Lane County Parks & Open Space Master Plan

PAC/TASK FORCE Joint Work Session

Work Session Notes (Preliminary Draft Subject to Approval)

The Lane County Task Force for the Parks and Open Space Master Plan met on August 16, 2017, in the Lane County Public Works Goodson Training Room. The purpose of the work session was to provide a planning process update, present public engagement findings, collect comments on vision and mission, discuss Master Plan goals, discuss the development process and proposed outline for the Master Plan. 20 Task Force members and PAC members attended, along with 3 County staff and two project consultants from MIG, Inc.

This summary highlights decisions and key points from the meeting discussion. For a full record of the meeting, please see the meeting recording, available at Look for the “Task Force Document Library” link on the left side of the page.

Welcome

  • Tim expressed his thanks for all the volunteer support at the County Fair. The county plans to have a public works presence at the fair in years to come. In total, about 1200 people came through the booth. It was a great time – safety town for kids, games, opportunity to learn about parks.
  • Introductions (meeting attendees listed at the end of the summary)

Public Comment

  • Laura is a resident of the Mosby Creek area, here to speak about Blue Mountain Park, which is on the list for potential large event venues. She doesn’t like that idea very much for a few reasons - Mosby Creek Rd has no shoulder or egress, logging trucks frequent it. Large events would mean increased pedestrian and bicycle activity. There is a large irrigation ditch on one side of the road, so it would be difficult to add a bike lane or shoulder. Blue Mountain School Rd (diverges off Mosby Creek Rd to the park) also has no shoulder. Weyerhauser owns a large property at the end of Mosby Creek Rd, leading to increased truck activity. She has spoken informally with residents and many do not like this. Cottage Grove already has two parks suitable for large events – Bohemia Park (huge covered grandstand, Eugene Symphony performs there) and Coiner Park (hosts Bohemia Days Celebration). Blue Mountain Park could use a little bit of maintenance and a little bit of development, but not to the tune of $800,000. She thinks for 1/10th of that, improvements would suit the community needs.
  • Christina is the Executive Director of Forest Web of Cottage Grove. They have been working on Blue Mountain Park for some time. In 2013, Lane County Parks proposed ecological thinning along Creekside. The project would have cause critical harm to the creek and profits would have gone to park improvements in the Eugene area, with no funding to enhance Blue Mountain Park. Now, Blue Mountain Park is being considered in another plan that does not take the environmental concerns and logistical factors into consideration. Turning this small riparian park into a venue for large events would impact the restoration work on Mosby Creek being done by the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council. We all have serious concerns about the potential negative impacts of logging along the floodplain and the Spring chinook runs as Mosby Creek is the only undammed tributary on the Upper Willamette. Blue Mountain Park needs restoration and it would make a good site for an environmental or nature education park based on excellent work being done by the council to restore the habitat.

Decisions

  • PAC and Task Force members provided direction on preferred vision, mission, and goals. Additionally, they began drafting potential strategies for achieving these goals.
  • During this process, the Project Team realized there needs to be a procedure for addressing special topics. The approved approach among PAC and Task Force members was to place these topics at the end of meetings, allowing folks to be involved in the discussion if they choose to. This is an opportunity to bring forward any thoughts and concerns. There was a request during the meeting to discuss funding options in more detail at a future meeting.

Discussion Highlights

  • Agenda

□ The Task Force and PAC have not met since February. We took a detour to do outreach activities to add to the wisdom around vision and goals, confirming the ideas by talking with the public. MIG presented the findings from the public engagement process as part of our effort to formalize our vision, mission and goals for the master plan and discuss the higher-level policies need to implement the plan. At this time, we are not discussing the site-specific details as we heard about during public comment today. We are setting the stage so that we are prepared to talk about those in a way that makes the best use of the minds that are here, as well as the goals of the public and the intent to have a plan that is both visionary and practical.

  • Process Update

□ We have worked through the Distill and Refine phases. At this time, we are defining vision, mission and goals before moving to the Compile phase where we will be making recommendations, discussing funding, drafting the plan, putting it out for public review and comment before going to advisory groups followed by the County Commissioners.

□ During this process, MIG realized there needs to be a procedure for addressing special topics. The approved upon approach among PAC and Task Force members was to place this topic at the end of our meetings, allowing folks to be involved in the discussion if they choose to. This is an opportunity to bring forward any thoughts and concerns.

□ Where the details will come into play specifically around the next meeting will be where we bring policy level decisions down to the site specific recommendations

□ Kevin mentioned the request for a plan outline in order to improve communications with the public regarding the plan.

  • Public Engagement Findings

□ MIG wanted to reflect on the context of our current public engagement given the earlier engagement that has been conducted since 2004.

