Department of Land Conservation and Development 
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150 
Salem, OR 9730 1-2540 
(503) 373-0050 
Fax (503) 378-5518 
w w w . lc d. s tat e. or. us 
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT 
11/29/2010 
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan 
or Land Use Regulation Amendments 
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist 
SUBJECT: City of Medford Plan Amendment 
DLCD File Number 016-10 
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adoption. 
Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached. A Copy of the 
adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government 
office. 
Appeal Procedures* 
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: Thursday, December 09, 2010 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government. If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice 
of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in 
the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10). Please call LUBA at 
503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. 
*NOTE: The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified. NO LUBA 
Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged. 
Cc: Praline McCormack, City of Medford 
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist 
Ed Moore, DLCD Regional Representative 
Amanda Punton, DLCD Regional Representative 
<paa> YA 
•Ü 12 DLCD 
Notice of Adoption 
This Form 2 must be mailed to DLCD within 5-Working Days after the Final 
Ordinance is signed by the public Official Designated by the jurisdiction 
and all other requirements of ORS 197.615 and OAR 660-018-000 
• In person Q electronic QH mailed 
d e p t O F 
NOV 2 2 2010 
LAND CONSERVATION 
"AND DEVELOPMENT 
For Office Use Only 
Jurisdiction: City of Medford Local file number: CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002 
Date of Adoption: 11/4/10 Date Mailed: 11/17/10 
Was a Notice of Proposed Amendment (Form 1) mailed to DLCD? £<] Yes • No Date: 9/2/2010 
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment K l Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 
• Land Use Regulation Amendment • Zoning Map Amendment 
• New Land Use Regulation • Other: 
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached". 
Major Legislative Comprehensive Plan amendment to replace the Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services 
section of the Public Facilities Element, amend the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map by adding new Parks 
and Schools designations, apply the Greenway designation to existing Riparian Corridors, and correct mapping 
errors by removing the Parks and Schools designation from several privately-owned parcels. 
Does the Adoption differ from proposal? Yes, Please explain below: 
Per DLCD email from Ed Moore dated September 3, 2010 and further consultation with Jackson County, City 
removed references in new Parks Element maps and text to future trails and parks outside of Medford's current 
UGB, except to note that Medford owns two parks outside the UGB and would like to purse inclusion in the 
future. Also made a distinction between paved (urban) and unpaved (rural) trails. 
Amended Implementation 2-C (4) to state "Increase access and public enjoyment of Prescott Park by 
developing appropriate facilities to enhance appreciation of natural resources, the outdoors, and Medford's 
unique environment. Until included within the Medford Urban Growth Boundary, improvements within 
Prescott Park must comply with Jackson County land use regulations, as well as state rules and statutes, which 
may limit the extent of improvements on land outside of UGBs." 
Plan Map Changed from: various 
Zone Map Changed from: n/a 
Location: various 
Specify Density: Previous: various 
Applicable statewide planning goals: 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IHDDDDDK 
to: Parks and Schools 
to: n/a 
Acres Involved: 363 
New: n/a 
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
Was an Exception Adopted? • YES M NO 
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment... 
45-days prior to first evidentiary hearing? 
If no, do the statewide planning goals apply? 
IE Yes 
• Yes 
• No 
IXlNo 
DLCD File No. 016-10 (18423) [16422] 
If no, did Emergency Circumstances require immediate adoption? • Yes No 
DLCD file No. DLCD PAPA 016-10 
Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 
Jackson County Roads & Parks, Oregon State Parks & Recreation, Medford 549C School District, Phoenix-
Talent School District, Oregon Department of Transportation, Medford Parks Commission, Bear Creek 
Greenway Foundation 
Local Contact: Praline McCormack, Planner II Phone: (541)774-2380 Extension: 
Address: 200 S. Ivy Street, Room 240 Fax Number: 541-774-2564 
City: Medford Zip: 97501 E-mail Address: praline.mccormack@cityofmedford.org 
ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 
This Form 2 must be received by DLCD no later than 5 days after the ordinance has been signed by the public 
official designated by the jurisdiction to sign the approved ordinance(s) per ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 
660, Division 18 
1. This Form 2 must be submitted by local jurisdictions only (not by applicant). 
2. When submitting, please print this Form 2 on light green paper if available. 
3. Send this Form 2 and One (1) Complete Paper Copy and One (1) Electronic Digital CD (documents and 
maps) of the Adopted Amendment to the address in number 6: 
4. Electronic Submittals: Form 2 - Notice of Adoption will not be accepted via email or any 
electronic or digital format at this time. 
5. The Adopted Materials must include the final decision signed by the official designated by the jurisdiction. 
The Final Decision must include approved signed ordinance(s), finding(s), exhibit(s), and any map(s). 
6. DLCD Notice of Adoption must be submitted in One (1) Complete Paper Copy and One (1) 
Electronic Digital CD via United States Postal Service, Common Carrier or Hand Carried to 
the DLCD Salem Office and stamped with the incoming date stamp, (for submittal instructions, 
also see # 5)] MAIL the PAPER COPY and CD of the Adopted Amendment to: 
ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST 
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 
SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 
7. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the signed ordinance(s), finding(s), exhibit(s) and any other 
supplementary information (see ORS 197.615 ). 
8. Deadline to appeals to LUBA is calculated twenty-one (21) days from the receipt (postmark date) of adoption 
(see ORS 197.830 to 197.845 ). 
9. In addition to sending the Form 2 - Notice of Adoption to DLCD, please notify persons who participated in 
the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision at the same time the adoption packet is mailed to 
DLCD (see ORS 197.615 ). 
10. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/. You may also 
call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to: (503) 378-5518. 
Updated December 22, 2009 
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-240 
AN ORDINANCE approving a major amendment to the Public Facilities element of the 
Medford Comprehensive Plan by replacing the current Parks section planning period for 2010 to 
2030; amending the General Land Use Plan Map by the designation of specific parcels to "Parks and 
Schools"; applying the "Greenway" designation to existing Riparian Corridors; and removing the 
"Parks and Schools" designation from several privately-owned parcels. 
THE CITY OF MEDFORD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 
Section 1. A major amendment to the Public Facilities element of the Medford 
Comprehensive Plan by replacing the current Parks section to cover the planning period 2010 to 
2030; amending the General Land Use Plan Map by changing the designation of specific parcels to 
"Parks and Schools"; applying the "Greenway" designation to existing Riparian Corridors; and 
correcting mapping errors by removing the "Parks and Schools" designation from several privately-
owned parcels, is hereby approved and adopted. 
Section 2. This major amendment to the Medford Comprehensive Plan is supported by the 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the Staff Report dated October 18, 2010, 
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. 
Section 3. The effective date of this major amendment shall be December 6, 2010. 
PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 4 day of 
November, 2010. 
ATTEST: /s/Glenda Wilson /s/Gary H. Wheeler 
City Recorder Mayor 
APPROVED November 4, 2010. /s/Gary H. Wheeler 
Mayor 
Ordinance-No. 2010-240 P:\JMP\ORDS\CPIO-OOI 
CITY OF MEDFORD 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 
STAFF REPORT 
Date: October 18, 2010 
To: Medford City Council 
Reviewed By: Suzanne MyerJjivi.C.P., Principal Planner 
By: Praline McCormack, Planner II 
Subject: Parks Element Comp. Plan Amendments (CP-10-001 and GLUP-10-002) 
City of Medford, Applicant 
DESCRIPTION 
Consideration of a Class 'A' Major Legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendment 
proposal to update the Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services section of the Public 
Facilities Element, amend the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map by changing the 
designation of specific parcels to "Parks and Schools", apply the "Greenway" designation 
to existing Riparian Corridors, and correct mapping errors by removing the "Parks and 
Schools" designation from several privaieiy-owned parcels. 
