HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin Order 58-04-15 Administrative Order No. : :~ ~ ( ~
of the
Public Works Department
City of Eugene, Oregon
Adopting the Candlelight Park Master Plan
The Executive Director of the Public Works Department of the City of Eugene finds
that:
A. Pursuant to the Eugene Charter of 1976, the City Manager is the administrative
head of the City of Eugene, and as such, has authority to administer the
development of the City parks or to delegate that authority to others.
B. The City Manager has delegated to me, as Executive Director of the Public Works
Department, authority to administer the acquisition and development of City parks
and parkland, consistent with adopted City policies.
C, On July 10, 1989, by Resolution No. 4127, the City Council adopted the Eugene
Parks and Recreation Plan, which contains guidelines to be fbllowed in making
administrative and budgetary decisions about parks and recreation acquisitions,
development and management consistent with those adopted goals and policies.
D. Consistent with the above authority, the Final Park Design/hr Candlelight Park
(dated June 10, 2004), a copy of which is attached as "Exhibit A" hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, has been prepared taking into the consideration
the following goals:
(1) Meeting the ex~stmg and future needs of the community through orderly and systematic
planning, lmplementatmn, and evaluation programs;
(2) Making a wade range of parks, programs and facilmes available for c~tlzens and visitors
of various ages, cultural backgrounds, abilitms, interests, incomes, and participation
levels:
(3) Enhancing the environmental quahty and visual character of the commumty:
(4) Involwng the community in the planmng of parks and recreational facilities;
(5) Coordinating the provision of recreational and cultural services wath the plans and
programs of other agencies and private orgamzatlons;
(6) Ensuring sate and convenient access to recreation lands and fac~hnes; and
(7) Mamtmning, remodeling and upgrading park, recreational and cultural faciht~es in order
to respond to changing uses as well as attaimng and preserwng operational efficiency.
Candlelight Park Admm Approval Page I
E. Early Candlelight Park History:
The City of Eugene acquired Candlelight park's 12 acres in 1977. The site has remained
undeveloped since its acquisition. -Until 1991 the site was leased to a private citizen for
agricultural use. In 19991 the agricultural use was discontinued and the Eugene City Council
designated the site for interim use as an off leash dog park.
With the passage of the 1998 Parks and Open Space bond measure, some funds were designated
to be used for improvements at Candlelight Park.
I n December of 2000, the City contracted with Satre Associates to conduct a wetland inventory
survey of the park site. The survey showed the park contained .67 acres of low quality wetland.
park design, and public involvement was originally scheduled to begin in 2001, however
planning activities were delayed due to transportation issues on a pending subdivision that
bordered the park site on the north. Resolving the access to the subdivision resulted in an
agreement between the City and the developer to reconfigure the park site to allow for the
creation of a new arterial street. In 2003 the land use approvals finalized the shape and location
of the park site and the park design process was able to proceed. Over the winter of 2003-2004
the developer constructed the street and utilities surrounding the park site.
F. Public Involvement
The initial public scoping session was held on October 29, 2003, at Petersen Barn Community
Center. The meeting was advertised through a news release, postings at the park site, and an
extensive mail out to all households within ~A mile of the park site.
A report summarizing the comments, and issues is attached to this document as ~Exhibit B".
On April 14, 2004 a second public meeting was held at the Petersen Barn Community Center.
This meeting was advertised as the first, by a mail out to all households within V2 mile of the
park, notice placed in the City Council newsletter and public meetings calendar, and through a
news release. In addition notice was given to interested stakeholders and special interest groups.
Further, a Candlelight Park web page was created and the initial draft concept plan was posted as
well as the report from the first public meeting.
A report summarizing the comments and issues is attached to this document as "Exhibit C".
Comment were categorized into seven specific areas: dog off leash area; parking; access and
circulation; vegetation; kids and playground; budget; and general comments.
Even though attendance was light at both the scoping session and the second public meeting
participants offered a good deal of input that helped solidify many of the plan elements. In
addition, phone and email comments added to the testimony. The plan was receiving good
Candlehght Park Admm Approval Page 2
support from the majority of citizens. The only exception was a group of dog off leash
proponents who felt the dog off leash area as shown was too small. Staff agreed to look at the
plan to see if the dog offleash area could be expanded.
Everyone agreed that a third public meeting would not be necessary- if they could receive the
revised plan and have opportunity to comment.
On May 10, 2004 copies of a Final Park Design together with a list of changes, were mailed to
all interested parties. A list of the changes is attached to this document as ~Exhibit D'. The
revised plan and the list of changes were posted for public comment on the Candlelight Park's
web site.
The following emails were received regarding the Candlelight plan.
From Jenmfer Solomon
To lohn Webe~
Message
John, I am unable to attend the meeting on 14th so I wanted to add a few comments here First, it looks }~ABULOUS~ What a huge ~mpro,,ement
to our area What about parking? Perhaps indenting the street on Throne to accommodate cars pa~klng a]ong the curb'; Also, th~s looks llke a
bigger versmn of Oakmont Park I happen to use Oakmont Park pretty regularly A lot of people complain to me about there not being a toilet l
see you have one for Candlelight whmh is GRtzA F I'm told that Oakmont was concmved as a neighborhood park and theretbre you wouldn't
want a toilet since all the users ~vould be from the neighborhood and just go home for a potty break Well, I'm not sure anyone antlclapted what a
hit Oakmont would be and as a result thc potty and parking have become problematic. Again, I only mention this because I could see the same
happcmng here That is, people from surrounding neighborhoods would DRIVE to this park and hang out, thus my parking question Personally,
[ hve off Burger and it would bc too lar lot me to walk with my two and a half year old and rune month old Those are my thoughts Very
exciting project~ Keep up the good wink What exactly do you hope to accomphsh Wednesday night and whcre can I get a summary of that
meeting9 (4-12 -04)
Jenmfer Solomon C~ty Councilor Ward 6.
