden~, and sport..;; field complexes.
8, Continue tn offcr a variety of activities serving a variety
of age groups and ability levels in corme~tion with
community C(~;lteIS, outdoor programs, athlelic pro..
gmm~;, and aquatic pogra:m;.
9, \Vork with private dl.w(:!nperi>!operatofs \0 creMe and
mainwin one or more reg(~btion ! 8 or 27 hole go!!
courses tlia! {lre OP(~tl to the general public.
10, Coordirmk parks lli1d rCCfc.ationaI planning and im.
provements 'Nith cnnstruction of bicyde facilities ;1,:
descrHK~d in the Eugene Bike'Nay::. M:.ukr Phn and tk'
Bicycle Elem(:llt in TwnsPl.m,
II Utilize community f.acilities ,IS a w('!'(~atkmal am!/m
cultural focus nf the cOi11l1lUnity's negl,l'X1fhoods by
providmg a range of acUvitlc'i, in n;'~p{:n::.e to public
inkn:::;l and need.
12, Wmk wilhr<~pi(~~;cnullive~, from thecOmn\Lmily's yonrl"
yc\uth agenci:;~~, 0thu' oi'gani.zaw';}j~; <{)w;.(~r!ll~d wi.th
youth <Ktivilie:" and private n~Gremlnn pn:)vi,kr:; to
design and make available l'C(:!'C~ltional LH.:l1il.il.:<; and
programs specifically ori(~nkd to the community's yOting
lX~"'}Pk:,
11 Whi~.n devdoping park t,:i!i:s, indw.lc picni;:: and n~Clca.
tion;;!l facilities us appmprblC,
14 ~ Lku:.rmine d\<;; ad visahility of construe ting a vdndmme
in the (:mmnnnity, (A vctodrome is a bicycle r;xjng
()Vat that b cnstomarHy 250 w 400 meter~ around,)
1 S, Form a wsk team to ;::.xplore i f th<.~fe is a snWcient need,
and if ~o. determine ~l snitable location and appropriate
w'ay to manage ...intl (}I~)r:'1te a skawboard facility.
16. Determine the be::.t Iocal.iol1 thr a year amund pool fe-
pl{lccrnem In serve th~) C@tral,Southwest, andweslerly
half of {.he South Planning Districls, Pr')Cttd\vith
construction wfl(~11 funding i::. available.
t~
r
:
H1H~
17, Rcp!.oce the Amal..on Po!)l wilh a year arou.nd facility
that will primarily serve Ihe Southea.'lt, Uniw%sily, and
caste.r!y half of the South Planning Distrkt
18. Continue to inslal1 ball fields througlwut the. community
In re..'tPQnse to incr<"asing demand.
C Distributiul1
Gom: Ensure an e<flJit;ible distribution of parks and recrea
tiomu facilili<'..s throughout the community,
Po1ici(~s:
1, Emphasize acquisition and development of parks and
recreational bcilities in unde.rserw..d neighborho(ld:;, at
k..\st partly to alleviate me use of existing neighborhood
parks by residems (tOm those underf..erved neighbor-
hoods.
2, Provide park land and facilities in residcntial an?.<l.S that
are iwlated from other parks and fad1itit~ by nup.lral
and conSlruc!~~d barriers such as a..'1(:rialdghts-of -way.
], Provide 11. variety of parks and n..x~r<~!tional facUities in
each planning district
4. Pursue. the added use of schools and Nhcrpublic fadli.
ties for p<lrks and rec.re.ation111 use.
5. When p<.1&<;ible, hx:ate neighborhood park:> in theccnler
or ncighbow(.l(xt<; 5{~.'vl~d, wenwurage access by fOl)t or
bk;ycle.
6. Dcv(Ojop park, recreational, 1m;! open spil<:.e opportuni..
lies and ;lm(~mtj('~ in developing and newly annexed
areas on the S~Hne kwd. as they generally t~;<ist in other
parts of !h~ community that are cnn;;i<:Ient wilh kx:~\l
park and rcere;lti<m standards.
7. CQminB(~ to evalu.ate properties Qriginally purchased as
parklands lhat may no longer l~ rlt;txled, and dNer01i~
their SolIe or Cltd4sngC value fOf park lands needed in
otha are.as.
8. Keep abn?<ts! of senior housing LTends to determine th(~
neeilslllu} optimum loc.ations forl\<~w commtmity facili-
ties,
9. Cmw)$J.!{)nding to compar~~ivdy higfllX de:mand, try tl:>
pn)vidl) mure park kmd in medium and high density
r~~-$id(,Htial areas than in their hW)~r ikn$Hy counter-
parts.
.r
~
D, Physical Ac(;(~s
Goal: Ensure safe and convenient access to r('creatinna! lands
and facilities.
Policie..s:
1, Prommc the development of bicyck and pcde!>tri.au
routes between all neighborhood:; and major re~rea.,
tiO!1W and cultural rt)SOurt'.C-s such ;&<; the wm~n(:Ue.
River,!.he SoUL.~ Hills, and the downtmvn are~L
2. Encoumge ow; and bicycle use fOf traveling to parks by
pl'(widing shelwrs, drop-off a.rea.~. and bicycle paths.
3. Continue coordination .vith private Pf()lx~rty ownet'$
~md County, State, and Federal agenck$ In develop
bicycle and hiking routes bctwv.)u the metropolit..1J! area
and regional !'C<:n~.tional area" SlIGh as Fern Ridge
Reservoir and Mt. Pisgah COMly Park.
4, Provide safe packing at parks and r(~creati!.)nal fl'lcilitks
that commonly draw crowds arriving by both aum!)\o..
biles and bicycks,
5. Provide safe and con ven knt aci.;CSS to parks and rec!"(:a.
tional facilities for IY')I'$ons with di:'>;lbi!itics.
6. When possible, r(~quire mnd divi5;ions and planned uUlt
developments In p.mvi.dl~. for pe-destriaH 1l.(:Cel>S to park:;
lwd potential park SikS.
7, Work wit.' !he Lillie Transit Oistrict to n:l.ak~~ n':<<!8S
tmnsit nmt('-s conwnient to parks and tecrt.ltkHlj)J fa.
cilities.