PROPOSAL 
The purpose of the Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services section of the Public 
Facilities Element (hereinafter called "Parks Element") is to describe characteristics of 
the existing park system, project the need for parks in Medford for the 20-year period 
between 2010 and 2030 based upon research and analysis of public wants and funding 
ability, and provide the City with Goals and Policies based on Conclusions derived from 
the analysis of existing conditions and future needs, as well as Strategies to implement 
those policies. 
For convenience, the draft Parks Element is attached as Exhibit A (which also includes 
the proposed GLUP Map amendments). 
BACKGROUND 
The Public Facilities Element is a chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Public facilities 
and services are divided into two categories. Category "A" facilities include water, 
sanitary sewer and treatment, storm drainage, and transportation facilities. These are 
the minimum key physical facilities necessary for urban development, and those for 
which specific documentation is required by state rules. 
Category "B" facilities include fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, 
solid waste management, schools, and health services. These facilities and services 
enhance and protect development within the City and are provided in response to 
development that occurs. 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
PROPOSED PARKS ELEMENT 
The last update to the Public Facilities Element related to Parks was in 1997. The 
proposed update to the Parks Element is based on a 2006 document, the Medford 
Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Plan. The 2006 Parks Plan was approved by the 
Parks Commission on June 20, 2006. 
Written by both City Planning and Parks staff, the Parks Element is intended to present a 
Public Facilities Element section that includes information from the 2006 Parks Plan as 
well as up-to-date information since the 2006 Parks Plan was prepared. The first 
sections of the Parks Element provide an introduction and a discussion about state 
parks planning laws. The remainder of the Parks Element presents Conclusions, as well 
as proposed Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies based on those 
Conclusions, that will guide City policy and decision-making related to parks and 
recreation over the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030. 
In addition, the Parks Element provides: 
• A needs assessment of parks and recreation facilities, which included citizen 
involvement; 
• An inventory of existing park facilities and functions; 
• A determination of park land and facility needs; 
• A funding plan; 
• Guidelines for site selection and development of parks; and 
• Maps of existing park resources, trails plan, and facilities plan. 
PROPOSED GLUP MAP AMENDMENTS 
This proposal also includes several amendments to the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) 
Map. The GLUP Map graphically represents the present and future land use patterns 
within the Medford Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). "Parks and Schools" and 
"Greenways" are two of 13 land use designations on the GLUP Map. 
1. The first proposed GLUP Map amendment changes the designation of specific 
parcels to "Parks and Schools". 
2. The second GLUP Map amendment applies the "Greenway" designation to 
existing Riparian Corridors, namely Bear Creek, Larson Creek, and Lone Pine 
Creek downstream of Biddle Road. This will not add any new regulations, but 
display the currently existing Riparian Corridors on the GLUP Map. 
3. The last GLUP Map amendment corrects mapping errors by removing the "Parks 
and Schools" designation from several privately-owned parcels. 
Page 2 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) October 18, 2010 
Staff Report 
PROCEDURES TO DATE 
• 2004 - The Parks Department began development of the 2006 Parks Plan with a 
community workshop, sports group questionnaire, and citywide recreation 
survey. A Steering Committee and the Medford Parks and Recreation 
Commission provided direction. 
• June 2, 2005 - The City Council adopted Resolution 2005-95 initiating the 
process to update the Comprehensive Plan with the new Parks, Recreation, and 
Leisure Services Plan. 
• June 20, 2006 - The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to approve the 
2006 Parks and Leisure Service Plan and forward it to the Planning Department 
for updating of the Comprehensive Plan. 
• May 10, 2010 - The Planning Commission discussed the draft Parks Element, 
written by both Planning and Parks staff, at a study session. 
• May 18, 2010 - The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to approve the 
draft Parks Element with some changes. 
• July 21, 2010 - A Request for Comment was sent to affected agencies and 
interested parties, including the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 
Development (DLCD) and Jackson County, and was posted on the Planning 
Department website. One comment was received (Exhibit B). 
• August 23, 2010 - The Planning Commission discussed the proposed GLUP Map 
amendments at a study session. 
® September 9, 2010 - After a public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to 
forward a favorable recommendation to City Council (Exhibit C). 
• September 14, 2010 - The Citizens' Planning Advisory Committee voted to 
recommend approval. 
• November 4, 2010 - City Council public hearing. 
ISSUES/ANALYSIS 
GLUP Map Amendment #1 - Add new Parks and Schools to Map 
The list of parcels to receive the "Parks and Schools" GLUP Map designation is included 
in Exhibit A. These publicly-owned parcels currently have school and/or park facilities in 
use, but have not been designated "Parks and Schools" for one of two reasons. First, 
they were not designated due to mapping errors associated with old mapping 
techniques. Or, two, they are newer facilities. This designation has not been updated in 
at least fifteen years. The list includes the current GLUP designation proposed to be 
changed. 
GLUP Map Amendment #2 - Apply "Greenway" Designation to Existing Riparian 
Corridors 
The "Greenway" GLUP designation is proposed to be applied to the City's currently 
adopted Riparian Corridors, namely Bear Creek, Larson Creek, and the portion of Lone 
Pine Creek downstream from Biddle Road. The purpose for applying the designation is 
to graphically display the location of the Riparian Corridors on Medford's General Land 
Use Plan Map. There will be no change to the underlying regulations because these are 
already in place for designated Riparian Corridors. The "Greenways" are subject to the 
Page 3 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
Riparian Corridor standards in Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.920 -
10.928, except that Greenways in the Southeast Area are also subject to S-E Overlay 
Section 10.384. 
GLUP Map Amendment #3 - Correct Mapping Errors by Removing "Parks and 
Schools" Designation from Several Privately-Owned Parcels 
Below is a list of seven privately-owned parcels that, due to mapping errors associated 
with old mapping techniques, currently have the "Parks and Schools" GLUP designation. 
The GLUP designation is proposed to be corrected to the appropriate GLUP designation 
based upon the parcel's current zoning, as well as abutting GLUP designations. The list 
includes the current zoning, as well as the proposed GLUP designation. 
MAP 
ID MAP LOT OWNER ACRES 
CURRENT 
ZONING 
CURRENT 
GLUP 
PROPOSED 
GLUP 
1 371W30CA9300 ARTHUR WEBSTER 0.8 MFR-20 PS UH 
2 372W12D8500 
CEARLEY 
ENTERPRISES INC. 6.0 l-L PS Gl 
3 372W12D8604 
CEARLEY 
ENTERPRISES INC. 4.5 l-L PS Gl 
4 372W13AA100 
GERALD/SHARON 
WESTON 5.8 l-G PS Gl 
5 372W13AA200 
CEARLEY 
ENTERPRISES INC. 1.1 l-G PS Gl 
6 372W13AA204 REBECCA DEBOER 1.4 l-L PS Gl 
7 372W13AA300 
CEARLEY 
ENTERPRISES INC. 10.3 l-L PS Gl 
TOTAL ACRES 29.9 
Note:MFR-20 (Multi-Family Residential Zoning District, 20 units per acre), l-L (Light Industrial 
Zoning District), l-G (General Industrial Zoning District), PS (Parks and Schools GLUP 
Designation), UH (Urban High Density Residential GLUP Designation), Gl (General 
Industrial GLUP Designation) 
COMMENTS RECEIVED 
Just prior to the Planning Commission hearing, an email from DLCD dated September 3, 
2010 (Exhibit B) was received. DLCD expressed concerns that the Parks Element 
included proposed trails and parks located outside of Medford's UGB. DLCD noted that 
Jackson County would have to co-adopt such plans due to Oregon Statewide Planning 
Goal 2, which states that "each plan and related implementation measures shall be 
coordinated with the plans of affected government units." DLCD also noted that parks to 
serve an urban population must be provided within Medford's UGB to be consistent with 
Statewide Planning Goal 14. 