"Hi John, thru ~s m reference to the meeting last mght Regarding the fencing for the dog run portion, I think ut should be completely fenced off,
but not enclosmmg the walking/running trail that goes around the perimeter of the park I th~nk I described last night my negative observations
of the several existing dog parks in Eugene that I have visited--problems are happening that are largely due to incompetent dog owners, but the
ramlficatmns impact everybody using the pink As much as possible, the loose ammals should be sequestered away from other park users If
there me penalties tbr having dogs of Meash outside the designated area, i th~nk they should be posted in lalge signs so they have to be not,ced
Another issue that I've been thinking about is how accessible the dog run area will be to people who use wheelchairs and other dewces'~ In lact, 1
wonder how accessible the other city dog parks are`>
I th~nk your design is wonderful As a senior citizen with osteoporosls, I was especially dehghted by the exerclse/~orkout stations described in
the tblders--I hope funding for that can be found And I thlnk that httle 4-foot mound would be a som'ce ol great pleasure lbr a lot of children,
also the water play/plaza feature I look forward to seeing how you te-work the design after last night's me¢ting" (4-15-04)
Lmda Swisher
"M~ Weber Ijust love the Candlehght Pink design I'm delighted with all the cft'ort and funds that are being prowded fbr our comtnumtypark
It's obvious you are taking much pride to put together a first class park THANK YOU ~ have bcct~ x~altmg 7 years for this" (5-12-04)
Joe. Lisa & the Kids (Coelho')
4970 Royal A,~e
"Thank you t3or the new map for Cmldlehght Park l'he only concern I had for the park was that the dog park bc fenced along Royal so them
Candlehght Park Admln Approval Page 3
would not be any chance for the dogs to go into the road I like that a fence is shown around the entire dog area and think that ~s a great ldea~
Everything else looks really good to me I think the space has been divided m the best way possible for every age group and act~wty Thank you
so much tbr all your hard work '~ (5~26-04)
Kelley Cannon
4763 Marshall Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97402
541-689-405rI
"John - Thank you lbr giving us the chance to look over the Draft De,~elopment Plan tbr Candlelight PaIk Because there is no site parking thc
lssties of access for RldeSource and/or LTD vehicles wasn't d~scussed Them wele three comments that were raised
( 1 t It appears as if there is only one "hard surface" access to the dog park It looks hke the entry on the west side is from soft running trail'~ If
that small section of the running trail that runs north to south was hard surGce then people with mobihty devices or balance lssties would have
better access to that section of the park Hopefully, the trail would not be overly comprised
(2) Ihere were some questions about the "raised" concrete seating platlbim adjacent to the playgrounds Not ertough detail to tell whether this
might create a hazard for travel in the area for people with visual lmpamnents
(3) A question about the existing textmed crosswalks Are these raised crosswalks (like those near LTD's Amazon Station and dog pmk)¢ It is
difficult to d~stmgmsh where the ciosswalk and the sidewalk begins using that "flush" treatment
(5-26-04)
~t erry Parker
Lane Transit District
Accessible Services Manager
Phone 541-682-3245
Fax 541-682-6l t l
E-mag terry parker{>ltd lane or us
~'Hello John - 1 just got around to looking at the materials you sent out May 10 It all looks good, and 1 like ~t that the s~de,aalks will be 7 feet
w~de, but [ don't see that the ~tdewalks east of the plaza area are gmng to be 10' widu, which ~s what [recall as a possibility Because of the
potential social gathering uses for this part of the park, if it is possible to enlarge the sidewalk dimensions there, north to where the accessible
parking/access area begins, [ think it would be useful. I'm really glad you could save the mounds. This ~s going to be a popular parki" {5-26-04l
Llnda J Swisher
~q hanks for sending me a rewsed plan for Candlehght Park I am very pleased with the changes you have made Please keep me in the loop"
{6-12-04)
Karcn Martin
'%hmlk yom no need to mall me one, 1'1l check out the webslte Ihanks tbr all you've done on th~s
..... Original Message
From WEBER John J [real,It, J~,h~'~ I WEBER(;~i vu~zcile ,~r u~]
Sent* Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9.42 AM
To 'Perkerewlcz, Zak'
SubJect' f, LE. Candlehght Park
Zak,
Yes the dog park ~n on the revised plan. I increased the size by more than 'A acre, and it is going to have a pellmeter lence I~ you would like to
Candlehght Paik Admln Approval Page 4
see the new plan, l can mall a copy to you (need your address), or it ~s being posted on the City's Park web page at
!-~ '.',~v, ~, c~ eu~enc c,r u~/PANKS 'candtclm~t/Ma¢)4Dral~Pl~ pdt
John Weber, Landscape Architect, ASLA
Eugene Parks and Open Space Planmng. 1820 Roosevelt Blvd, Eugene, OR 97402
www johnj webel~ct.eugene.or, us <mallit, ~ohn 1%~:bcr~l,c~ eugene ~
(541) 682-4908
..... Original Message .....
From Perkerew~cz, Zak [n~d~o~e~ke~c~wc//~'~emo~scbros
Sent Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9 26 AM
To VcEBER John J
Sub. lect RE- Candlehght Park
llello John,
[ was wondering what the latest ~s on the Candlelight Park plm~s, ts the~e stqll going to be a dog park? Is ~t going to be lknced?"
Just gui lollS,
Zak Pe~kerewlcz
G. Internal Review
The draft plan received the following comments from Public Works staff:
Maintenance access was desired in the form of a reinforced turf or gravel drive in two
locations. First, into the dog off leash area at the southwest comer of the park, and
second, to the open waterway at the northwest comer of the park. (Theplan was
amended to reflect reinforced turf access at both points.)
The draft plan had depicted a hard surface walk with an adjacent bark jogging path
around the open turf field. Staffwas concerned about the likelihood of people turning
their ankles on the edge of the hard path. (This combination path was eliminated and a
common pathway shown on the plan. The new pathway will need to be constructed of a
material suitable for wheelchairs and for joggh~g. A product called 'Asphalt Rubber'~
used for track surfaces, is a strong candidate to satisfy this requirement.)
The draft plan had showed street trees located in a 6' wide planting strip along Welcome
Way and Throne Drive. Staff encouraged having more room for street trees and a better
arrangement for mowing the turf between the trees. (In order to accommodate larger
street trees, group plantings of street trees and larger turf areas between the trees the
planting strip was increased to 10' wide. The 8~ wide sidewalk has several meanders
allowing large street tree groupiugs along Throne Drive and some smaller groups
along Welcome Way. Turf areas between the street trees' groups are larger allowing for
easier mowing. )
On June 14, 2004 staff presented the Final Park Design for Candlelight Park to the Human
Rights Conunission Accessibility Committee. The following viewpoints were expressed:
Concern was raised that the estimated 45 curb side parking spaces adjacent to the park
may not be enough if the sports field is programmed for organized play. (Staff explained
Cm~dlehght Pa~k Admm Approval Page 5
that on site parMng facilities is not permitted by the zoning ordiuance for
neighborhood parks. It was pointed out that accessible parMng is being planned along
Throne Drive, which would provide direct access to the park site.)