E.. (\>mmtmity Involvem('nt
Goal: Involve the coolmunity in till) planning of parks and ICC
rcatlonal f,\dlities,
Polkie?,:
1 , U~i(~ <Ill dfidc!1t HI1<i c.le-nr prOC(;;';S for park planning ami
design projet'i,> wit.'! Opp~)itllnities for affe..R'.d and
ime.(ested dti;>.ens, comnHmity organizations, r~:og"
nizl)d IH:.ighhorhrx1d organi.zations, and puhlic agt~nd(~s
to be involved. This pn)C~)s:; shall inducte the following
compQncnts;
a, AKS\!l<H1CC that re<:ogniz.ed neighborhood nrgani..
;~Ii(lns and other intcn~sk~d parties have acccss to
the Joim Parks CormnitttXl when 01atcommit{l,~ i.~
cOll:,idc.flng poJkics, proj(';Ct<;:, services, or <";tivi-
t:ic..s that could have u significant cfkct DIl Ulose
neighbnrt!oous. parties. or individuals,
14
guw:m~ Purks and Ren'NHi<m Plan
~.
II IUlIl I
b, TimeJy notice and adequate means for f(:('.ngnizoo
neighborhood organizati(ms, individuals, and other
int{~n,stcd partic~.., to bccornc effcctively involv('.d in
thc initial phase of design developmt'.r.t
c. Assumncc Ihat recognized neighborhood (<<gal1i~
7..alions ha VI? sufficient opportunity fl.! address fad 1-
ity design and opt::Huional changes that may a:ffet~t
the character of their ndghoorhoods.
d. A baiaH\:e among affecled neighborh{X){ls, other
inlf;:restcd parties, and L~c lnng..!(:rm interest of the
(~ntire community,
e. \Vhcn dmngcs or additions ',viH not alter the curn~.ilt
function or general appearam:t, of an existing fadl.
i ty , the e~.;tabl ished pnx::ess wW consist primari ly of
providing infnrmation to intcn~sted groups.
2. Encourage voluntwr groups to take part ill appropriate
periodic maimC!1;.111ce ..m<1 improvement of park fadli-
tle$~
3. On the Joint Parks Commi!tec's recomm(~ndatiOB, e.s^
t<iblh;h act ho<:; groups to addre;;;;;; r<:ert)i.1tJ.onul develop..
men!. n(~ds and/Or pn.lt<:<etinn, cOB$'~rvalioll, and en..
hanccment of n;1tural areas.
4. Continue to work with IJ!~ Eugcn<.:: Parks Frmnd,:tion
which r~X::.:iv<);,; tax rkductl"bk dnnmiom; that can tx~
tls('..;i 10 acquire and improve paIk bud and park facili..
tW$.
F, Pu hHc Awan~rwss
GO;l!: IB<:ma~;1? aWMcnc,;;> of R~:r<:;;;Hional and cnitural oppm
tnnitic-; ~~!ld tGsponsibi1Hic~;.
Pni{CIC~;:
1. l\.'h);.iml,~e the visibUi!j ,wd public m:e d rC:';.r;,atJ.onal
and cultural fadli!ies through siting and <ksign.
2 Inform the public of tlx:rcatioll<\l "UH.l cultmaJ fadlilie:,
and pmgr;1ms through a vari,~J,Y of cnmmunkaHon
mc!.hnds.
~. Sdleduj;~ [(~cn;:.ati()nal and <:ultuml oppomm.itics at time:;
afld in kKatioll$ that respl:!!~d to pl,lblic ncer.k
4. Inlhrm the:: public of it~ wspom:ihmHes for pfl::~serving
the commmdty'8 mHuwl herit<'1ge when using its
r lXfC<ltiorw.1 resource:,.
5. EduCllt<~ dtir.ens regarding t!E~ impmtmt rok: Idsnn:'.
plays in tJK: quality of We.
Cugent: l)&rRS and R{'cn~athHl Plan
~~
G, C(x}rdination
Goal:
Coordinate the provision of recreational and. <:ulllw.al
S<:fvices with !.h,~ plans and programs of other puhlic
agencies and private mganizHtions,
Polides:
1, Dcvc.lop a "Public Lands Poilcy" in conjunction with
other jurisdictions to:
a. Identify and descri\x~ l.he: r('..~natJ.onal p<.Henti~1i of
undcvdofX.:d public !and~ and lands withill
Htxxhl,.'n.ys.
b. Provide for thiS preservation and use of su!"pll.l~
public lands having nx:reational and olx~n space
potentialthmugh aO:Juisition or HWJwgernent
'}. Coordinate facility development and prngrmn offerinD;
with ot!K:r rccreatinnal pl'O'iitk:r:;.
j, E:<pkm:~aml, when fcasibk, impkmemjoin;; yenttm~Hr,
raniWl<I<:nL,> with pfivm(~ pmvider~ to develop and
qx:mte r,~crc;ltj(>naI fa>::ilitics and pmg:rams.
.t. Provide fac.ilitk~.:;.aIid offer pr<)grams tha!<:ompkmcnt<
a~;$ist, or support t!K~ effort'; of quasi .public and
rrivat<~ fi;,.c.rcation providGr:;.
S. Provide f,lClUU(,:'; and pi'Ogmms that arc either not ot-
kreJ by private providers Of arc not avadab1c If.: a bJ;:;c
r:"O~tkBl of the .ronHnnni~y's (:~t!2,(~ns. at an affDr,:t~tbh;
><lte,
f.. (~onthnl(':: C{)()r}\~r;lt;\.~~ ~:::gr~>::~:ne:qt~ '.-\'Hh organi:-:;3,.tions
such a.'; Emo<dd ~Kj(bp{}ft:;.
7
Cominui? to dcvc.bp and, (b !J('cessary. modify a1(r(~(?
mcnts 'J/W, o!.kr H{(';{)<:ic,; and jUrl,;i.iictions that wm
allow dfec~iv(; and suiwhk Wi>.; of existing iwd future
r<:.neatioB;-al and cultuml fadEI.les and OP,;,\} $"pao.~$.
EKiHlrpk.:; of npp(}rtunltk$ for mUltIple rccreiltinn.a; w;"
i!JrhKk:
a,
The Lane CO:.mty Fmrgl'ml!1dC'i.
Community schook
Univ('f:;ity of Oreg/lll phlyfid:l;; ;:\wJ ;>pecia! lhe
r$(H~.atiollal fadtWf'..::;.