Page 4 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
City staff and Jackson County staff met to discuss these comments. Since it would take 
Jackson County several years to amend their Comprehensive Plan to include Medford's 
proposed trails and parks outside the UGB, the proposed Parks Element, including 
related Figures, has been revised to remove references to proposed trails and parks 
located outside of Medford's UGB, making the proposal compliant with Statewide 
Planning Goals 2 and 14. 
APPROVAL CRITERIA 
For Class 'A' Major Legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendments, approval criteria are 
found in: 
• Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184, Class "A" Amendment Criteria 
• Medford Comprehensive Plan, Review and Amendment Section 
Other Oregon planning policies that govern parks planning: 
• Statewide Planning Goal 8 - Recreational Needs 
• Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660 Division 34 - State and Local Park 
Planning 
FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVAL CRITERIA 
Medford Land Development Code Section 10.184 
This section identifies the approval criteria for Class "A" Amendments. For 
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, this section refers one to the Review and 
Amendment section of the Comprehensive Plan. 
Review and Amendments Section 
The proposed amendments are Class "A" Major amendments because they involve the 
complete update of Conclusions, Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies 
contained within the Parks section of the Public Facilities Element. The amendments are 
Major amendments because they involve citywide parks and recreation resources, and 
include citywide changes to the General Land Use Plan Map. 
Therefore, the following criteria from the Review and Amendment Section of the 
Comprehensive Plan must be considered when evaluating the proposal: 
1. A change or addition to the text, data, inventories, or graphics which substantially 
affects the nature of one or more Conclusions. 
2. A significant change in one or more Conclusion, Goal, Policy or Implementation 
Strategy. 
3. Information reflecting new or previously undisclosed public needs. 
4. A significant change in community attitude or priorities. 
5. Demonstrable inconsistency with another Plan provision. 
6. Statutory changes affecting the Plan. 
7. All applicable Statewide Planning Goals. 
8. Availability of new and better strategies such as may result from technological or 
economic changes. 
Page 5 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
9. Demonstrable ineffectiveness of present strategy(s). 
10. Demonstrable budgetary constraints in association with at least one of the above 
criteria. 
11. Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted population 
trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate employment 
opportunities. 
12. The orderly and economic provision of key public facilities. 
13. Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable area. 
14. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences. 
15. Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the Comprehensive 
Plan. 
Criterion #1 - A change or addition to the text, data, inventories, or graphics 
which substantially affects the nature of one or more Conclusions. 
This criterion has been met. 
The text, data, inventories, and graphics of the Parks section of the Public Facilities 
Element have been updated and supplemented, which has led to the formulation of new 
Conclusions about parks and recreational needs in Medford. 
Criterion #2 - A significant change in one or more Conclusion, Goal, Policy or 
Implementation Strategy. 
This criterion has been met 
New and revised Conclusions about parks and recreational needs in Medford have led 
to the development of new and revised Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies. 
Criterion #3 - Information reflecting new or previously undisclosed public needs. 
This criterion has been met. 
Parks and recreational needs in Medford were assessed, and this update to the Parks 
section of the Public Facilities Element reflects newly identified or previously undisclosed 
public parks and recreation needs. 
Criterion #4 - A significant change in community attitude or priorities. 
This criterion has been met. 
Community priorities were assessed and included in this update. 
Criterion #5 - Demonstrable inconsistency with another Pian provision. 
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendments. 
No inconsistencies with other Comprehensive Plan policies were identified. 
Criterion #6 - Statutory changes affecting the Plan. 
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendments. 
There are no new statutory changes affecting this update of the Parks section of the 
Public Facilities Element. 
Criterion #7 - All Applicable Statewide Planning Goals 
Page 6 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) October 18, 2010 
Staff Report 
This criterion has been met 
Upon investigation, it was determined that Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 8 and 11 
apply to the proposed amendment. 
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 of Medford has an established citizen involvement program consistent with 
Goal 1 that includes review of proposed legislative Comprehensive Plan amendments by 
the Citizens' Planning Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City 
Council in study sessions, regular meetings, and public hearings. Affected agencies and 
interested persons are also invited to review and comment on such proposals, and 
meeting and hearing notices are published in the local newspaper. This process has 
been adhered to in the development of the amendment. 
The draft document was made available for review by the public (via the internet), the 
media, affected agencies, departments, and interested persons. The Citizens' Planning 
Advisory Committee reviewed the amendment at a regular meeting on September 14, 
2010, and voted to recommend approval. The Planning Commission reviewed the 
amendment at an appropriately noticed public hearing ori September 9, 2010 and made 
a recommendation for adoption to the City Council. The City Council conducted an 
appropriately noticed legislative public hearing on November 4, 2010. The citizen 
involvement process followed for this amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning 
Goal 1. 
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 City of Medford has followed the procedural requirements for Major Comprehensive 
Plan Amendments contained in Medford Land Development Code Sections 10.100 -
10.176 and 10.180 - 10.184, and the approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan 
Amendments contained in the "Review and Amendment" section of the Comprehensive 
Plan. These requirements comply with the requirements of the state statutes and rules. 
The process has included newspaper notices, request for comments from affected 
agencies, disclosure of facts, staff reports, public hearings, and findings. These items 
are included in the record of this land use action. The decision-making process used by 
the City of Medford is consistent with the acknowledged Land Development Code, 
Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Planning Goal 2. 
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. 
Page 7 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
Compliance with Administrative Rules for Statewide Planning Goal 8 
Upon investigation, it has been determined that Oregon Administrative Rule 660, 
Division 34 - State and Local Park Planning - applies to the proposed amendment. 
OAR 660-034-0040 - Planning for Local Parks 
(1) Local park providers may prepare local park master plans, and local governments may amend 
acknowledged comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances pursuant to the requirements and 
procedures of ORS 197.610 to 197.625 in order to implement such local park pians. Local 
governments are not required to adopt a local park master plan in order to approve a land use 
decision allowing parks or park uses on agricultural lands under provisions of ORS 215.213 or 
215.283 or on forestlands under provisions of OAR 660-006-0025(4), as further addressed in 
sections (3) and (4) of this rule. If a local government decides to adopt a local park plan as part of 
the local comprehensive plan, the adoption shall include: 
(a) A plan map designation, as necessary, to indicate the location and boundaries of the local 
park; and 
(b) Appropriate zoning categories and map designations (a "local park" zone or overlay zone 
is recommended), including objective land use and siting review criteria, in order to 
authorize the existing and planned park uses described in local park master plan. 
(2) Unless the context requires otherwise, this rule does not require changes to: 
(a) Local park plans that were adopted as part of an acknowledged local land use plan prior 
to July 15, 1998; or 
(b) Lawful uses in existence within local parks on July 15, 1998. 
(3) All uses allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 3 are allowed on agricultural land within a local 
park and all uses allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 4 are allowed on forest land within a local 
park, in accordance with applicable laws, statewide goals, and rules. 
