New Search
r <br /> 20 April 1994 <br /> John Etter <br /> Public Works Maintenance Division <br /> 1820 Roosevelt <br /> Eugene, OR 97402 <br /> Dear John: <br /> Thank you for sponsoring the recent open house to discuss the Amazon Park development <br /> projects. I learned a lot from listening to all the special interests assembled in the room! <br /> As you know from my comments during the meeting and my discussion with you afterwards, <br /> I believe that proceeding with the projects at this time is a mistake because a plan first should <br /> be done for the park, then implementation projects which result from the planning process <br /> should be pursued. <br /> Why Plan? <br /> Planning law has evolved for many reasons, including orderly provision of facilities and <br /> services, efficient use of public money, protection of the environment, neighborhood impact <br /> considerations, and others. For example, if a public facility is built without proper inventory <br /> and planning, it later may have to be moved or changed because it wasn't sited correctly, or its <br /> maintenance costs could be much higher than necessary. This is an obvious waste of taxpayer's <br /> money. A second example: if a facility is built without proper inventory and planning, one or <br /> more environmental values may be unnecessarily damaged or destroyed. <br /> Planning Law <br /> Statewide Planning Goal 5. Local jurisdictions are required by Goal 5 and the accompanying <br /> OAR (Division 16) to adopt an official inventory of natural resources, and protect them where <br /> competing values do not outweigh resource protection. This determination is done through the <br /> "Goal 5" analysis process, commonly referred to by planners as an "ESEE (Economic, Social, <br /> Environmental, and Energy) analysis." Although this is usually done on a site -by -site basis, <br /> Eugene - Springfield is attempting to do many sites at once through the Natural Resources Special <br /> Study. If and when this is adopted, many significant natural resource sites will have been <br /> addressed "generically" through the Goal 5 process. Without its adoption, any significant <br /> natural resource site must still go through the process individually when conflicting uses are <br /> proposed. Because Amazon Creek and the ash woodland in the Amazon Park have been <br /> identified as "potentially significant" resource sites, they are subject to the Goal 5 process if <br /> conflicting uses (such as lighting — which may disturb plant or animal life, or ball fields — <br /> which may result in loss of wetland vegetation, fertilizer /weed killer pollution, and fill of <br /> wetlands, etc.) are proposed. I believe that a Goal 5 analysis is necessary for apy uses which <br /> may conflict with natural resource values of the creek or ash forest. <br /> Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan. This plan has many goals for city park lands, which you <br /> stated (if I understood correctly), you believed should apply to all park lands throughout the city. <br /> I partially disagree. I believe that they should be applied differently (a major distinction) to all <br /> park lands throughout the City, as (obviously) different neighborhoods have different needs, and <br /> different park lands have different resources and suitabilities. The goals in the plan should be <br /> considered as overall guiding principles for which individual park plans should strive to achieve <br />