AUl7.en SU\dium.
Sdl<.x}l playgr;mntb, gymna,;lu;Y!:;, a.nd sp<;~::;iaHz(:d
rtc:n~ttionat faei!Hi({~.
City and park district (xlrb, playgn:Hmd.-;, tenni:{
cOHrt~;, and otll!~f ~pi..'dal US{: tt:<:reationallacilitks.
b.
d.
~>
i.
K
SHppOfl and en<:nurag~~ r,f(3.ie>;~ts initllited hy othu pro
vid<~r;; to brf.>ad~ll. the {:ommunity'~; n~.:n:--::H10nal iind
:-:.:,*. : ."XX>Qo'-.:l'J7-;X
15
~>>II'~lilIiolL
Cul!llnll opportunilleS, particulady as they relate to
tourism and economic diversification.
9. Continue cooJdinauon with land o'.....ners. devek)IX~r.~,
and public agcnde.s ill the planning and mW,lXlK:{}On of
bicycle r()utc~;,
i O. Continue to work with th~~ f-:nnmy to C!1SllK~ funding a,>
needw to improv(~ and mailllain .Alton Baker Park and
cOlmty"own(~d fa<::iHtict. operated hy Eugene.
11. Work with law enforcementageocies:and interest groups
to develop public awareness programs that will deter
cJiminal behaVior in parks.
! 2. Work with tll('. Willamabme Park and R!~(:f(,~IUon Di5-
111et on maintaining access for Gknwolxl f('s.kknL<; to
senior center and pool faciliti<'." o}X'raHxt by the Districl
that are doseI' 10 Gkmvnoct than COmll<lwbk Ellw-;nc
facilltks.
13. Coordinate programs and other pmjrxts among wm.
munit)' f~dlhk~..<;.
IL Ud)"m D(:sign
Goal:
Enhan<:c th~~ cnvimnmental quality and visual
character of the community.
PG!id!~:,;;
L PW(ect the tHlique geographi~~;:ll fe<lwrcs.. blltN~s, and
other nHtural landm;-)Jh in parks ando;her [('.Cl'e,ll.ionaI
faci.lities for their contriblltion !O tk \~(1mmnnil./ ~
idcntity,
/. In coordination with the Hiswrk Revlt'Ji Board, iden,
tify and m::knowk..1ge. historic: s:ite;,;, blliIdings, stru<>
Hltes, and objects and preserve. thdr integrity in purk
and reacali<w,zl fa<::iHlics,
3. u~;c the Ir.~;&..Ji.1I..gJ!,[~l}S( strtt;,l tree. planting guide
when designing sl:reet"capc~ next to and within parks
and other recreational fatiHtkg.
4 Mi ni mize the impacts nf park use nn sl1ITnul1di ng lands:
through;
a, Bnfr(~ring bonk1's shafl::d with re:>irlcmial, com.'
merda!' im.lll:>trial. al!d agdculwmlus\;s.
b. Expanding sub.stand;wi ,;il.(~d park:>, when pos.
sibk, thn:mgh acqlli~il.io!l to iwpmw ,l>XN;~, visi..
hihl)'. !md ,Wsthelic qUH.!ity.
1 <i
1'IRll'J"*'1oNl(
c. Careful siting of acce..ss mads, parking are~lS. nnd
activities that require lighling or pn..xlucc high
noise levels,
"Boulevards and parkway.L.are importilf1t parts of a complett:
park system.JtH711,{l1 citypluiSure drives are 'boulevards'
while infmnal pfea.wn: drives nwy be mJJre spei:{lkally
dt:signaff.:d 'parkways' ,"
- John C. and Frc'.{kdck Law Olmsted, Jr.
5, T1'('.<lt environmental (mhancem(~nt a.;; a CWB!)(!B(',IU of
n~reatll)nai developmeflL
6. Prol~~Cl V!:;;'ws from natuHil prOI1Hmt<:s1'ii;cs that are not yN
l.kvciop.:xl if U)(:y ar(: in pnblic owm~r:>hip.
'7 Inaea:,e vi:'>ibility of cNnnwnity f"dhtk" 10 all pOlen,
li.al users.
8. Develop an m'!:.an fore.s!. mall.agcllwnt plan,
L Economk DIversification
(i;xIL
S trenglhe II the role of reaeational and C!J lturJI ser,lkes
in order to improvc l.he comnmaity's marketability and
economic hase.
Polide::;:
I. Program a range of recreation.al and cultuml opp,)Hnni..
ties ".Altch \,\/iH con!.ribute to the community's aUrac-
tivCll{~~;<; :~'> .a pLK~ to live, work, and visit.
2. r~nhan('e, th(~ (:ornrHl.Uniy's aUn:ctjYcnc~'S {br n(~v..' aJ~d
,~xic;iing bu:;inc~~;;s by:
,I. Pwgramming adiviti,)<; and spedal ewnl.s lIwt
ildp In att1'm:t '<,i,;itor;; and nmvention busine.ss.
b Offering a variety or w!tu.ml, rcxreatimml, and
educalkmal programs throughollt the community.
c. pmmoting thf, City's commilInent to parks as a
community resource needed to pmte.ct thl.\ ar~'s
unique natura! amenWc~: through protection, coo'
:iervaikm, ,md i.mhaHC!:mcnl of natura! open spaces:
und scenic reSOOJl,.~es,
3. Coordinate P:Wl\l.otiOH i.}f the c.omrmmity':, reac.)!lonal
and cultural servicc~ with otheJ appropriate ageru::k:$
when marketing lhe an~<l fOf potential conV(:ntimls.
Eug(~n€ Pm'ks ,md Rcrreation t'hm
"'~.i.~~~
-.~
U .i6tIl:fl.~llroll'l
l..i!'~
4. Provide and maintain cultural andrecreatinnal facilities
tP",,1t serve as centers f(Jr destination point ~lctivities.
5. Indude aesthetic amenities in parks and culuwif CVCllt
sUs::s that neate a memorable positive image,
J. Fadmy Redevelopment and Ct.umg~~
Goif; M:aintain, fe.model, and upgra<k park, recreatinnal. and
cultural fadlitie.s in order to respond wchanging use.s as
well as aliUin and preserve operational efficiency,
Pofkies:
1. Periodically review buildihgs and odH~r park improve.
ments to determine if the public's needs are being met.