Concern was expressed about having a safe crossing at the intersection of Royal Avenue
and Throne Drive. Members wanted the park to provide sufficient space for a full
accessible crossing. (Staff indicated that the design does allow for an accessible
crossing to terminate at the southeast corner of the park.)
Commission members wanted the park's development to allowed sufficient room for the
new lift ramp on LTD buses at the bus stop on Royal. (Staff pointed out that this was an
existing bus stop, and the sidewalk was an existing curbside sidewalk. If modifications
are needed for the LTD buses, there is room to accommodate some modification.)
o A commission member expressed the desire for the proposed restroom to have a
provision for people with dogs to be able to tie them up at the restroom. (Staff stated that
this could easily be included on the construction drawings when they are preparedO
H. Advertisement
In addition to notices of the public meetings being mailed to over 1400 households surrounding
the park, the following agencies received notice:
Meeting notices were mailed to City Councilors, Eugene Planning Commission and
Historic Review Board, Active Bethel Citizens Neighborhood Association, Accessibility
Committee, Lane County Commissioner Green, Lane County Public Works, EWEB,
LCOG, DSL, Lane County Historical Society, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, Lane
County Visitors and Convention Bureau, LTD, ODF&W, ACOE, LRAPA, Bethel School
District, Kalapuya High School, Prairie Mountain School, Danebo Elementary School,
Lane County Audubon Society, Native Plant Society of Oregon, Register Guard and
F.R.E.S.H.
· Meeting notices were posted on the Public Meeting Calendar, included in the City
Council Newsletter, and a standard news release made to all the news media.
Reports of public meetings were posted on the City Park's web site~ and included staff
contact information for input and a PDF of the draft park plan.
I. Laud Use Issues
~Vetla~d
A wetland delineation was completed in 2001 for a portion of the park site. The City is currently
working with a consultant to update a delineation on the remainder of the park site and to file a
Joint Permit Application with Division of State Lands and Army Corps for an expected ½ acre of
wetland fill on the park site. The JPA is expected to be submitted by October 2004.
Rare Plant Stt~vev
The City has a current contract with a consultant to perform a rare plant survey on the
Candlelight Park site. This work began in April of 2004 and is expected to be completed by the
end of September 2004. It is not expected that the park site will contain any rare or endangered
species. The final report should clear the site for construction permit issuance.
Car~dlchght Park Admm Approval Pagc 6
Street Trees
On June 14, 2004 a street tree plan was prepared for the three streets that border the park site.
The plan was approved by the urban forester on June 16, 2004. A copy of that plan is attached as
"Exhibit E'.
Petwfitted Uses
Eugene Code Section 9.2630 lists the allowable activities in the Park, Recreation, and Open
Space Zone. The Candlelight Park site is zoned R-1, Residential, which specifies that all park
development is to conform to the PRO Zone standards. All the proposed park features and uses
shown on the Final Park Design are outright permitted uses according to the code, except for the
restroom. A restroom in a neighborhood park requires a Site Review approval by the Eugene
Planning Director. Staff is looking at the project budget and preparing a cost estimate for the park
construction. If it looks like the first phase construction planned in 2005 will include the
restroom, then staff will prepare and submit an application for a Site Review approval.
Eugene Code Section 9.2640 list setback standards for specific uses and activities on park sites.
All uses and features shown on the Final Park Design either meet or exceed these setback
standards.
Now, Therefore,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF
THE CITY OF EUGENE ORDERS AND DIRECTS THAT:
in addition to he above findings, which are hereby adopted, i have reviewed the Final
Park Design for Candlelight Park, which is attached as *'Exhibit D" hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and find that it is consistent with the goals and policies
of the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan and other adopted City policies. Therefore, the
attached Candlelight Park Master Plan, is hereby adopted, and will be accordingly
implemented as resources permit.
Dated this ...../~ day of~ /~ ~ ~ ,2004.
Kurt Corey, -Executive ~irector
Public Works ~artment
Candlehght Park Admm Approval Page 7
Meeting Report
I st Public Workshop
October 29, 2003, 7:00-9:00 PM
Peterson Barn, 870 Bertzen Street, Eugene
Facilitator: John Weber, Landscape Architect
Eugene Parks and Open Space Planmng
Other CIty Staff: Emily Proudfoot, Landscape Architect
Eugene Englneenng Division
Back~,round
The City of Eugene acquired 12 acres in 1977 to be used as a public park. The s~te has remained
undeveloped untd this time due to unavailable fun&ng. From 1977 until 1991 the site was leased to a local
farmer for rye grass production. In 1991 the City Council directed the site as an off-leash dog park until
such time as ~t could be developed.
Development of Candlehght Park was included with the passage of the Parks and Open Space Bond
measure in 1998. The bond measure will pamally fund the development of this site, together funding from
the Parks System Development Fund.
In December of 2000, a wetland survey was conducted on the park s~te and .67 acres of low quahty wetland
were identified,
In January of 2003 negotiations were finalized w~th the owner of an adjacent undeveloped 45-acre parcel to
reconfigure the shape of the park. This was done to keep the park site whole, rather than allow ~t to be spht
in two by a pending development of a new street.
1_~ WorksholJ
The purpose of the first workshop was to g~ve the pubic a chance to discuss then vision on how they would
like to see the park developed and used. Staff gave a brief presentatmn on the context of the park site and
how ~t relates to the surrounding neighborhood. A general informal discussion of park uses and
development concerns followed, the essence of which is captured it this report.
The workshop was advertised to the area residents by:
· A postcard lnwtat~on was marled to 1,432 households surrounding the park site.
· Post card invitations were sent to other stakeholders including special interest groups, neighborhood
group leaders, and clt~ councilors, local and state agencies.
~, Several posters advertising the meeting were placed at key locations surrounding the park site.
* An article on the workshop was Included m the City Council Newsletter, and the C~ty Manager's
Office pubhc meetings calendar.
* A news release was made to local newspaper, radio, and television stations the week prior to the
workshop.
Seven (7) people attend th~s workshop.