(4) Although some of the uses listed in OAR 660-034-0035(2)(a) to (g) are not allowed on agricultural 
or forest land without an exception to Goal 3 or Goal 4, a local government is not required to take 
an exception to Goals 3 or 4 to allow such uses on land within a local park provided such uses, 
alone or in combination, meet all other statewide goals and are described and authorized in a local 
park master plan that: 
(a) Is adopted as part of the local comprehensive plan in conformance with Section (1) of this 
rule and consistent with all statewide goals; 
(b) Is prepared and adopted applying criteria comparable to those required for uses in state 
parks under OAR chapter 736, division 18; and 
(c) Includes findings demonstrating compliance with ORS 215.296 for all uses and activities 
proposed on or adjacent to land zoned for farm or forest use. 
The City of Medford complies with ORS 660-034-0040(1 )(a) and (b) through 
implementation of the General Land Use Plan "Parks and Schools" designation, which 
depicts existing public parks and schools. There is no specific zoning district associated 
with this designation. Instead, parks and schools are permitted as a conditional use in all 
residential, commercial, and light industrial zones. The City intends to further pursue the 
development of objective land use and siting review criteria. 
The purpose of this update to the Parks section of the Public Facilities Element is to plan 
for the parks and recreational needs of Medford's citizens for the next 20 years, to 2030. 
The proposed amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8. 
GOAL 11: PUBUC 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 
Page 8 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) October 18, 2010 
Staff Report 
Included within the broad spectrum of public facilities and services are park and 
recreation facilities and services. The proposed amendments will adopt an updated 
Parks Element into the Comprehensive Plan and update the General Land Use Plan 
Map to accurately depict existing Parks and Schools facilities. The proposed adoption of 
these park-related plans into the Comprehensive Plan and General Land Use Plan Map 
are consistent with Goal 11 in that the plans contain an inventory of existing facilities and 
a list of anticipated projects that would result in public facilities being created in support 
of this goal, as well as planned and realistic means to fund such facilities. 
Criterion #8 - Availability of new and better strategies such as may result from 
technological or economic changes. 
This criterion has been met. 
Proposed funding strategies for capacity-increasing parks and facilities development is 
based upon a new strategy called an "improvements-driven" approach that identifies 
projects needed to address growth needs. Once staff identified needed parks and 
facilities projects, the "wish list" was scaled down to a fiscally-constrained list which 
results in Parks System Development Charges (SDCs) deemed to be reasonable. 
Criterion #9 - Demonstrable ineffectiveness of present strategy(s). 
This criterion has been met. 
All of the Implementation Strategies have been updated, but not because all of the 
present strategies are ineffective. See the finding for Criterion #8. 
Criterion #10 - Demonstrable budgetary constraints in association with at least 
one of the above criteria. 
This criterion has been met. 
Public needs and priorities were identified for this update. The resultant list of projects 
was then scaled down to address budgetary constraints. See the finding for Criterion #8. 
Criterion #11- Demonstrated need for the change to accommodate unpredicted 
population trends, to satisfy urban housing needs, or to assure adequate 
employment opportunities. 
This criterion has been met. 
Provisions in Medford Municipal Code 3.890 require City review of the SDC 
Methodology Report no later than every five years to ensure funding accurately 
contemplates the most current trends in population growth, community needs and 
changing construction costs. 
Criterion #12 - The orderly and economic provision of key public facilities. 
This criterion has been met. 
The "improvements-driven" approach is based on a specific list of planned capacity-
increasing capital improvements. The portion of each project that is attributable to 
growth is determined, and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by dividing the total 
costs of growth-required projects by the projected increase in population and 
employment, as applicable. This approach is derived from a needs assessment with 
substantial public input and a project list that is apportioned between growth and current 
users. 
Page 9 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
Criterion #13 - Maximum efficiency of land uses within the current urbanizable 
area. 
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendments. 
Criterion #14 - Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences. 
This criterion has been met. 
New park development applications must successfully demonstrate that adverse 
impacts, including environmental and social consequences, if any, have been 
adequately addressed through public input into the City's planning process prior to 
development. The planning process most often used is the City's Conditional Use Permit 
process, which balances adverse impacts with public benefit, and utilizes mitigation 
measures. 
Social consequences have been considered in the development of standards for 
Neighborhood and Community Parks where facilities that generate noise or include 
sports' night lighting, as an example, are reserved for larger park sites where social 
impacts can be buffered or mitigated. The Parks and Recreation Department conducts a 
master planning process which must uphold these standards for each park being 
planned for development. 
Criterion #15 - Compatibility of the proposed change with other elements of the 
Comprehensive Plan. 
This criterion has been met 
The Medford Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed for compatibility with this proposal 
and no conflicts were identified. 
CONCLUSION 
The City Council can find that the applicable criteria have been met as per this Staff 
Report, including the facts, evidence, comments, and noted compliance with the Review 
and Amendment criteria addressed herein. 
RECOMMENDED ACTION 
The Medford Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 9, 2010, voted to 
forward a favorable recommendation for CP-10-001 and GLUP-10-002 per the Staff 
Report dated August 31, 2010, including Exhibits A through C. 
Staff requests that the ordinance adopting CP-10-001 and GLUP-10-002 become 
effective 30 days from the date of approval to allow time for producing the final 
documents and maps as adopted. 
SUGGESTED MOTION 
Adopt Ordinance 2010 - amending the Medford Comprehensive Plan, Public 
Facilities Element, by replacing the current Parks section with an updated Parks section 
covering the planning period 2010 to 2030; amending the General Land Use Plan Map 
by changing the designation of specific parcels to "Parks and Schools"; applying the 
Greenway designation to existing Riparian Corridors; and correcting mapping errors by 
removing the "Parks and Schools" designation from several privately-owned parcels, per 
Page 10 of 11 
Parks Amendments (CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-002) 
Staff Report 
October 18, 2010 
the Staff Report dated October 18, 2010, including Exhibits A through C. Ordinance 
2010 - to become effective in 30 days. 
EXHIBITS 
Exhibit A - Draft Parks Element dated October 15, 2010, including: 
Figure 1: Existing Park and Recreation Resources 
Figure 2: Trails Plan 
Figure 3: Facilities Plan 
Map and Table: Parks & Schools GLUP Map Amendment, Proposed Tax 
Lots Addition to Parks & Schools GLUP 
Map and Table: Parks & Schools GLUP Map Amendment, Proposed Tax 
Lots Removed from Parks & Schools GLUP 
Exhibit B - Email from Ed Moore, DLCD, dated September 3, 2010 
Exhibit C - Excerpt of minutes from Planning Commission hearing of September 9, 2010 
Note: The current Parks Element, the proposed Parks Element Update, and the 2006 
Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services Plan can be accessed on the Planning 
Department page of the City of Medford website www, ci.medford. or. us. 
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: 
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: 
September 9, 2010 
November 4, 2010 
Page 11 of 11 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
PARKS, RECREATION, AND LEISURE SERVICES 
The Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services section of the Public Facilities Element (hereinafter called 
"Parks Element") is a component of the City of Medford Comprehensive Plan. 
This section is intended to comply with statewide planning policies and requirements that govern 
recreational planning, including Goal 8 (Recreational Needs), and OAR 660 Division 34. The primary 
purpose of this section is to (1) describe characteristics of the existing park system, (2) project the need 
for parks in Medford for the 20-year period between 2010 and 2030 based upon research and analysis of 
public wants and funding ability, and (3) provide the City with Goals and Policies based on Conclusions 
derived from the analysis of existing conditions and future needs as well as Strategies to implement 
those policies. 
INTRODUCTION 
Medford is the largest city in Southern Oregon and a regional provider of park and recreation services. 
Rapid population growth has increased the demand for parks, recreation facilities, and programs 
community-wide, and the City has developed this new plan to address existing financial challenges 
while expanding recreation opportunities and maintaining existing resources. 