Make changes u..'O necessary to meet Ihose needs em..
cientfy.
L Plan and ~~oordina{{~ HHuntenance lli1d improvement
projci;;ls throughout the year to allocate reSOlJf<<.A;;,'1 effi.
ciently,
3. Design, maintain, and modify parks, reCf{';.atkmal, and
cultural racHitic:'> in a mannN that ensures th~~ public ':,;
safi~ty, aHows y~'ar round llse, and reduces maintenance
costs.
4. Identify areas that aH~ aHnlelivi-) and suitabk fGr mOHn-
l<Jin bicycling. As n("A~dcd, develop IJails designed and
<kdicated primarily to dIal f()fffi of re{;reation in diose
areas.
5. fk:sign rnainten,lll<:.e and improvement programs l.h;)!
support natutal rcsoUl,(:CS and rninimiw damage to
nawrai vegetation llnd crilic;~f wildlife habitat,;.
6. Consul! with citn~n:wn impmvemt::nt and mndifinHioH
projcct:~ that depart significantly from a facility '$ exi:,a.
ing purpose ()r ll~:'>.
Eugen(' Parks. ilud Ret'rcaHnn l~lan
17
~"'.~
C()lVli\,lllNITYV{[DE RESOURCES
1"),(-"1 l('tT'S ;~l'<<,fD nUof)p("'kC17n A ~"r'!(.))'<..:'-'
I: '~.I, .,.11, .,l.l~o;.., r"l~ I fi~.,..I(:tl\.,t..f l,\,t; 1. ,.; ~~')
~1Ii.'lli\,i~'-~
lH"~Hr'r :
The policies and proposed actions in this element are imp,'1rtan! \0 l.he enure community rather than individual planning districl.S 0>
neighborhoods. 'nlt:,yare tied to unique n.~som'(:es which, when designed and maim.ained appropriately. offer a variety of rewwtional
opportunities fof' us.(': hy resk!erHs t.hroughout the community,
Proposed actions are assigned priorities a'l. noted at the end of l?,ach statement in pare.ntht'^<;.es. Their generallo<:atinns are keyed to the
kU.ers on the map of t.he emire planning area,
\VHhu11ctte iH1G McKenzie Wv(:rs
"The most notable lamJswpe femure that is co!!veniu1tly
m:u!ssiUe w (he greata part (:f the population
is obviously (he river itsdf"
.. John C. and Fre.derkk Law Olm~;tc<t Jr,
t)oHcies:
L 'Use the January, 1985, WHl.ametle Ri'lil~r Greenway
J\.llmag;em(~nt pl'()pos-al as a s-oun~e for Kkntifying natu-
ral IIl~,getation and wildli.fe arc,as a;.; well a, pos8ibk
m~m<lgemcnt w;;hniqnes and specific b.<'1d use Halon:,;
and ded~;ion:; tluu will pmllidi;:: it bahmcc among phy:.:;i-
cui acei.';:;:; an:;a". visual St(;ce";.$ i3J(~!:;, and an~a~ whtcrc
,Kcess :.:;houki b,~ limited or d.i:.iiJ..mr<lW'.d..
'1
....
Provide a vark:t)' and n!lnlt~~r of r(:i,;rGZlt!ona! opporH.lni..
tks along tiK: rlvc-J';;.
j.. .Proruote access to and H~ of the rivi,::rs \vitha range or
nx:reationaI fariht.ie$.
4 ('ootdmatt;; t.he devdopmcnt and operation of rcnc~!"
tiOMl f:adiitk" Sllong the riV(:f~ wiih other public ag<m-
cil~s and privaw landowners.
5. Continue to m:-quin.; hmd along th<l rivers, ultinmtdy to
their confluencc, for public llse.
6. Prc.:;crvc and ,~nhm1~:t~ n~:;tl!f;:!? habit:,Us and St~(\Hk ('Gfri~
(lor" that deserve sp,x:ia!. merit along the riven,.
7A~;$lln:: !.h~~t df\'d(!pm(~ml, within the e;;t~b!i:,hed 'NiI.
lametk River Cfr<~enway Ix)undar.kHcnmply with Swte
and icK.:at Greenway stantl<mh ;:md rcgulation:L
Eugcm: Park:;, MHJ Rt(:rt:aliol1 Plan
Proposed Actions:
A. Extendfmdcomp!ctc lht) bk:yckroutesa.long the dv(:r~..
(High}
B, Develop a rn;;IS!(~r mmwgement plan for l..'1e \Viliameue
River fmm Me Pisga.h totheconl1umlccoftlw Wilhm^
CUe and Me Kcltl.le Rivers. lnclude, ,-t~; ~~')pmpriat(',
specific zones for variou" levels and types nf m3.nage..
men! asolltlhwd i.n tbe);:muaIY, 1985, \ViHamettc River
Cheenway Management Propos-at (High)
C Develop additional re(:f(~l>tion<\l nKilides nil riverfronl
parklands, Inducting b01H ramp.., Hl appmpriat(; k-;<,;;;\.
tions. {MediJm,)
I), Tn ;.;ervc the mcu-opoliwn and $WTOW1d.lng area, It':
acquire the Harlow CWl.kn'fl(;(: (\,nwJ Grounds smd
Armitage State Fark, link the t-..,;o Wg(~;fH>!, a.nd add ;1
n'.(.reatiom~1 v,>hick GHnpgroumL {l\fedium}
F Acquire additiond r1V('rfW,H bnd \)1' easenwnts w th~
l\.iHowing arGl:>;
r '....
~. ! ,}
Along lk <.'.:<l$t b,mk of the \Vilbmette Rivi;l" l10rlh
of VaHey River CCnlN. (High)
(::?)
A!()ng l.he ml.lth and west banks of the WiUanKu,~;
River through Gkn\'irltxL (Hig.h)
In the Sant;1 Clara are.;.\ and exu:.inding nOfthw
Hikman Landing. (i\.kdillm)
(4)
/\"long th(;. $(luth bank of the l>.kKem::k Riycr \YO;i
of Interstate Highway 5. (Low)
:'1
i 11 I
-~
"'Parks should be nat to NaturaIScenerv...
formerly people built with the backs ofJiwir houses
upon riven and lakes, thus not only exdliding the public
from colltinuou.~acCt;ss (0 them but ruining tllt,ir beawy.