Dtscussion
GENERAL
The recent history of the park s~te was d~scussed with regard to how and why ~t was reconfigured to not
allo~v a new arterml street to b~sect ~t. This was done m concert with the adjacent landowner's subd~ws~on
application and has resulted in the mutual benefit to the developer as well as the future park s~te.
The general concept of a neighborhood park was d~scussed. According to the 1989 Eugene Parks and
Recreation Plan, a neighborhood parks should be w~thm walking distance and thus serve approximately a
half-mile walking radius. A typmal neighborhood park ~s normally between 3 and 5 acres m size, however
Candlelight ~s approximately 11.2 acres, it was explained because of the larger size, the ab~hty to
accommodate more uses, including play fields~ may cause a consideration to prowde some limited on site
parking, especially ~f ~t was accessible parking.
The purpose of a neighborhood park is to: _ Provide a location for neighborhood social, recreatmnal and fitness actlvtt~es.
_ Provide significant open space and ~dentlty for specific neighborhoods.
Typically, the kinds of facfi~ttes and features ~ncluded ~n a neighborhood park are: _ Playgrounds
_ Sports field(sI w~thout hghtlng
_ Restrooms and storage areas
Hard sm'faced court areas
_ Open lawn areas for ~nformal play
Picnic areas
_ Other features dependent on such th~ngs as natural amemtms, buffering reqmrements, wews, utility easements, etc.
_ Parking areas - only when on-street parking ts too hmlted.
It was explained that larger or more ~ntens~vely used facilities were generally not developed m
neighborhood parks, but ~n larger commumty and metropohtan parks.
ACCESS, CIRCULATION, PARKING
Royal Avenue ~s considered a slgmficant barrier to people crossing from the south to use the park. It was
explmned that the C~ty ~s pursmng acqms~tlon ora small neighborhood park on the south s~de of Royal to
serve these residents. Even so, ~t concerned people that Royal's traffic moved so fast, and k~ds using the
park s~te close to Royal would be exposed to this traffic danger. People seemed to agn'ee that the active k~d
use areas should be placed away from the Royal frontage.
Although no one in attendance was from the adjacent Daneland Mobile Home Park, it was explained that
the C~ty beheved making an accessible route between the park and the Daneland residents was ~mportant.
Currently a perimeter fence encloses the mobile home park. Th~s fence would need to be modified and ~t
was not known ~fthe Daneland Park managers would be agreeable to allowing this access. D~rect contact
may be necessary to detem~ne their ~nterest m accessing the neighborhood park. One of the attendees
stated that they beheved approxmmtely 50% of the people ~n Daneland MoNle Home Park are over age 55,
and 50% are younger w~th kids.
Some m the audience questioned the need for prowd~ng any on s~te parking. Curbside parking w~lt be
prowded on the east and north s~des of the park s~te. The audience debated whether the cm'bside parking
would be sufficient once the park was developed. WNIe the group as a whole could not come to agreement
on the larger ~ssue of parking, there was agreement that accessible parking would be needed and that at the
least tNs could be provided on site. Others suggested the concept of using 'bulb outs' or even a small
parking fac~hty on the park In case the on street parking was not sufficient. It was felt that any on s~te
parking would need some exposure at Royal especmlly ~f used in conjunction w~th a dog off leash area.
The statement was made that people using the dog park has observed 4 or 5 cars many times parked along
the street.
Some concern was expressed regarding the new resIdentml streets surrounding the park s~te. They are being
bmlt at a minimum width with no curbside parking adjacent to the res~dentml properties. People felt that the
surrounding residents tmght resort to parking at the curb adjacent to the park s~te, effectively reducing the
available parking fbr the park users.
The group did agree that the access from Royal Avenue to the park would need more or better v~sibihty.
People agreed that the park needed good sidewalks along the facing streets. A soft surthce perimeter path
that could be used for walking and jogging was considered Important.
SITE DESIGN AND FACILiTiES
The group felt the amemtles that would be good to include at the park were hghtmg; benches; p~cmc tables;
and a p~cmc shelter (s~m~lar to the one that was installed at Irwin Park, which everyone seemed to hke).
Some stated that they would particularly hke to see hghting along the paths.
A number of people voiced a request ~br the park to remain as open space as much as possible. They
thought an mibrmal open space w~th a shelter would provide a place tbr people m the neighborhood to
gather for p~cmcs or other events. Even mentioned was the thought that a ~plaza' could add to the potentml
of a 'gathenng place'.
Some mentioned that v~ews in and from the park s~te were unportant and should be preserved.
WNle there was not an outpouring of support for a Ng playground, some acknowledged that at least a small
playground would be beneficml to the park. Concern was expressed that a 'tot-lot* not be placed too close
to older k~ds play eqmpment.
Most in attendance felt that the inclusion ofrestrooms in the park would be a lmNlity, and were not too
anxious to see them at the park. A comment was made that people could go home or use the restroom at a
nearby Albertson's Food Store ~f they had the need. It was pointed out that crossing a busy arterial (Royal
Ave.) was not to be encore'aged. Besides, encouraging the use of a food store~s restroom was not
appropriate for pubhc park users. Many park users hke cNldren and the elderly really need a more
convement restroom fac~llty. The group acquiesced that ~t m~ght be appropriate to at least design m a
location for some portable restrooms. Ones that could be used seasonally, not be too expensive, and end up
being a draw for negative behawor or graffit~.
PARK USES
There was a s~gn~ficant amount of ~nterest among the people m attendance concerning the continuance of a
dog off leash area on Candlehght Park. Because the undeveloped park s~te had been designated and used as
an off leash area for more than a decade, a dedicated contingent of dog owners has evolved, who desire the
dog off leash area to be included on the future master plan. D~scuss~on continued around the s~ze a dog off
leash area should be. For the past decade the entire s~te was avadable ~br the off leash use. Strong sentiment
was expressed not to have a small dog park area since that would result m a crowded, muddy, and messy
area. The dog off leash area at Amazon Park was used as an example of an area that was too small at
approximately 2.5 acres. Even at the s~ze of the more recently developed dog off leash area in Alton Baker
Park, 4 acres, degradation has occurred to the turf. It was d~scussed that lrr~proved drmnage and ~rngat~on
may be necessary to help the turf w~thstand the constant year round use that dog off leash areas receive.
A statement was made that people come w~th their dogs from south and east Eugene to use the Candlelight
off leash area. Several people lobbied for at least half (5.5 acres) of the Candlelight park to be designated as
an off leash dog park on the master plan, wNle others said that no more than half of the park should be
reserved for the dog off leash use. Everyone present felt that whatever the size, the dog off leash area
should be made accessible.