In the past, the City has shown vision in acquiring and developing park and recreation facilities to meet 
community needs. Facilities such as numerous sports fields, U.S. Cellular Community Park, the Bear 
Creek Greenway and Bear Creek Park have become great community assets, attracting residents from all 
parts of Jackson County. In addition, through a cooperative effort with the Medford School District, the 
City has developed one of the best neighborhood school/park systems in the Northwest. However, a 
funding deficit has created problems in maintaining many park sites, and some parks are 
underdeveloped. Moreover, the City continues to utilize outdated facilities, such as Hawthorne and 
Jackson pools, which accrue operations costs that are not offset due to lower than typical user fees. Past 
levels of recreation programming and community participation in City programs were lower than 
comparable communities; particularly for youth, teens, and seniors, driving a recent priority to increase 
recreation programs and services. 
As Medford continues to grow and the City lobks to the future, this plan will address community needs 
and provide direction for the development of parks and leisure services for the twenty-year period. The 
City has an excellent foundation for a thriving park system and the potential to provide comprehensive 
recreation programming for the entire community. However, to provide a higher level of service to 
residents, this plan supports both improvements to the existing system and early acquisition of new park 
land while the opportunity exists to do so. 
STATE RECREATIONAL PLANNING LAWS 
Statewide Planning Goal 8 
Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal for Recreational Needs (Goal 8) states: 
"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." 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 1 
CITY OF MEDFORD 
EXHIBIT # A -
File# CP - f¿MX>| ¡GUÉAO 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Goal 8 requires recreation planning, including an inventory of needs and existing opportunities, and a 
long-range plan with an action program. It recommends that the highest priority be given to facilities 
that: meet the needs of high density population centers; meet the needs of persons of limited mobility 
and finances; conserve energy; minimize environmental deterioration; are available to the public at 
nominal cost; and meet the needs of visitors to the state. 
Goal 8 recommends that unique areas or resources that also meet recreational needs be inventoried and 
protected, or acquired, with high priority given to enhancing recreational opportunities on the public 
waters of the state and Oregon Recreational Trails. The Bear Creek Greenway path is a designated 
"Oregon Recreation Trail". Recreational plans should consider the carrying capacity of the air, land and 
water resources of the planning area, and actions should not exceed the capacity of such resources. It 
also recommends that parks and recreation planning take into account various techniques for acquisition, 
such as easements, cluster developments, preferential assessments, development rights acquisition, 
subdivision park land dedication that benefits the subdivision, etc. 
The Parks Element includes an inventory of areas and resources unique to Medford including special use 
areas, natural open space areas, trails, paths, bikeways, and greenways. 
OAR Division 660 Division 34 - State and Local Park Planning 
660-034-0040 - Planning for Local Parks: 
(1) Local park providers may prepare local park master plans, and local governments may amend acknowledged 
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances pursuant to the requirements and procedures of ORS 197.610 to 
197.625 in order to implement such local park plans. Local governments are not required to adopt a local park master 
plan in order to approve a land use decision allowing parks or park uses on agricultural lands under provisions of 
ORS 215.213 or 215.283 or on forestlands under provisions of OAR 660-006-0025(4), as further addressed in 
sections (3) and (4) of this rule. If a local government decides to adopt a local park plan as part of the local 
comprehensive plan, the adoption shall include: 
(a) A plan map designation, as necessary, to indicate the location and boundaries of the local park; and 
(b) Appropriate zoning categories and map designations (a "local park" zone or overlay zone is recommended), 
including objective land use and siting review criteria- in order to authorize the existing and planned park 
uses described in local park master plan. 
(2) Unless the context requires otherwise, this rule does not require changes to: 
(a) Local park plans that were adopted as part of an acknowledged local land use plan prior to July 15, 1998; or 
(b) Lawful uses in existence within local parks on July 15, 1998. 
(3) All uses allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 3 are allowed on agricultural land within a local park and all uses 
allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 4 are allowed on forest land within a local park, in accordance with applicable 
laws, statewide goals, and rules. 
(4) Although some of the uses listed in OAR 660-034-0035(2)(a) to (g) are not allowed on agricultural or forest land 
without an exception to Goal 3 or Goal 4, a local government is not required to take an exception to Goals 3 or 4 to 
allow such uses on land within a local park provided such uses, alone or in combination, meet all other statewide 
goals and are described and authorized in a local park master plan that: 
(a) Is adopted as part of the local comprehensive plan in conformance with Section (1) of this rule and 
consistent with all statewide goals; 
(b) Is prepared and adopted applying criteria comparable to those required for uses in state parks under OAR 
chapter 736, division 18; and 
(c) Includes findings demonstrating compliance with ORS 215.296 for all uses and activities proposed on or 
adjacent to land zoned for farm or forest use. 
The City of Medford complies with ORS 660-034-0040(1)(a) and (b) through the adoption and 
implementation of a Parks and Schools designation on the General Land Use Plan Map, which depicts 
existing public parks and schools. There is no specific zoning district associated with this designation. 
Instead, parks and schools are permitted conditionally in all single-family residential zones, multi-family 
residential zones, commercial and light industrial zones. The City intends to pursue the development of 
objective land use and siting review criteria for parks. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 2 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
NEEDS ASSESSMENT 
Citizen Involvement 
One of the nineteen Statewide Planning Goals that must be addressed in a comprehensive plan is Citizen 
Involvement (Goal 1). The development of this Parks Element update incorporated citizen involvement 
in several ways, including: a community workshop, a sports group questionnaire, a city-wide recreation 
survey, and steering committee and Parks Commission involvement. 
Community Workshop 
A community workshop was held on September 14, 2004, in the Santo Community Center to obtain the 
attendees' vision for parks, recreation facilities, and programs in Medford. 
Key findings are summarized below: 
• Participants identified the following as the top facilities for priority development: 
• Sports field complex 
• Indoor recreation center 
• City-wide path and trail system 
• Preservation of Prescott Park as a natural area was emphasized. Greater notoriety, easier access, 
additional parking and a trail-head were desired, along with improved trail systems for pedestrians, 
bicycles, and horses. 
• Participants supported the expansion of recreational programming. 
• The top three issues identified for Medford parks and recreation were: 
1. Funding 
2. Park and facility maintenance 
3. Upgrades to existing parks 
Sports Group Questionnaire 
In Fall 2004, organizations providing sports leagues in Medford were asked to fill out a questionnaire 
regarding the number of teams and players in the league, season of play, and field requirements. The 
sports group survey obtained infomiation regarding twenty-seven different programs for adults and 
youth provided by both the City and private providers in Medford. This data was used to determine 
sports field and facility needs. 
City-Wide Recreation Survey 
A city-wide survey of public attitudes, recreation interests, and recreation participation was conducted in 
Fall 2004. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 438 households from the four quadrants of the 
City. 
Key findings included: 
• Neighborhood parks were the most frequently visited type of park or facility by respondents. 
• Of all park and recreation services, respondents wanted most: 
o Upgrades to existing parks 
o Sports field development 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 3 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
o More trails and paths 
• Respondents clearly preferred an indoor aquatic center to meet future needs. 
• The respondents supported increased programming for seniors, one of the fastest growing 
segments of the City of Medford population. 
• The respondents supported increases to youth and teen programming. A growing national trend 
and awareness associating relatively minor teen programming costs with exponentially greater 
reduced law enforcement costs point to a substantial City cost benefit. 
• Respondents wanted more off-street, paved multi-purpose paths throughout Medford. 