Marked ewnomy in municipal developmem
may be 4fected by lirying out parky,,'ays and parks
$(J as to em.1;ract' streams, thus brooks or little rilins
which would otherwise he nuisances that would some day
have to be put in: large uJukrgrmJ.fld corniuits
at elUlrmous expense, nuq be made the occaslon
for delightful local pleasure grounds or clUraclive parkways.
Sw:h improvements add greatly to the ;;alw.~ ..
of adjoining properties."
- John C. ami Fre.derick Law Olmsted, k
Snuth H.ltb
Polick~s:
L Preserve the charocter ana habiWt value of the South
Bins by siting and developing recreatkH};ll facilities and
other improvements in a way that preserve):: and en-
fHUl(;(~$ lhe natlltiil condilions of the area.
2,~1.afillge the South Hills as a passive r~ri.?ati()nai feature
by providing.a variety of reueational facilities, such as
tr'ails, view ~x}int.", and natuml af(~a5, to a<'cnmmodat.e a
runge of interests and activities.
3. Continue. to t":ofissder the n;:{:re..Htiona] potential of the
btmi tinder lXlwer ii ne \.~sem.,)m$ as was dOlk in con nee..
tion with the City's pUreh'.ISl) of an ea.,,<~!m;.nt in (::!)Hjnm:..
tion with the ridge-line corridor at Witlam<:He Street.
'L Exlend the Ridgeline Trail System along or near the
ridg<~ of the South. HiUsand provide linkngi.?SlOadjac.ent
neighoorhoods,
), InkJrm th<~ puhlic about the fI).cr<,.<ttlonaI nppoftunitks
as wen as its responsibility !Q pre,serve the envimmne.fl!.
in till) Sou!.h Hins.
Proposed Actions:
E Continue to develop <l >>ystem or t<(tUS, picnk areas, and
viewpoints, and mainwin natural areilli in the South
rilUs. (High)
G. Prepan~ a comprehensive Sou!.h Hills managemefl!. pl<m
that acknowkdges. the City's tR~e pre,l';>;)fv<ltion mgula..
tions and fr~. South HiHs Study m1d addre.$ses; (High)
(1) n~. need for a variety of habitat types and loca-
tions,
(2) 'The location of pmpo..c,e-..d recreadomu facilities.
(3) The adequacy of existing regulations to maintain
t.he character of the South Hills.
(4) Tl:e importance of vegetation to t."le vi~;ual integrity
of tl1c tree-lined South Hills.
(5) How residential and other urban uses can be. ac-
commodated ti) minimize negative enviromnenlal
impact<;,
H. Conv<:.rt the City -uwned (hvell.ing Qn Fox Hollow Road
into a meeting and inu.')rprctive center with caretaker
quarlcrs. (High)
!. Acquire. and <kvdop lands and easements a<; needed for
acce~;s and recre.atkm inCluding:
(l) A trail from Blanton Road to Bailey Hill Road and
l.he Willow Cr(~ek drainage basi.n. (High)
(2) A tc,\il from !lle DilbrJ Road arr,a to the Lmud..
wood Pmperties and to !-kndricks Park. (Higb)
(3) Significa,'1!. vi<.~wpoint", habitat areas, and aco~ss
corrid\,lfs linhng RX're,mional an.':;.!!; tn admo)nt
residential. area..,. (High) .
J. Acquire easeme.nt<; and land lOr a trail network wnn<:.ct-
ing Lane Community College, the Oak Hills are.a, Moon
Mountain. Hendr.icks Park, the Laurel Hill Valley, the
L.<surdwood Propert!e!;, and the Ridgdio<? Trail Sy~;tem.
(High)
K. 1)e\,('.lJ.}P tlw Spe.n<:er BuW) Bridle Trail strip. (High)
L Acquif<~ up to a 35 acres for a park as a trail tennim.ls on
Moon Mountain. {Medillm)
M, Adopt park. and lrail regulations 10 contmlthre81s to the
natura! environment of the South HilL~, (Medium)
N. Develop a Imil n~~h\'ork <:onll<x:ling L<me Commuliil.y
Colkge. the Oak Hms area, Moon Mountain. Hen-
d.dck" Park, the Lanrd Hin VaHey. the Laurelwwd
Pwp<:rtks, and !.h\.~ Ridgdine Trail SyW':IR (Mediurtt)
0. [Jevdopaoout l!2mikoftlJe SkyHnef\l.rktoRh:lgdine
'frail System. (Me4ium)
p, Acquire about I mBe (6 acr{~s} for a !.'fail bI.:twoon
22
EHg<'l)(~ Pflrks;l~;i I~;~;;;;:;;fu;l~;
1111
llt;~lJl'
Hawkins Park and the RidgeHne Tmi!. (Medium)
Q. Devdop a trail between Hawkins Park and the Ridg-
dinl~ Trail (Low)
DdtaPonds
Polides;
t . I~:welnp the Delta Po!)<h as a major rec;watkmaJ area
and corridor including a variety of re~r(,-iHional <emd
educational opportunities.
2. Work with the $l.8l.e Fish and Wildlife Department and
other agencks to improve and maintain tfle. fisheries and
habitat potential of the Delta Ponds.
:t Prepare <md ob~;e,rve measures that protect the environ..
mental im.egrhy of the Ddta Pond.:'l,
4. Clarify respnnsihiHlies for planning, developing, and
rnanaging the IxJt:a Ponds.
5. Encourage fntH]';:: .uoan development to "ix~. St)usitivl) m
th<'. natura! <.:onditions, character, and habitat value of
the ponds.