A suggestion was made to consider using the southwest comer of the park s~te as the dog off leash area. It
has a natural separation from the rest of the park s~te by the ex~snng open drainage way. Access fi'om the
north and east would need to be provided by a footbridge over the drainage way. Providing shade in dog off
leash area was considered important. Shade trees and a covered gazebo or shelter was proposed. Other
amenmes such as dnnk~ng fountmns, benches, etc were mentioned as desirable.
The ~dea of developing sports fields at Candlehght did not receive much support from the people in
attendance. Even though people were told that the City had long beheved that this park due to ~ts s~ze and
fiat topography would be an ~deal s~te to locate sports fields, there was not much sympathy among the
group to see this happen. People were more opposed to seeing a ball field than a soccer field~ In fact, after
some d~scuss~on, the group stated that they would not mind seeing soccer fields since such a space had
multiple use value. When not used for game play, ~t would provide open space for other mfomml act~wt~es.
Ball fields were considered a more formal use that reqmred more infrastructure, and d~d not lend
themselves readily to alternate uses.
Whde on the s~te posting for the first pubhc meeting, a neighbor approached staff' and briefly provided
some wewpomts. WNle being happy to see the s~te finally developed for a variety of uses, he felt that
prowdmg faclht~es for active play such as basketball and soccer were especmlly important.
One person expressed an interest m seeing w~ldhfe haNtat developed ~n the park. Since the s~te has been
mmntamed over ~ts history as a rough mown field, there is little existing haNtat value. Any s~gmficant
haNtat would need to be created. A logical location for this would be along the open waterway comdor that
runs through the park.
PARK LANDSCAPE
The 'wetland' status of the park s~te was discussed. A wetland dehneauon was performed wNch
documented approximately V~ acre of low quality wetland. Most of the wetland ~s located on the easts~de of
the park, approximately halfway between ~ts north and south boundaries. A very small amount of wetland
~s documented along the bottom of the small open dramageway that traverses tNough the park s~te. The
C~ty ~s planmng on purchasing mmgat~on credits m the West Eugene Wetland M~t~gatlon Bank m order to
develop the park. The cost to purchase these credits is estimated to be approximately $25,000.
The open dramage way through the park ~s one of the upper reaches of the GreenNll -IMbutary, which ~s
undergoing coordinated enhancement ~mprovements. As part of that overall program, the City ~s planning
on creating an enhanced waterway through Candlehght Park. Design opnons will be explored wNch will
lay back the steep banks of the waterway, open up or widen portions, meander ~ts ahgnment to fit around
other uses ~n the park, and plant native vegetation that w~ll hopefully create haNtat and stormwater
filtration value. The open waterway w~ll likely reqmre at least a couple of pedestrmn crossings, w~th
footbridges being preferred over culvert crossings.
Candlehght Park ~s a fiat s~te w~th l~ttle or no topograpNc rehef. A short d~scuss~on addressed the ~dea of
modifying the s~te grades. People d~d not want to see extensive mounding that could result in ~Nd~ng'
places for undesirable act~wtles. Admittedly though, the audience d~d see benefit m some low height
sculpting of the ground to provide visual interest as long as it was not too high and st malntmned the ~open
feeling' of the site.
Several people cited the need for shade trees in the park. Currently there are no trees on the site. Some said
they would like to see natwe trees and shrubs planted in the park. The enhanced open waterway through the
site is seen as a prime opportunity for developing a native landscape theme. Some did cautton that the site
should not be over planted to the point that it does not feel safe. State Street Park was cited as an example
of a park that was too 'shrubby' and over planted.
Conclusions
Based on the testimony heard, st ss clear that there are four major interest areas for Candlehght Park: (1)
developing the open waterway with a focus on native plannngs that can provide the opportunity tbr wildlife
habitat; (2) keeping a dog off leash area ~n the park that will continue to provide dogs and their people w~th
a quality experience; (3) providing hm~ted sport field opportunities that maintain an open space fbehng and
multiple use potential; and (4) developing an active use area that includes playgrounds, picnic shelter, and
space statable for neighborhood gathenngs.
Maintaining user safety was an overriding concern for all areas of the park. L~ghtlng was seen as beneficial,
especially along paths and in activity areas. The park should be designed for maximum vis~bdity fi'om the
street frontages and keep an open feeling.
There ~s a concern regarding having sufficmnt and conveniently located parking for park users, especially
for accessible parking and parking for dog park users. In addition to being costly, developing on s~te
parking may not be permitted by the Eugene Zoning Ordinance standards for neighborhood parks. Further
evaluation of the amotmt of curb side parking and zoning standards will be needed.
Developing a meaningful open water way through the park site will likely require a s~gmficant budget
allocation, not to mention the cost ofprovl&ng footbridges and the mitigation credits fbr the lost wetland.
Supplemental funding should be explored to help with this portion of the project.
With an apparently strong support group for the dog off' leash area, consideration should be given to
develop this feature with the V.I.P. program (Volunteers In Parks). Th~s could be approached in the same
manner that the Alton Baker Park Dog Park was constructed, which can serve as a successful model for
involvement.
Closin~
Participants were reminded that there would be at least one more public meeting in which a draft master
plan will be presented for discussion. It was estimated that this second meeting would be scheduled later in
the winter. Announcement would be made prior to the meeting to all interested parties. All interested
parties were reminded that they are welcome to discuss this project or submit comments anytime on this
master plan process by phone, emad, or surface mall.
Meeting Report
2nd Public W°rksh°p
April 14, 2004, 7.00 - 9:00 PM
Peterson Barn, 870 Bertzen Street, Eugene
Fac~htaror: John Weber, Landscape Architect
Eugene Parks and Open Space Planning
Other C~ty Staff: Emily Proudfoot, Landscape Architect
Jack Long, Open Waterways Supervisor
Back,round
Originally acqmred ~n 1977, the undeveloped Candlelight Park property was reconfigured early ~n
2003 to accommodate new streets and a surrounding new subdivision. For the past 10 years the
site has been used informally as a dog off leash area. The site has approx~nmtely ½ acre of
marginal wetland that plans are to mitigate by purchasing credits m the West Eugene Wetland
Mitigatmn Bank.