Committee and Commission 
A Steering Committee consisting of key City staff and citizens representing a variety of community 
interests met regularly throughout the planning process. This group provided advice and insight by 
discussing critical issues facing Medford parks and recreation and by reviewing key reports in the 
development of this Parks Element. Similarly, the Medford Parks and Recreation Commission also 
provided direction during the planning process. 
EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND FUNCTIONS 
The Medford park system consists of both active and passive recreational areas, including a variety of 
park types, paths, trails and facilities. As can be seen in Figure 1, Existing Park & Recreation 
Resources, the City of Medford manages approximately 2,500 acres of park land, including nearly 75 
acres leased from the Medford and Phoenix/Talent School Districts. The park land inventory includes 
over 454 acres of active parks, 14 acres of linear parks, nearly 1,923 acres of natural areas and 
greenways, and more than 124 acres of undeveloped sites. In addition, the City maintains nearly 15 
acres of beautification areas, including greenways, roadway strip! and islands, and landscaped areas 
around buildings. 
Per Figure 2, Path and Trails Plan, the City has the foundation to a path and trail system. The Bear 
Creek Greenway path connects the City to adjacent cities from Ashland to Central Point as well as parks 
within the City. The path and trail system includes two standards: ten foot wide asphalt multi-use paths 
and five foot wide gravel or native soil multi-use trails built to the International Mountain Bike 
Association standards. Maintenance of paths and trails includes repairs from root damage, occasional 
flooding and erosion, removal of trees that have fallen, and general wear from use. The City has entered 
into a Joint Powers Agreement with Jackson County for the maintenance of the portion of the Bear 
Creek Greenway Path that is within the City of Medford Urban Growth Boundary. Development and 
maintenance of the Bear Creek Greenway Path is overseen by the Bear Creek Greenway Foundation. 
Adopted in January 2003, the Bear Creek Master Plan is an action plan for current and future 
redevelopment of the corridor. 
The City of Medford is a significant provider of recreation and sport facilities. Additional facilities are 
provided by other entities as well, such as school districts and private providers. When all resources are 
counted, the total inventory for all recreation facilities in Medford is relatively high. However, some 
sports fields suffice as practice fields only, because they are inadequate for games. Other facilities have 
scheduling restrictions. The City provides many sports fields, but depends on school facilities for use of 
gymnasiums and adult baseball fields. The City has two outdoor pools, but the community relies on 
private providers to meet indoor swimming needs. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 19 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
The following facilities in Medford were counted as part of Medford's unrestricted inventory in 2006, 
meaning they were considered adequate for games/practice at that time: 
One adult baseball field 
Six adult Softball fields 
Six youth softball/baseball fields 
Twelve soccer fields 
One football field 
Two gymnasiums 
Zero square feet of pool space 
Medford's 2010 unrestricted inventory is listed below. As a note, the new artificial turf fields at the U.S. 
Cellular Community Park (USCCP) all are rated as having the capacity of three natural grass fields. This 
equivalency has been promoted by the industry for many years and was demonstrated by the Tualatin 
Hills Parks and Recreation District in their HMT Complex, Field One "Artificial Surface" Usage 
Comparison. This has more recently been confirmed by the increase in usage of the artificial turf fields 
at the USCCP during the 2009 - 2010 season and the information is documented in the 2010 Parks & 
Recreation Artificial Turf Comparison to Natural Grass Ball Fields Use. 
• One natural grass and one artificial turf adult baseball field (four equivalent fields) 
• Five natural and five artificial* turf (60% use) adult softball fields (fourteen equivalent fields ) 
• Eight natural and five artificial** turf (40% use) youth softball/baseball fields (fourteen 
equivalent fields) 
• Fifteen natural turf and five artificial turf soccer fields (thirty* equivalent fields) 
» Five artificial turf football fields (fifteen equivalent fields) 
• One gymnasium 
• Zero square feet of indoor pool space 
• Adults share use of these five fields with youth leagues. Adult use is 60% of the total use. 
Five fields multiplied by three and then by 60% equal thirteen equivalent fields when the 
four natural fields are added in. . 
** Youth share use of these five fields with adult leagues. Youth league use is 40% of the 
total use. Five fields multiplied by three and then by 40% equal thirteen equivalent fields 
when the four natural fields are added in. 
Additional inventory exists in a restricted capacity which is not considered readily available or adequate 
for games/practice. 
In addition to park lands, path/trails, and sports facilities, the City of Medford has a public arts program, 
an urban forestry program and Tree Committee. As well, the Parks Department reviews landscape plans 
for all multi-family, commercial and industrial developments in the City for the Site Plan and 
Architectural Commission. 
The Arts Commission was formed in 2000 to begin the process of bringing to fruition the vision for arts 
and culture in Medford. The Commission has developed a master plan which was adopted in 2009 
(Public Art Selection and Acquisition Policy) to improve existing City sites with the addition or 
incorporation of public art. The plan includes funding sources and a priority listing for existing sites. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 20 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
The Arts Commission administers a Partnership Program whereby non-profit organizations, and their 
affiliates, may apply twice a year to partner with the Arts Commission on art-related projects/programs 
that serve Medford residents. By providing access to art they hope to create an environment of 
enrichment and pride for all citizens. Public art within our City adds a sense of discovery and vibrancy 
to public spaces. 
The City of Medford recognizes the benefits and importance of its trees and urban forest. Therefore, the 
City has instituted an Urban Forestry Program and hired a Certified Professional Arborist in 2005 to 
manage that resource. One of the goals of the Urban Forestry Program is to inventory the current tree 
population and develop a system that is composed of a wide variety of species and age classes that will 
protect the urban forest from insect and disease outbreaks. The Urban Forestry Program manages trees 
on public rights-of-ways, in parks, and open spaces. Education on tree care is also provided to residents, 
and all tree care and maintenance is performed to currently accepted professional standards. The 
program is funded through the City's general fund with the goal to develop an urban forest that will be 
an environmental and economic asset and a source of community pride. 
The City of Medford's ongoing excellence in urban forestry has been awarded with two prestigious 
honors from the Arbor Day Foundation. Medford received "Tree City USA" status for the fourteenth 
consecutive year as a result of meeting four required standards: having a tree board, a tree care 
ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program and an Arbor Day observance and 
proclamation. Medford's municipal urban forestry efforts also earned a Growth Award for the fifth 
year, an accolade that hails environmental improvement and higher levels of tree care as a result of 
excellence in providing education programs, effective public relations, fruitful partnerships and wildland 
fire prevention coordination. The City's tree program has spurred the planting of 1,233 trees and 
pruning of 2,133 others on civic property along with an overall investment of over $1.46 million from a 
variety of funding sources since 2005. 
The Tree Committee is a sub-committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission. It was formed to 
advise the Commission on matters regarding trees in the right-of-ways and in park lands. The 
Committee strives to maintain and enhance the livability of the community through education on the 
benefits of trees, proper tree maintenance and fostering planting and preservation of trees where 
appropriate. Each year they plan and develop an Arbor Day observance and celebration for the City. 