□ Early outreach activities are summarized on slide 8 of PPT. Each activity reached varying groups of people but have added to the general body of knowledge about what has stayed consistent over the years and what new priorities have come to light.

□ 2010 Telephone Survey Findings (further details on slide 9 through 11, 16 and 17)

  • This is a statistically valid survey with +/- 4.9% accuracy
  • Of 7 choices, respondents ranked the following as the four most important benefits of parks and recreation: children and family time (27%), fresh air (20%), outdoor recreation (18%), and peace and tranquility (8%).
  • Based on participation rate, trail related activities are some of the top activities. However, other activities are very popular: picnicking, visiting historic sites, festivals/special events, swimming, visiting playgrounds, fishing, tent camping
  • Using trails, being outdoors, having water access, connecting to nature, participating in outdoor events or activities, and visiting interpretive sites are the popular activities.
  • Looking at average number of activities, trails are used most frequently.
  • Priorities based on this survey – maintaining parks and facilities, protecting natural resources, protecting historic structures, developing trails = high priority to take care of what we have but low priority to add new sites
  • Respondents noted the following as motivation to increase park visits– reduced costs (14%), increased safety (5%), increase information (4%), facility improvements (3%), improved cleanliness (3%), increase programs & activities (3%), don’t know what could be done (15%), there is nothing that can be done (48%)

□ 2010-2011 Questionnaire Findings (further details on slide 12 & 13)

  • Level of participation varies depending on type of survey (online vs. telephone)
  • # of activities per year per person are similar to the telephone survey

□ 2011 SCORP Region 3 Survey Findings (further details on slide 14 & 15)

  • The top 10 activities are walking on local streets/sidewalks, sightseeing/driving or motorcycling for pleasure, walking on local trails/paths, relaxing/hanging out/escaping heat/noise, beach activities, picnicking, attending outdoor concerts/fairs/festivals, walking on non-local trails/paths, general play at neighborhood park/playground, visiting historic sites/history-themed parks.
  • Priorities for the future/what park & forest agencies should invest in – dirt or soft surface walking trails and paths, public access to water, nature and wildlife viewing areas, children’s play grounds made of natural materials, picnic areas for small groups, off-street bike trails and paths, paved/hard surface walking trails/paths, community gardens, off-leash dog areas, children’s playground with manufactured structures.

□ Public comments to Draft Master Plan

  • 200 comments, summarized into themes: appropriateness of large events, ADA access and compliance, funding and partnerships, maintenance of existing parks and facilities, need for more local input, natural resource protection/conservation, human health benefits (physical, mental/emotional/spiritual benefits).
  • What types of comments are missing?
  • In light of everything, what strikes MIG most is the lack of comments about connectivity of trails, new facilities, etc. Most of the comments were focused on take care of what we have, make sure is accessible, figure out funding, and make sure people are involved in the decisions so positive benefits are maintained.

□ Current Notification and Outreach (further details on slide 20)

  • Getting more public input has been recognized as essential for ensuring the plan meets the public need. Unfortunately, the response was not what we were hoping for.
  • Questionnaire: 463 respondents, 368 fully completed surveys
  • Workshops: 7 different locations, 106 participants

□ Participation (further details on slides 21-23)

  • Participation rate: Despite emphasis on outreach, fewer people participated than expected. Many people reported visiting state/federal sites and city/local parks than visiting county parks.
  • Sample population: Results are not representative of Lane County overall. Most respondents are older, female, long-term residents of Lane County. Most are from the Eugene-Springfield or Florence areas.

□ Findings (further details on slides 24 – 27)

  • Passive recreation opportunities: Across all concepts, there is an interest in passive recreation opportunities.
  • A mix of priorities: Both questionnaire and workshop results illustrate a desire to invest in all 3 concepts – a stronger emphasis on trail and nature based opportunities but 3 of the top 6 improvements desired are water-oriented
  • Higher level of investment desired at key parks: At the workshop small group exercise, most groups designed parks requiring an investment of several million dollars at key sites.
  • Limited support for increasing fees/funding measure: 55% showed support for increased event fees for small or large group events and 25% were in favor of increasing day-use fees.
  • Greg asked if the findings should include that over 50% of the respondents indicated they would support a funding measure. It is not a random sample questionnaire, so while there is some support it is not the level that is needed to approve a funding measure. The survey did not have a lot of broad-based county support given the sample population is not representative. Overall, there is some hesitancy in figuring out how to fund this.
  • The support for increased event fees does not mean the community supports more events for revenue generation.
  • Kevin mentioned the public responds to park bond measures when there is a compelling vision and specificity on what improvements would be made. They need to get excited! You have to have a menu in order for folks to support it. With the specificity, it is our role to generate the excitement.
  • Marilyn mentioned that funding should be a special topic to be discussed.
  • There is a lack of familiarity with park ownership and that impacts if people are willing to invest in their public lands.
  • Looking in the survey at the amount of increased fees, the funding would be in the range of $300k. This would increase the parks budget quite significantly.