Proposed Actions:
R Using Ihe 1989 Natur:al Resource Assessrw.::.nt study of
me Delta Ponds as one source. develop an o'le,wll
management plan for Ihe Ponds l.ha1 takes into conskj..
eratkm thdr natural and wildlik hahil.aland their nse for
!(".(:re.auonal, educational, and scenic uses^ (High)
$, Continue 10 negotiate with VaHey Rivl~.f Cente.r w
ac.quire the southernmost Ddta Pom1. (High)
T. Work with Uw(: County to tmnsfer manaterw.:nt of its
holdings in the ponds arc;t W Eugene.. (High)
I), Construct a <':<lm;cway loop c(!il!ll~cting the Ponds,
WiHamctte River, and D-cbrick Slough, (High)
V, Establish, pmtect, Md enhance habital. aJ"f>2S to support
wildlife populations and provide edocational M.::tivitics,
(Medium}
W, Ctx)rdil1ate highway improv(~ments in and around
Good!'lastare Isbnd with th.{~ recreational ,h~vdopment
of the Delta Pm~ds. This iffcludcs:
(I) Et(~cting a hridge on Goodpasture hl.an.d R(~ad 10
ctmne<.:! me pond., on t!l(~ east and w~~st sides nf the
rO<.td and th<tt is (onsttu<':[l1:.d in a manl1f.r that mini-
mizes potenti,~l advc!S(~ impacts on adjacent \vild~
life habitat area,;, ~kAiium)
krlllilJ
(2) Providing bicycle access to the ponds along Good.
pasture Road, (Medium)
en D;:~signing Delta H.ighway and access wad 1m-
pnwements tominimi:r.e their impuctsol1 the ponds.
(Low)
A ma;u,nJ (]~~nlHt'!
PoJicks;
1. Develop [he. (:haml.el as a majnr recre.atiol""al <'orridor by
providing a varkty of recreational f<ldlitie~: along its
length,
2, Work with Lane County to improv~~ the. channel con-,..
dor so it provides a connection fmm the Cily to Fern
Ridge R~~$ervoir.
:t Provide a<:ccss to the channel fmm adjaccnt neighhor-
hoods,
4^ Where channel strf"cl noss-ings me ahs~:fH, iW;laH kxn
bridges Ihat are scmdtive to wildlife for col1w:nient
~Hx'.ess 1.0 reaeational arClli:.
5. When possible, acquire additional land aloug the chan-
nellO m,~e, 11.e. community's n~~eds for neiglltx1moc;.,1
and conmmnity parks and to construct wildlife habiwt
improvenwill.S such as ponds,
6. 1mpwv(: the sakty and :k:sthcl.ic quality of tll(~ ckumd
comdor 1.0 e!hXltlra..~e it" l1se {)nd contribute lO il.$
beautificatiOtL
PnJi-x)$cd Actiol1~;:
K Extend the ticyclc/!x~dcstnan trail thn:H;gh tmdevd-
{)f'\)d $~~ctinils horn u)e City's central area 1.0 the urtnm
growlh boundary in Eethd-Dm:lebo. (High)
Y. install lighting aiong bicyde and pedestrian mUle?'>.
U..-kdiurn)
Z. Provide a bicycle, pedestdan, andcqtle~:trian:;.}!st,:m
from th~~ urban gW\'\ith boundary to the reut.~titional
an)<lS mound Fern Ridg~) Reservoir in CO(}rx~fM.ion with
Lane Cnunty and the Corps of Engillecrs. (Low)
and (Hh{?f \\at~r'ways
Polkie$:
I ,Maimain and enhance. the ehamz:tcr and l'o~n~.<njonal
opportunil.ies of !lleMiIlmrc.
Eugene Park.; and Recn.'Htion Plan
23
l~~~ "It~~
l'........l:ll'lli(>r
2. Explore ale potential of other water'Nays and drain,
agcway for llx:reational and open ~'Pace opporusnitie$.
3. Prow-..ct natural stream Cl)Urse.s, sloughs, and wctlandsin
tonnection with parks and recreation.'l1 f<~.;ilities.
Prop(1s(~d Actions:
A.A.. Assist in periodic de~n up and planting imprnve:!l1CnIS
along the MlUrace. {High)
UH. W(}rk with theUl1iversity of Oregon. the Eugene Water
and Electric Board. and adja<:em pmperty ()',vuers along
the Mi!.lface to develop a management plan fOf incrC<1s
iflg its water now as well as enhancing and maintaining
its recreational oppartunilkh') and character. (Medium)
cc. Beginning "vith policies in the Metropoliwn Ar(,~1 Gen
em! Ptan, develop a cmnpreJH~.nsive. program f()r im
pmving the water quality in th~~ commllOity's waleI'
ways ~U1d drainageways. (Nkdium)
DD. Evaluate the fisheries potential of lhe Miilt;;({:e (Low)
24 Eugtml..' Parks and Uecre.)tkm Plan
.,:."0
lv1essage
Page 1 of2
WEISS Carolyn J
From: CARLSON ,Jim R
Sent: Friday, December 23,20059:00 AM
To: MEDLIN Johnny R; COREY Kurt A; WEISS Carolyn J
Subject: FW: PROS Pian
FYI
~----Orlginai ~"'essage-----
From~ Ellen Hyman [mailto:elly47@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 22,,2005 10:17 AM
To: *Eugene t-1ayor and City Council
Cc: TAYLOR Dennis 1\'1
Subject: PROS Plan
Dear Mayor, Councilors and City Manager:
'1'his is the "new and improvedH version of my public testimony on the PROS Plan, It was
important to have the record to remain open until 12/31. Hopefully others wiB give
testimony on this well-intended, but seriously flawed document. As almost everyone who
spoke agrees, the priority list is the heart of this plan. \Yithout it, the document rings hollow.
The priority list is what holds the department and the city accountahle to the voters. It's the
means by which \ve can an see and measure what has been accompHshed-or not
Tv!y particular interest, as you aU well know, is Santa Clara. Reading the proposed plan
document with the hindsight 0 f the 1989 Plan and the 1998 POS bond measure, it's little
~ .
wonder that the people of Santa Clara are a little skeptical about it As Kate Perle said in her
testimony, promises were made and not delivered. At some point the folks in Santa Clara
must have really made some decision makers angry because we've seen little effort to effect
real balance and equity (two pet phrases in the 2005 PROS Plan) out here.
Since the 1970's there have been public record statements, campaign slogans and heartfelt
concem about the need for parks and open spaces in Santa Clara. Reading these documents
one would think there's a huge comrnitment to ensure the core PROS Plan value to
l!distdbute parks, open spaces and recreation services equitably throughout the comnmnity'l.
But \vithout the priority list nowhere in this document does it say how that equity \-'lill be
achieved.
To give you an example-in the section "Strategies", B-1 reads "provide a total 01'20 acres
of parkland per 1,000 residents. . ." In 2003 Santa Clara had a population of 16j806 people.