On October 29~ 2003 the initial public meeting was held for the sm'rounding neighbors to discuss
and brainstorm ideas concerning the future pen&ng development of the park s~te. Four major
issues came out of the first workshop. They were:
1. Mmntmn an existing open waterway on the s~te and develop it ~nto a feature that provides
wildlife habitat through the use of native trees and shrubs,
2. Maintain a portion of the park to continue to be used as a dog off leash area.
3. Provide a mult~ purpose open turf area that can be used for field sports and informal play.
4, Develop an active neighborhood gathering area that would include the playground, shelter
space in a plaza hke layout.
2"a Workshop
The second workshop was advertised to the area residents by:
A postcard invitation was mmled to over 1,400 area residents w~thin ½ mile of the park s~te.
Invitations were also sent to other stakeholders ~nclu&ng special interest groups.
The draft plan and the report from the first ~vorkshop were posted on the Cxty's Park webslte.
Notice of the upcoming workshop was included in the C~ty Councd's Newsletter and Public
Meetings Calendar.
* A news release was made to local newspaper, radio~ and television stations.
In additmn to the city staffpresent~ there were seven (7) people in attendance.
The second workshop focused on a draf~ development plan for the park that was prepared using
the comments and interests received during the first workshop as a guide. Sound park plmm~ng
principles on access~ safety, functionality, maintenance, and sustainabdity were also employed in
developing the draft plan. The plan represents a compromise of somewhat competing interests in
the ne~ghborhoo& as so often is the case with public projects. In an attempt to provide this
balance in uses~ the broad scope of present and future neighborhood recreational needs were kept
in mind.
Issues and points of discussion concerning the draft plan can be grouped into several categories:
Dog Park; Parking; Access and Restroom; Vegetation; Kids and Playground; Budget; and
General Comments.
(To enlarge the dog park to five or six acres would require the elimination of
other site development features that are considered important to the needs of the
neighborhood.)
(If necessary, fencing can be added for safety.)
(The open waterway should provide a good
separation of these uses. Also, if required, perimeter fencing will contain the dogs. Outside
the offleash area dogs are to be on leashes while approaching the off leash space.)
(Staff noted that the asphalt path would provide an accessible route for people in
wheelchairs)
(A
public notification or process would be needed before eliminating the off leash area at any
point in the f}.iture.)
(Staff pointed out
that Candlelight is a neighborhood park and as such is intended to fulfill a variety of
recreational needs. This invariably leads to a diversity and balance of uses on each park site.)
(This park ate was acquired
with the intention to serve the pending medmm density family cievelopment on the south side
of Royal Avenue,)
(That is a possibility, although not
sure of what opportunities exist in this area. The utility company does not usually own
Easements.)
(Some in attendance thought Eugene had plenty of
athletic fields and others felt there is a shortage. According to many local organized sport
providers and City Recreation staff, there currently exists a shortage of playing fields for
soccer and softball. Discussion ensued about the importance of dog off leash areas and the
apparent lack of such fhcihtles in the Bethel Neighborhood. The audience was informed that
neighborhood parks are usually not large enough to accommodate a dog offleash area.
Candlelight, at 11.2 acres, is an exception and fortmmte to have this capacity. In addition, the
nearby Bethel Community Park that is now being constructed has a dog off leash area
planned which should be built in the next year or two.)
(Staff will take a closer look at the ahgnment of the open waterway, but feel
it is important to keep the grassy mound as a key play fbature.)
(Staff feels
that this will compromise the functionahty of the acnvity area and make ~t less visible from
the intersectmn at Royal Avenue.)
' -: [- ' _~_ ~ ' _ ~ .. (Staffnoted that there should be approximately
45curbside parking spaces along the park frontage and that th~s could be controlled by
silage hm~ting the t~me on parking.)
Access a~d Restroom
GIVEN THE ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK SITE, THE AUDIENCE
THOUGHT ACCESS FROM DANELAND MOBILE HOME PARK WOULD BE IDEAL. (Staff
co~ented that if the mobile home park desired access, that they could easdy create a hnk to
the public street system n~nediately north of the park and have good access. The C~ty would
encourage this to happen, as ~t would create better access to the public park. A perimeter
fbnce su~ounds Cu~ently the mobile home park.)
AFTER ~[ HE STAFF GAVE A BRIEF EXPLAINATION OF THE TRA~LS AND PATHS ON THE
PARK SITE, SEVERAL IN THE AUDIENCE APPAUDED THE INTENTION TO PROVIDE
ACCESSIBILITY AND EXERCISE STATIONS FOR NOT ONLY THE YOUTIt, BU~ FOR
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED THRU THE USE OF SPECIAL ~L~eTruil" KIOSKS AND
EXERCISE STATIONS OR SOMETHING S~MILAR.
~ A SHORT DISCUSSION AFFFIRMED THE NEED FOR RESTROOM FACILITIES AT 7HE
PARK. SOME PELT SEASONAL OR PORFABLE UNFfS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE,
(Staff info,ed people that permanent res~ooms could range from apprommately $60,000 for
prefabricated or umsex to $150,000 or more for full standard restrooms. Staff ~ntb~ed the
audience that a saintly stub out has already been prowded w~th the subdivision
construction.)
A SUGGEST[ON WAS MADE TO CONSIDER MOVING THE RESTROOM LOCATION
FURTHER NORTH~ PUTTING IT IN CLOSER PROXIMITY FO THE OPEN PLAYFIELD~
NORTH OF THE PLATGROUND. DOG PARK USERS IN TIlE AUDIENCE DID NOT FEEL
THAT ~1 t-[E RES1 ROOM NEEDD TO BE CLOSE TO THE ACCESS ROUTE TO THE OFF
LEASH AREA. {Staffin&cated that they would take a look at moving the restroom. In any
case, some felt that having a dog tie-up feature near the restroom would be beneficml.)
A REQUEST WAS MADE TO MAKE THE SIDEWALK ALONG THRONE DRIVE AS WIDE AS
POSSIBLE. (A six fbot wide sidewalk along public streets is fmrly typical, but when adjacent
to park s~tes, the City has been increasing the w~dth to as much as mght feet w~de. We xwll
look at widening the s~dewalks at Candlehght also.)
_"~.: ? ' , ' .... ~ ,; d ~ ' :-,~. (Staff indicated that the draft plan was schematic m nature
and that ~t would be a simple matter to reduce the ~ount ofxees ~n the center of the off
leash area.)