The Site Plan and Architectural Commission consists of seven City residents, including one Planning 
Commissioner. The Commission's duties include making quasi-judicial decisions on proposed multi-
family, commercial and industrial development projects relative to architecture, landscaping, and site 
design. The Parks and Recreation Director is charged with ensuring that a department review of 
landscape code requirements occurs to assist the Commission. A Parks Planner currently serves as staff 
to the Commission, providing said reviews. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 6 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Inventory of Existing Parks 
Table 1 
Existing Parks 
H M I H H i H H I 1 
NP-16 Alba Park 
OSG-8 Bear Creek Greenway 
OSG-3 Bear Creek Greenway Park 
CP-22 Bear Creek Park 
LP -30 Biddle Road Path 
SU-14 Carnegie Building 
NP-60/SU Chrissy Park 
NP-34 Delta Waters School Park 
NP-37 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park 
MP-32 Earhart Park 
LP-52 East McAndrews Path 
CP-23 Fichtner-Mainwaring Park 
CP-31 Hawthorne Park 
NP-40 Holmes Park 
NP-41 Hoover School Park 
NP-5 Howard School Park 
SU-39 lOOF/Eastwood Historic Cemetery 
NP-11 Jackson School Park 
NP-24 Jefferson School Park 
NP-35 Kennedy School Park 
OSG-44 Larson Creek Greenway 
OSG-42 Lazy Creek Greenway 
NP-17 Lewis Park I 
NP-46 Lone Pine School Park 
CP-26/OSG U.S. Cellular Community Park 
CP-36 North Medford High School Park 
NP-43 Orchard Hill School Park 
NP-54 Oregon Hills Park 
OSG-61 Prescott Park 
NP/SU-7 Railroad Park 
OSG-6 Railroad Park Greenway 
NP-33 Roosevelt School Park 
MP-38 Ruhl Park 
SU-48 Summerfield Park 
SU-9 Santo Community Center 
NP-2/OSG Table Rock Park 
NP-18 Union Park 
NP-25 Veterans Park __ J 
1 Each site is coded with letters and numbers (such as NP-12). The letter represents the park type, the legend to these 
abbreviations can be found at the bottom of the Table. Some sites have more than one designation. For example, CP/OSG is 
a Community Park with Open Space Areas within part of the park land. The site number is for site identification only. These 
site numbers are included in Figure 3, Facilities Plan. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 7 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Park Type Legend: 
NP 
CP 
SU 
Neighborhood Park 
Community Park 
Special Use Area 
LP Linear Park 
OSG Natural Open Space Areas/Greenways 
LID Undeveloped Park Land 
P Path 
Table 2 
Existing /Path/Trails 
NP-16 Alba Park NP Minimal path system 
P-13 Bear Creek Greenway OSG ! North/south through Medford 
CP-22 Bear Creek Park CP Numerous paved paths & trails 
LP-30 Biddle Road LP Hawthornè Park to Morrow Lane 
NP-34 Delta Waters School Park NP Moderate loop path & trail 
NP-37 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park NP Moderate loop path & trail 
LP-52 East McAndrews Rd. Path LP North side of McAndrews Road 
NP-40 Holmes Park NP Path & trails 
NP-5 Howard Park NP Moderate loop path 
NP-11 Jackson Park NP Moderate path system 
0SG-44 Larson Creek Path/Trail OSL. Black Oak Dr. to N. Phoenix Rd. 
0SG42 Lazy Creek Path OSL. Burgundy to Siskiyou Blvd. 
NP-46 Lone Pine Park NP Moderate loop path 
CP-55 Prescott Park Trail system OSG Numerous trails 
NP-48 Summerfield NP Short loop path 
NP-3-) Rhul Park NP Short path 
! P-16 Lone Pine Creek Path OSG Lone Pine Creek at Navigators' 
Landing 
: NP-18 Union Park NP Short path 
Prescott and Chrissy Parks 
During the public involvement process, citizens expressed a desire to improve trails within Prescott Park 
and envisioned a path/trail system within Chrissy Park once brought into the UGB. 
Prescott Park, located on and around Roxy Ann Peak, totals 1,740 acres. The park was established with 
an initial gift of 200 acres purchased by the Lions Club and donated to the City of Medford in 1930. An 
additional 1,500 acres was acquired by the City through the Federal Lands to Parks Act of 1931. An 
additional 40 acre parcel was later purchased by the City and added to the park holdings. Prescott Park 
2 The site number is for site identification only. These site numbers are included in Figure 3, Facilities Plan. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 8 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
in its entirety has been set aside and reserved for exclusive park use and federal regulations restrict the 
land from being used for other than public park purposes. Prescott Park is largely undeveloped but has a 
network of hiking trails, overlooks, and picnic areas with restrooms. Communication facilities are 
located near the summit. Efforts to more fully improve and utilize the land as an urban public park has 
been hampered by its being located outside but adjacent to Medford's corporate jurisdiction. That 
Prescott Park is located outside Medford, has made land use permitting and public facility extensions 
difficult, time consuming and costly, requiring the City of Medford to obtain land use approvals for park 
improvements through Jackson County. 
Chrissy Park, located east of Medford, south of Hillcrest Road on Cherry Lane, totals 160 acres. The 
site, located just outside City limits, was donated to the City in 1997 by a Medford resident. The park is 
undeveloped, and the City will have to reverse damage done to the land over the past century due to 
orchard operations, development and open grazing. Mitigation of soil and water problems due to the 
site's steep, unstable slopes also needs to occur throughout the park. 
In the future, Prescott and Chrissy Parks, currently outside but abutting the current Urban Growth 
Boundary, will serve to meet a variety of park needs for Medford residents. These include provisions of 
open space that is conveniently located and economically accessible to all City residents. Medford has a 
policy to pursue inclusion of Prescott and Chrissy Parks in the Medford Urban Growth Boundary for 
eventual inclusion within the City limits. This will enable the City to extend needed urban infrastructure 
and services, such as police and fire protection, streets and sanitary sewer, to these parks. 
Medford's policy of striving to acquire parkland having natural features or resources, or that is of 
significant interest to the public, is partially met through these parks. Prescott Park is given special 
consideration in protecting the City's most significant natural and recreational resource and most 
significant scenic view and viewpoint for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Prescott Park 
contains 1,725 acres of natural open space. 
The identified need for nature trails, trailheads, and overlooks/viewpoints can also be well 
accommodated in these parks. By the year 2030, Medford will need an additional 15 miles of 
recreational trails. Upon annexation, the City plans to develop Chrissy Park, as both a Neighborhood 
Park and a Special Use Area, combining path/trail uses with a Neighborhood Park. An interconnected 
system of trails, paved paths and bikeways will provide a safe place for non-motorized transportation in 
east Medford. 
Thus, both Prescott and Chrissy Parks, upon inclusion into the City of Medford UGB, are planned to 
include an integrated park environment that includes both intensive urban park elements and natural 
park elements. The urban park elements are expected to function as activity centers that attract 
concentrations of urban populations into these unique areas where City residents can enjoy recreation 
experiences with urban and natural dimensions in immediate proximity to the largest population center 
in Jackson County. The special mix of land uses expected for these parks can be better administered 
pursuant to the objectives of Statewide Planning Goal 8 where the urban park elements may be freely 
planned to support intensive urban elements and appropriate planning for the natural areas. This will 
assure the parks are planned under the City's Comprehensive Plan to include use intensities that balance 
the unique resources and assets these parks represent in a manner that advances the City's Statewide 
Planning Goal 8 objectives. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 9 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
PARKS FACILITIES PLAN 
A new planning concept involves improving pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity for parks 
and facilities in Medford. Strategies include developing bike lanes and paths connecting into the existing 
Bear Creek Greenway path and adding east-west connections, along with connections between parks. 
The strategies in the facility plan are designed, in part, to provide facilities that will accommodate new 
programs and services, as the City expands its role in providing recreation programs and services to the 
Medford community and the region overall. 
The Facilities Plan Map is a graphic representation of the park system at build-out. Figure 3, Facilities 
Plan, illustrates the conceptual location and routing of proposed park sites and paths/trails, along with 
the location of existing facilities. This conceptual plan takes into account general land-use patterns, the 
expertise of key City staff, and existing plans for parks (i.e., the Southeast Plan). However, the map does 
not pinpoint exact locations for these sites. Some important notes about the Facility Plan include: 
1. Each site is coded with letters and numbers (such as NP-12). The letter represents the park type, and 
the number is for site identification only. These references are included on the Figure 3, Facilities 
Plan and with project descriptions for each site. Some sites have more than one designation 
(CP/OSG, a Community Park with Open Space Areas within part of the park land). 