According to B-lj we should have a minimum 320 acres of parkland. \Ve have 26.36. There
is no mention of how our 20 acres per 1000 will be achieved. Take this one example and
multiply it throughout the community and you begin to see the scope of the problem with
this document. There are numerous other issues that also need to be clarified before the
document is adopted,
12/28/2005
" ,~Message
Page 2 of2
'"
If the PROS Plan is a blueprint for a new bond measure, there's a lot of work to be done to
make it presentable to the public. The 1998 POS bond measure clearly delineated what the
funds would be spent on and the public supported that measure.
However, I also have some concerns about how that bond measure has been implemented,
According to a pas Expenditure History:
There's still $3,025,329 not yet spent which includes:
· At least 4 planned projects from the bond measure that are not listed in the Expenditure
history, induding a community park for Santa Clara.
Not mentioned in the bond measure but spent was:
It $1,579,521 for Planning, induding $33,858 for signage
. $146,198 for the PROS plan plus
. An additional $104,827 of SDe money for the PROS plan.
'* $474..037 to projects not delineated in the bond measure.
This does not include the $8 million in SDC funds added to the total expenditure history,
much of which has been collected ft.'om Santa Clara, hut it doesn't look as though any was
spent in Santa Clara,
Of the total bond measure.. $387,307 has been spent in Santa Clara for development of
Awbrey and Arrowhead parks. As a voter, as desperate as I am to get parks and open spaces
in Santa Clara, r d be hard pressed to cast a vote in favor of another bond measure given this
information and the plan-less document before you. I encourage the council to direct the
reinstatement of the priority list as part of the PROS plan and really strive for equity and
balance in terms of parks and open spaces in Eugene.
As always,
Ellen Hyman
3863 Dorchester
Eugene 97404
12/28/2005
.(
December 27, 2005
Eugene Parks Foundation
651 Brookside Drive
Eugene, Oregon 97405-2044
541-343-4778
The Honorable Kitty Piercy, Mayor
Eugene City Councilors
777 Pearl St.
Eugene, OR 97401
Subject.' Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Long Range Plans
Dear Mayor and City Councilors,
I'm pleased to writt: to you today on behalf of the Eugene Parks Foundation (EPF), The
members of the EPF board of directors are arnong the majority of Eugene residents who are
active, outdoors enthusiasts and make regular use of public parks and recreation services, We
actively supported city funding measures for parks and recreation and understand first hand
the opportunities and challenges to providing facilities and services that willrneet the needs
and demands of the community today and in the fmure.
Faced \vith the realization that public resources alone cannot provide and mainta.in all of the
facilities and services desired hy the community, we took the next step and fom1ed a
501(c)(3) corporation to augment the communities parks and recreation resources. Through
this non-profit organization, we will earn, raist\ accept, and distribute money and other items
of value to improve and enhance public parks, open spaces, and recreational facllities and
services for the benefit of Ellgene area residents.
With this mission in mind, we are naturany very interested in the City of Eugene's Parks,
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. The draH PROS Comprehensive Plan
and draft Project and Priority Plan provides the community and EPF with valuable inf-ormation
about the current facilities and services that can guide future direction, including:
· a baseline {or the current serl/ices and facilities against which progress can be measured and
a repository filr many (if not aU) of the possible alternatives for future expansion of facilities
and services.
· a perspective for future PROS needs by projecting community growth, hO\\1 that growth will
be distributed by neighborhood and where the greatest need exists.
.;
~
· a list of the cornrnunity's priorities that are essential for efficiently using the city's limited
resources and that can help guide the EPF in our efforts to supplement and leverage the city's
PROS initiatives.
· the components for future city funding proposals and the assurance that the components of
such a proposals address the highest priority for community~wide needs,
TheEPF urges the Eugene City Council to adopt the dratl: PROS Comprehensive Plan draft plan
prepared by the PROS advisory committee and the PROS staff.
As the city seeks public support and funding for PROS projects and services, perhaps the most
important benefit of an adopted PROS Comprehensi ve Plan and PROS Project and Priority Plan
will be to provide a roadmap for a capital bond measure that could be presented to voters in
November 2006. There is every reason to believe that a bond measure similar to the one that
passed in 1998 would gain voter approval. Additional steps must be completed soon (ideally by
May 2006), however to allow titne to organize and conduet a campaib'TI for such a measure. The
most important step is completion of a public involvement process to develop a list of specific
acquisitions and projects.
The results of the 1998 bond measure passage clearly showed that a weHncrafted parks and open
space measure will not displace other ballot measures. And like the 1998 measure, a ne\v bond
proposal should contain a balance ofland acquisition for open space and parks, renovation of
existing t~ei1ities to enhance their use and reduce long term maintenance cost and several ne\-\'
and puhlicly desired facilities. The PROS Comprehensive Plan and the PROS Project and
Priority Plan can guide the creation of this list of components,
The short Hmeline lends itse1fto the use of a few charrette..style public meetings like those
frequently used by the city for other projects. If combined with a widely distributed tabloid such
as the one successfully used to develop the 1998 rneasure, a strong public involvement process
could quickly be cornpletetL
The EPF hopes to conduct a capital campaign that will Ibrther leverage the City's invcstments---
including resources gained through a ne\-\' bond measure - in enhanced and ne\\' parks, open
space, and recreation facilities and services.
Sincerely,
Terry Smith, President
cc: Carolvn Weiss
./
EPF Board :Memhers
WEISS Carolyn J
From:
Sent;
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MATTHEWS Kevin (SMTP)
Friday, December 30,20054:55 PM
WEISS Carolyn J
*Eugene Mayur and City Council; FoE Directors; SEN Board
FoE Testimony on PROS Plan
M
~
FoCon_PROS A1T14022352.
051230.pdf {77 txt (150 B)
December 30, 2005
Mayor and City Council
City of Eugene
c/o Carolyn Weiss, Parks Planning carolyn.j.v:eLm@ci.eugene.or.us
Re: PROS Plan 2005
Council Bill 4914 .. Ord:Lnance Adopting New Pa:chl { .Recreation and Open Space Plan
Testimony :l n PDF file attached.