.: :' ,'. ,-: - L. ~' .,',, ~'-?-, .2 (Staff indicated that this change could be incoporated
mid will b~ shown on the final plan.)
MANY STRESSED TI tAT THE HIGHLY USED AREAS BY KIDS (BASKETBALL~
PLAYGROUND) NEEDED TO HAVE GOOD VISIBILI fY MAtN fAIN £D~.~ TO ENSU RE THAl
LO FS OF ~EYES~ ARE ON THE SITE. (Staff agreed.)
HAVING TOT SWINGS IN FItE PLAYGROUND WAS CONCIDERED LMPORTANT, (Staff
confirmed that this was the intent of the city to incorporate swings for both tots and older
children.)
MAIN ['A[NING VISABILFI Y AND PROXIMITY OF THE PEAYGROUND TO THE STREET
WAS VIEWED AS IMPORTANT FOR SECURITY PURPOSES. (Staff agreed.)
A THOUGHT WAS EXPRESSED THAT ~'[ HE KH)S NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE
WATERWAY. OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE QUESI IONED THIS, ANB ADDED THAT WATER
AND NATURAL LANOSCAPE WAS A NORMAL PART OF A CHILD'S EXPERIENCE. (Staff
concurs that the natural enwronment as an essential part of a child's learning and play
experience. No barrier of fencing ~s being planned along the open drainage way.)
A NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMMENTED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EXISTING
$500,000 BUDGET AUGMENTED WiTH POS BOND INTEREST EARN[NGS AND/OR PARK
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FLeD MONIES TO COMPLETE MORE OF THE PARK iN 2005.
(Staff informed the au&ence that this would be a Parks and Open Space management
decision and suggested they could talk with the POS Planning Manager regarding the funding
decismns on this project.)
Get, era[ Comme~t~
A 7HOUGiffl WAS t:.XPRESSEI) IHA'I FI'MAY BE GOOD 'I O t: I.IP fill St-IE EAYOUT WI/H
THE OPEN I UR~ fIELD AND PL,~YGROUND ON Tile SOU'itl SIDE ALONG ROYAL
AVENUE AND FI Ncr: 'i tit. SOU-I H SIDE FOR BAI.LS AND KIDS. (Staff commented that
putting the field spots and playground in close proximity to the heavy ~affic on Royal
Avenue would create a safety concern, it would also create a difficult situation in keeping the
open drmnageway t~u the p~k site.)
EVEN THOLITH NO"i SHOWN ON THE SCIIEM,\TIC ['LAN, S]TAF[ ~;kAN FEI) THE
AbD1ENCE IO KNOW TI4A"I LIGHJtNG V&'OULD BE INCLUDED AS PAR l OF TI-lB PAPK2~
DEVELOPMENT.
* A COMMFNF W4.5 MADE THA'I FENCING IS KIND OF A NEGAJIYE FEA1 URE. DIE
,gU(iGES ~ WAS MADE FO ItAYE FENCING ALONG ROYAL ONLY. AND MAYBE I.;SE A
L OW WOOD F E NCE OR A WIRE FFNCE. (Staff agrees that ibncing can sometimes be
unsightly, however ~n many s~tuations where contmnment ~s impo~ant, it ~s necessary.)
A PARTICIPANT COMMENTED f'IIA-F 'iHF DRAFT PLAN LOOKS ~0t)TIMFS BETTER THAN
WItA [ SHE AN t ICIPATED.
In Snmmar~
In general the &a~ plan was well recmved. Some individuals s~ongly endorsed the plan as
shown at the meeting. The s~ongest dissention was from dog park proponents who felt the
allotted space for the dog park was too small. Staff ageed to look at the open wate~ay chapel
aliment to see if some adjustment would provide a little more room for the dog p~k, however
maintaimng a balance of uses on this nmghborhood park would hkely hm~t this to a relatively
small ~ncrease. Strong support was g~ven for the active use plaza area and for the concept of
~nco~orating exercise stations near the pathways for the elderly and people ~n wheelchairs. All
pamcipants were excited over the prospect of semng th~s park cons~ucted in 2005 and urged the
City to use what ever funding available to complete as much of the plan katures as possible.
Closin~
Staff outlined the remaining process required to adopt the park plan and confirmed the
construction timeline is still being planned for the summer of 2005. Once a final park design is
reached, the City will need to apply for the joint D~vision of State Lands/Army Corps permit to
mitigate the small wetland. This permit process can take up to 6 months and staff would like to
have it completed prior to starting the construction drawings late this year. Furthermore, a site
review or conditional use permit process may be reqmred for some of the plan elements,
pamcularly the restroom.
In the interest of moving the planning process along, staff asked the group if they felt a 3rd
meeting was necessary if the plan changes were mailed to them w~th a comment period? The
consensus of the group was to not have another meeting as long as they received copies of the
revised plan and were g~ven the opportunity to comment.
May ;2004
Cf--lANCES -FO TI--tE PLAN
SINCE fi'HE APRIL 14fi'14 PUBIC
* All sidewalks have been increased to 7' u~idth,
The rest room has been moved north of the play,{round area.
A shrub bed has been added betu~een the playground area and the
public street. Plant materials need to be kept lou~ For visibility~ but
should be large enough to Form a barrier.
* Trees u~ere eliminated from the middle of the dog off leash area
to provide an open meadou~ for "F~t~h" and ~unnin~. ~ o~ ~ho~n
paths and For bench
* Four to six post lights ~ill be placed in and around the activity
anna Foe ~curity.
to peovid~ safety along ~oyal Avenue, ~ e~duc~ conflict
~ W~ open ~t~ay channel ha~ be~n nudged clair to the
playground a~a ~h~r~ po~ibl~. A~ a r~ult of th~
~odiFication, th~ iaeg~ turf play ~ound has be~n ~odiFi~ to
~v~ral mounds closer to the playground
m Moe~ than on~ half an acc~ has b~en added to th~ do~ off l~ash
ar~a as a r~sult of (1) adjusting th~ alignment of th~ open ~at~r
chonnml~ on~ (2) r~locotin~ th~ jogging trail From t~ ~tzrn park
approximately 50' ha~ b~n r~tain~d along ~oy~l Avenue.
Formal benche~ alon~ th~ back sid~ of th~ park and along the
~ater channel have been changed to natural ~eouping~ o9
bouldec~ that can b~ u~d 9or ~ating. Traditional bench ~eating has
be~n retained in k~y ar~a~ in other parts of th~ park.
