Amazon Park 2003-2004 Development Plan

New Search

October 29, 2003 Andrea Riner, Planning Manager City of Eugene Parks & Open Space 1820 Roosevelt Blvd Eugene OR 97402 Re. Response to your letter of October 20, 2003 Dear Ms. Riner: 9 9 'A VN k �� LL I must question why you so grossly misrepresent the results of a public workshop session to favor the creation of additional ball field development in Amazon Park. This park is clearly overdeveloped and the community surveys show that general citizenry want a balance, leaning toward more natural amenities in their parks. At the September 25 Public Workshop #l, you front - loaded the "brainstorming session" with two categories "ball fields" and "parking lots." By having ball fields as one category, rather than letting citizens specify what kinds of ball fields are needed, you skewed the process in favor of ball fields although they might have been for wildly different sports: tennis, basketball, soccer, baseball, softball, rugby. But even with this rigged process, the statement "a majority gave their support to the ball fields" is indisputably false. While the "undefined ball field category" may have received the most dots, it was not a majority! The majority of people wanted a more natural looking park if you combine such like categories as improving the landscaping around the dog park, improving the riparian zone by planting native species, and retaining natural space —all of which would improve the overall aesthetics of this park. At that meeting you and your staff stressed that the dot - session voting was not scientific, nor necessarily representative of community desires, and that you would not use the dot - voting in the way you used in your letter of October 20th. I find the first paragraph of your letter to be an inaccurate representation of the facts and unethical. At the meeting, the parking category did not get prioritized at all because in the past years the city has built five additional parking lots on Amazon parkland. It is critical that POS look to protecting the remaining open -space and look to using an under -used parking lot at Roosevelt for any additional parking needs. Finally, to increase development in this already over - developed, over - stressed park (due to lack of enough pool facilities throughout Eugene) is fool hardy. The listing you provide of what has been done to acquire natural space specific to the 1998 POS bond measure is dismal: - while some of the 350 acres of ridgeline open space was acquired, this was part of a legal settlement, - securing $3.5 million from the Army Corp might have taken staff time but is 3.5 mil that the Army Corp spent, - "incorporating natural areas" that already exists "into master plans" is not acquiring land, - "developing a visionary master plan" is not acquiring land, - "restoring 3 acres of wetland" was required by law to mitigate the bus transfer station on Amazon parkland, and again "securing" money from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife is a good effort but from another source. This list makes me wonder if any money has spent on acquiring or preserving natural areas that is not required by law or garnered from other resources. The strong majority of all community and special interest surveys show that people want more natural areas, more habitat protection, and more improvement of current daily -use amenities (benches, water- fountains, paths). I believe that the 1998 bond measure passed for two reasons: the desire for more & better pools and acquiring more natural areas. I do not think that the bond measure should only pay for one pool and the remainder going to upgrade only sport fields. According to the community survey, the five most important activities that people would like to do more of include: biking, walking, concert going, and swimming. The parks and recreation staff should be working to advocate for these recreational needs that are current and looking toward the future (rather than using planning from the 1989 master plan to drive priorities).