1
friends of eugene
December 30, 200S
M:ayor and Citv Council
" -'
City of Eugene
c/o Carolyn Weiss, Parks Planning
carolyn.j. weiss@ci.eugene.or.us
He: PROS Plan 200.5
Council Bill 49'14 - Ordinance Adopting New' Parks, Recreation and Open Spao.~ Plan
Df.'ar Eugene Mayor and City Council,
With a1l1ve have learned since '1989 about the need for sustainability in developmentl
about the impact of humankind on Earth;s biospherel and about the reciprocally deep
utility of parks and open space in achieving human health and welfare, we should be
clarifying, strengthening, and extending our parks planning policies, especially with
regard to open space and recreational conservation areas.
As stewards of this special place for our own time here, we must not move forward
with a plan that d.rop~ and diminishes key considerations related to sustainability in our
urban I nature interfaces.
We question whether in its essence this plan even points in the same direction as our
adopted slogan, "the\vorld's greatest city of the arts and outdoors". But whether this
plan is adequate to help us rea(;h toward that aspiration is beyond question. It is not.
Policy Shodcomings
At the most basic levet the proposed PROS Plan 2005 fails to layout dear and effective
strategies to achieve fundarnental community goals,
Just as one example, there is no expression of a clear vision or implementation
approach for connecting the Ridgeline Trail to the \-vest and east of the existing
SperKer's Butte i Blanton Heights segment. As rapid subdivision fiUs up the ridgeline
areas, it will take timely and decisive action by the city to fulfilJ the long-envisioned
community goal of a ridges component in the Metro "Rivers to Ridges" trail corridor
strategy. Many in our community see this as one of the primary outstanding parks
planning challenges. But the PROS Plan 200S is mute on how the ridgeline trail project
can actually be 1110ved forward.
'The map fiROSWillowCreek\^!eb.pdf" shmvs bold ridgeline corridors. But vvhat do
those actually mean in tenns of action strategy?
Friend of Eugene · 12/30/05
In. other ways as well, the PROS Plan 2005 version is far from adequate as a policy
document. lls approval as the Eugene parks and open space refinernent plan of the
Metro Plan would in effect delete more than 100 specific guiding policies, with no
comparable replacement If there is some regulatory benefit for the parks and open
space refiI1cment plan to take such a divergent approach from other Metro Plan
components, it has 110t. been made clear to the public.
Technical Shortcomings
The PROS Plan 2005 is severely lacking in the area of basic technical planning
foundations, from an overall comprehensive planning perspective. In the several
decades since the publication of Ian McHarg's semir'lal textbook "Design with Nature",
the deep value of planning grounded in overlay m.apping of key resource and demand
pararneters has made that approach common practice. The advent of GIS technology
accelerated the potential cost effectiveness of overlay documentation for coordinating
key geographic factors including social,. economic, and environmental dimensions.
In the 1970s, sound overlay planning documentation developed (pre-GIS) as part of the
South FUlls Study contributed significantly to the accuracy and persuasiveness of that
community consensus project. Yet some 30 years later, ,ve are attempting to make
much wider-ranging parks and open space planning decisions with much less
comprehensive documentation. It would do our time a severe disservice to proceed on
the basis of generalizations, with such a dear methodology for marshaling the relevant
facts dis1'i::garded.
\Ve note shnilar confusion ion the PROS docurnentation regarding land acquisition,with
land in some cases having b(':en directly donated to the city being labeled (as in
I{1DGE_map.pdf) as i'purchased". This unclarit.y blurs the important connections
between budget priorities, and. acquisitions achieved.
There is a huge unans\.-vered question about how the parks and open space planning in
the PROS Plan 2005 is or could in the future be synchronized with state m.andated
natural resource planning accomplished or underway with regard to statewide
planning Goal 5.
Frankly, the citizens of Eugene, Oregon deserve a higher standard of professional
practice in parks and open space planning than .is reflected in the technical aspects of the
PROS Plan 2005.
Even such relatively simple components as accounting of the distribution of open space
and recreational facilities around tmvn are blurred and obscured bv inconsistencies in
the measurement of land and facilities owned and or operated by ~arious potentially
relevant jurisdictions, including 41, Lane County, federal agencies, and others, as well as
the citv itself. Without addition documentation, clarification, and discussion of these
technical parks accounting dirnensions, the basis for determination made in the PROS
Plan 2005 remain inappropriately mysterious.
Process ShQrtcomings
Friend of Eugene · 12/30/05
Early in the PROS Plan 2005 process, we are tolet a decision was made to develop the
plan around a set of relatively arbitrary geographical subdivisions \.vithin the city that
meant direct involvement of neighborhood associations in the plan development would
be impossible.
We believe that was in and of itself a fatal error. \Vith the aid of now-e',>'ervdav GIS
technology, it vvould have been far more appropriate to develop geograpfiicai
subdivisions to actually facilitate neighborhood involvement
Notwithstanding the terrible discolli1ect behveen the PROS process and the
neighborhoods, some neighborhood associations made strong critiques of the PROS
plan priorities for their areas. In the instance of the Santa Clara park and VCB
expansion fiasco, the PROS plan was finaUy amended to align with expressed
neighborhood goals after direct city council action. In other instances, where
neighborhood dissatisfaction '\ivith PROS plan components may be just as strong b,ut has
not elevated in process to separate council action, the plan has continued to march
forward, regardless of explicit neighborhood input.
It would be most appropriate for the city council to direct staff to use neighborhood
friendl y plamring areas in revising the PROS plan prior to adoption.
Wedge versus Consensus
In frank political terms.. the current plan, deterrnined as it was in most aspects by dty
staff during the term of a previous mayor.. 1-\forking in consultation with a committee
appointed by that previous mayor, is a wedge plan rather than a consensus plan.
At the neighborhood association level, we have witnessed a substantial commitment to
city-wide problem solving and priority balancingo This is especially tme in the areas of
natural resource protection and meeting the needs of the children in our community.
Yet this plan fails to engage that positive potential.
With our city growing rapidly, today we must demand real excellence in parks and
open space planning. Only \vith such excellence can find the win-win solutions we need
to successfully develop density \vithquality. Please send PROS 2005 back to the
drawing board with a dear request for improvement.
Hespedfully..
Kf.'vin r-",[atthev.,ts
President, Frien.ds of Eugene
matthews@artifice.com
PO Box 1588, Eu.gene; OR 97440
c/ () 541-345-7421 vox
c! 0 541 ~3,15-7 438 fax
http:,I ! vvww . FriendsofEugene.org
Friend of Eugene · 12/30;05