* T~ t~o ~mll picnic ~h~lt~r~ in th~ plaza haw ~n r~plac~d by
on~ ~diu~ ~iz~ picnic sh~lt~r~
~ The storm~at~r d~tention basin Featur~ he~ b~n shifted =tos~r to
th~ public ~tre~t~
* "Life~i~" exercise ~tation~ hav~ b~n ~ho~n ~ the ea~t and
providin~ exercise opportunities For the elderly and
* Land,caped ~hrub beds have been added alon~ the park's Frontage
om ~oya[ amd ~hro~e Drive. Placed at entry points, t~y ~ill help to
provide color~ Form~ amd texture interest For the park
~~ channel
Scare 1' = 40' t .,t _I I I I
fi turf memte~nce access .... Katsurotree street tree groupings, w~th
\ ' ~ ', / ' / mulch ~round cowr bos~ '
--8' s,d~wolk / _~---~Approx 45 curbs,de p~rk,~ spoc~
deciduous trees (B~g L~f
~op(~, Coscorio, Or Ash, , or s)mdor,
~ ~xerc~se stotmns for
ect )along dromo9~ corrtdor ~ ~ ~ ,
colgr P~cmc ~ ~Id~riy ond hond~copp~d
5hgh~ly m~ond~r ~h~ ~ (~ AuTumn ~loz~ ~opI~) ~ ~
extstm9 channel bed and ~ 10' plantin9 strip ~nd
lay bank bock wher~ 4 L ~ 8' w~de s~dewolk
poss,bI~ x~~ ~rr,g~t~d
Access~bl~ jogging p~th ]~ /~ pl~ld ~ cherry colonn~d~
(consider using on~phalt '] ] , .-.. -. . . }. P~cmc
rubber product) Benches ~long 10' high '~ ~ ]:-:~- . .'~( r ,
- ,' d~corotlve contolnment fence ~ ~ ,' ,, ~ ~ ~' P g
Pedestman footbmdg~ e : hockey pby ~ ~ '' ~ ~ ,' ~ trot tree ~row of
(consider pre-~ngm~red s"~" ~ ~Tu~f pbymounds w~th ~ ~ ~ . ~]~ ~ , r~ ~ , Autumn Blaze M~pJes
product I,ke '- ~ ' ~ ~Fern-leaf Beech trees ~ ~ ~ '~} ~' ~ ~ , ,
,~ , ' -.,' "~ ':%,, -~, ,.% , ~ ~ ' 5-1,2 '' boulders setmosweepmg
, ' " -'*~ to the spray fountain
F ~ ~'~' ' ~ sedges, and rus~s a~ ' ' Covered picnic shelter
B~g Leaf Maple shod~ /~- '¢" habitat v~etot~en m / ~ ' Spray n' Ploy fountain.
trees w)th backdrop of ~ ]~ : ;;~-" drmnage bottom ~ ~ "-,-,."*C: ~ occess)ble, and port ofcoJored
ewrgr~8n buffer wh~r¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,4rt~rkopportum~
oro riot6 ~.-~,~" '-¢¢ /'~F B~ ders to accent edge ' ~- . '. and textured pbzo surface
PP P '~2 '-~ * '
' - 5trot tr~ grove of
Accessible perimeter ~ ~ ~g , ~ ~ '~ 5~dewalk meander with
path (esphoJt~) '~/' off-leash ' '
, b~nch
FdJ area for excess ~ beth : ~ ~gmeered pedestmon
excavation from op6n" ' '
waterway coomdor footbmdg~
,; ~ ~ ~] Short height rock reto~m~
~ ~. . ' ~ , ~allsalong the topof the
~ ~ o"'} -" ' . ~,. ~ j '.sl°Pe where the channel
bench [
.~jnte ~ , Large to small m~xed notive
f~mi~ ., .'. e ' '~ ' * ,~'-; ~ deciduous trees (Big Leaf
~ ~ . ~"~ ect.)along drmnage corrMor
~ WoIkwoy b~nches
' ~ Tr~ss, m ground cover bed
:' : , ] Park s~gn f
~x~stm9 curbsM~
s~dewolk ~YAL AVENUE
~oundcove~ oP6o ~ ,
~ W~lkw~y m66nder w~th ~ md6 do99m9 loop ~
~ sing~ bench seating and access
} ~ f~j)~ to do9 park -- strut tr~ arrangement of~ Future Steer and
~ ~ d~tli~ aJternotm9 American Hornbeom and
.~tS~a ~Re~nforced turf ~ ~ gopones~ Hornbeam m a hneor fashion multlfamdy
:~ ~&8 ~ maintenance access ,~ ~ _ development
~ r . 4 ~ ~y~t Oa~ under utll~ hnes
~a~U. '~.~ ~ bo9 pork perimeter fence =' ........ ; ~ Ho~ ~'Larger tree line of 'Accolade' Elm
Cby of Eugene
CANDLELigHT PARK Po,k, and Open 5pace Planning
Final Park Design
~un~ lO, 2004 sc~l~: l"= lO0'
440' - ..... Wekorae W~ frontage
61' - ..... utility deductior~
SCALE: ?=80' elec marker ~ unk 379' ~ 30' spacing: [~.6 street t~
curb inle~ ~ e~ec 2 box -- ~3 ~t t~ p~vi~
wdk ~ tv ped ~
~'~?, ~ /}//~ ~ - ~ ..... -~-~ , curb
' ~ ~, 4- g~p~n~e 5te~rti~
870' - .... ~rone Drive frontage , ~
~ . / 768' ~ 30' spocing: 25.6 strut tre~ r~'d ', , / ~- '
"*' 2;; - '" '
. 482' ~ 30' sp~cing: 16 ~r~t tre~ req'd '--~', ~-~_: .... ~, ,,
!
power pole eweb drop / .... //:: ~, : ..... ,
rb inlet :' ' 5 Emerald P~goda
setback line for large tre~~ cu ' ~ ~, , ~ -- .
, ~ / , , ~a a~e 5~owbell
13- Accobde Elm -- bus stop s'gn "~:i, P
16- Americ~ Hornb~m --
Street Tr~ List NO~:
t ~,itl ~, t~d ~ 6~ ~t t~ ~$, ~,~*~ (6~)~ ~ ~ff~~ ~
Eugene Par~ and Open 5~ce Planning