□ Willingness to support parks in other ways: 15% indicated an interest in joining a one-time volunteer event in a park and 13% indicated an interest in joining an ongoing “friends of the park” group for a park in their area.

  • Lane County Fair Activity Results (further details on slides 28 – 31)

□ The activity booth at the fair brought in 80 comments to the question: “What do you love Lane County Parks?”

  • Grouping the responses into themes:
  • Nature, wildlife and landscape diversity were mentioned by the most respondents (56%).
  • Hiking and using the trails were also popular (25% of respondents).
  • 21% mentioned particular activities they enjoyed such as camping, fishing, hiking, crabbing and birding.
  • Cleanliness and maintenance: 13% of respondents mentioned cleanliness and maintenance of facilities.
  • Water access and activities: 13% of respondents commented on water access, using parks at the coast and activities such as fishing and crabbing.
  • Discussion: Vision, Mission and Goals

□ MIG reviewed the plan framework elements of vision, mission and goals.

□ The Lane County Strategic Plan was also reviewed. In particular, the strategic areas of focus – safe and healthy county, vibrant communities and infrastructure all related to the parks systems. In particular, there is an objective under infrastructure to improve existing park grounds and create partnerships to invest in infrastructure that markets Lane County parks as a destination for residents and visitors.

□ Vision: The handout included 4 different options. Task Force and PAC members gave a show of hands for support of A, B, C, or D to see which statement is on the right track.

  • A. Lane County Parks is known for world-class recreation and natural areas providing equitable access, education opportunities, and sustainable stewardship to create a positive economic impact in local communities – 3 indicated support
  • B. Lane County provides quality parks and natural areas that connect residents to our rivers, reservoirs, and natural features, showcase our heritage and natural diversity, and protect resources for future generations. – 13 indicated support
  • C. Lane County is recognized for its thriving parks, protected natural areas, interconnected recreation destinations, and accessible and well-maintained facilities. – 0 indicated support.
  • D. We envision an innovative park and open space system that supports nature and water access, outdoor play, and the protection of our natural resources. – 4 indicated support.
  • Given the preference for B, MIG requested that Task Force and PAC members share what they liked about A or D via email.

□ Mission: The handout included 3 different options. Task Force and PAC members gave a show of hands for support of A, B, or C to see which statement is on the right track.

  • A. Lane County Parks works collaboratively to maintain parks, sustain assets and provide accessible and equitable outdoor recreation experiences. – 6 indicated support.
  • B. We responsibly manage our parks and natural resources through collaboration, partnership, stewardship, and quality customer service. – 8 indicated support.
  • C. To preserve and enhance parks and open space within all of Lane County and expand outdoor recreational experiences. – 5 indicated support.
  • Mike mentioned the lack of education in many of the vision and mission statements. We will word smith these to ensure this is captured.
  • MIG requested that Task Force and PAC members share their thoughts on the priority terms for the mission statement as well.

□ Goals (further details on slide 37)

  • Note: The original handout has the same goals but in a different order.
  • Task Force and PAC members broke into small groups for an activity. Groups were provided index cards to begin brainstorming strategies, recommendations or actions that would moves towards achieving these goals. Each station covered two goals and teams rotated around the stations to provide input on all six goals. As the groups moved from station to station, they built upon the ideas shared by previous groups.
  • The goals are: collaborate, connect people to LC parks, create vibrancy, generate economic vitality, protect resources, rebrand and reposition.
  • Tim began to review the strategies, but due to time the responses will be condensed by MIG and shared later on.
  • A key takeaway from the exercise: strategies or actions nested under goals isn’t always the right approach. Strategies that meet many goals are top priorities. However, there are some that are so important, they may only meet one goals. These goals and strategies may be condensed based on feedback from the Task Force and PAC.
  • An additional takeaway was the desire to get away from large events and focus on other things as there has been a lot of emphasis on events. There is consensus that this is not the right approach.
  • Parks and Open Space Master Plan Document (further details in agenda packet pages 4 to 7)

□ The handout provided an outline, plan overview as well as contents by chapter as well as a technical supplement. The new plan will pull forward some of the information from the 2015 draft plan, but it will be more message oriented, driven by public input, based on Task Force and PAC insights. It will focus on the key moves and be more direct/informative.