NP Neighborhood Park 
CP Community Park 
SU Special Use Area 
LP Linear Park 
OSG Natural Open Space Areas/Greenways 
UD Undeveloped Park Land 
P Path 
2. On Figure 3, Facilities Plan, colored asterisks indicate proposed neighborhood parks, community 
parks, and special use areas. The symbols show a general location for each proposed park. The final 
location of park sites will be determined later in the development of City plans and will be 
influenced by land availability, acquisition costs, and property ownership. When possible, the 
proposed location matches existing City plans. 
3. Names for proposed sites are for reference only and have not been approved by City staff, the Parks 
Commission, or the City Council. 
Key points of the facilities plan are summarized below: 
• Improvements are proposed to most of the City's parks. Improvements include replacement or 
repair of aging facilities, changes to facilities to reduce maintenance costs, repair due to 
vandalism, and the addition of new facilities to reflect the changing needs of a maturing park 
system. These projects are not growth-related, and therefore not eligible for System 
Development Charge (SDC) funding. 
• Significant upgrades are proposed for the outdoor pools at Hawthorne and Jackson parks. 
Maintenance costs for these two pools (which have aged beyond a pool's typical lifecycle) have 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 10 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
become extreme. It recommends that the City evaluate the feasibility of replacing Hawthorne 
Pool with a water park at some location within the City. 
• The plan also recommends that the City develop an indoor recreation center/aquatic facility in 
the long term to meet swimming and gymnasium needs. 
• One new gymnasium with two courts was funded in the 2005 - 2007 biennial budget at the 
existing Santo Community Center, and was completed in 2009. 
• Four new community park sites have been identified to meet future service area needs as well as 
community needs for sports facilities. 
• The plan identifies U.S. Cellular Community Park as having mixed park uses. 
• The acquisition and development of several small greenway connectors is planned to support the 
intra-community path/trail system and to increase park connectivity. 
• A joint plan for developing Alba Park and the Carnegie Building is contemplated. 
• The plan supports efforts for funding and implementing the Bear Creek Master Plan and 
completing path/trail linkages along Bear Creek. 
• Existing City park land will be utilized for new parks whenever park service area requirements 
can be met. 
• Working with partner agencies to help meet the demand for indoor and outdoor sports facilities 
will be a high priority. 
• The City will seek to acquire park land in advance of need to reduce land acquisition costs. 
• Opportunities for program marketing and public information will continually be sought out. 
• An increase in the following recreation programs and services is anticipated: aquatics, 
instructional classes, special interest programs, outdoor programs, special events, and senior 
programs. 
• The Plan anticipates increasing recreation programs fees in alignment with fees charged by other 
providers community-wide, while implementing scholarship programs and discounted services 
for residents in need. 
• Improved maintenance management through cost tracking to improve maintenance levels of 
service at parks and recreation facilities is identified as a priority. 
• The City will consider all sources of funding, including bonds, levies, grants, donations, and 
sponsorships, to address existing financial challenges. 
PARK LAND AND FACILITY NEEDS 
Proposed Park Land 
Ten additional neighborhood park sites and four community park sites were identified by the community 
to meet Medford's vision for parks. However, the 25-year project list adopted on January 19, 2006 did 
not include a number of the proposed sites because the City could not support a Parks System 
Development Charge (SDC) large enough to include all park projects. As these are typical facilities for a 
city the size of Medford, additional creative funding sources will be pursued for these facilities. 
As opportunities to develop greenways and linear parks along creeks, canals, utility corridors, and 
roadways arise, the City will seek to develop a path/trail system that will interconnect parks, schools, 
and recreation facilities. The City will also seek opportunities to add linear park and open 
space/greenways to include trails and paths. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 11 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Table 3 
Proposed Parks 
NP-47 Brookdale Park 
NP-45 Cedar Links Park 
NP-56 Cherry Park 
NP-21 Columbus Park 
NP-49 Country Club Park 
NP-51 Foothills Park 
CP-55 Hillcrest Park 
CP " Hopkins Creek Park 
SU-62 Larson Creek (Middle Fork) Park 
Larson Creek (North Fork) Park 
SU-59 Larson Creek (South Fork) Park 
MSIFM2 ' Liberty Park 
| NP-4 Midway/Merriman Park 
I NP-13 Oak Grove Park 
I NP 58 Oak Tree Park 
| CP-53 Orchard Park 
f NP-10 RoSs Lane Park 
P c P - 5 7 Shamrock Park 
! CP-20 Sunset Park 
NP-28 I Whittle Avenue Park 
Legend: 
NP Neighborhood Park 
CP Community Park 
SU Spèòial Use Area 
LP Linear Park 
OSG Natural Open Space Are 
UD Undeveloped Park Land 
P Path 
Proposed Paths and Trails 
The following table lists the proposed paths/trails that are noted in the Path and Trails Plan. Each 
proposed path/trail should be assessed for its suitability to develop as part of a linear park or greenway, 
in order to meet community needs for these park types. Preliminary indications for path/trail inclusion as 
a linear park (LP) or open space greenway (OSG) are noted in the table, along with any applicable 
comments. Each proposed path/trail should also be assessed to determine its type. As new parks are 
developed, internal paths/trails will be constructed in addition to those noted in the following Table 4. 
Figure 2, Path and Trails Plan shows the proposed path/trails, including existing paths and conceptual 
routes for proposed multi-use paths, planned sidewalks, and planned bicycle lanes. Park trails are 
typically too short to be visible on a City-wide map, at the scale shown. Note that bike lanes not only 
3 Each site is coded with letters and numbers (such as NP-12). The letter represents the park type, the legend to these 
abbreviations can be found at the bottom of the Table. Some sites have more than one designation. For example, CP/OSG is 
a Community Park with Open Space Areas within part of the park land. The site number is for site identification only. These 
site numbers are included in Figure 3, Facilities Plan. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 12 

PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
been included for historical reference, and will be updated upon the conclusion of the current evaluation 
of the City of Medford aquatic facilities needs. 
In January 2007, the City retained ORW Architecture and Counsiiman-Hunsaker to evaluate an aquatic 
master plan (called the Aquatic Facility Planning Study) to focus on the future of aquatics for the 
community. Seven concepts for continuing aquatic improvement for the City of Medford were 
developed for consideration. 
In November of 2008, REMI Northwest completed an analysis evaluating fiscal regional economic 
impacts of pool facilities improvement alternatives for the City. In November of 2009, the City of 
Medford contracted Ogden, Roemer Wilkerson Architecture (ORW) with the following scope of work: 
Follow a public input process along with major considerations that have been made 
through recommendations to the City of Medford through the 2007 Aquatic Facility 
Planning Study and REMI Northwest Feasibility Study in developing a master plan for a 
regional water park facility. Identify necessary land use studies that will need to be 
completed and develop cost estimates associated with the facility. Identify possible sites 
for relocation of the current dog park and BMX facilities along with cost estimates for 
those relocations. 
1. Indoor Swimming Pool: For many years, Cty residents have desired an indoor swimming pool. In 
1999, a bond measure was introduced to fund such a facility, but it failed. The 2004 recreation 
survey, conducted as part of the Parks Element update effort, showed continued support for an 
indoor pool. The needs assessment identified market support for an indoor swimming pool. 
However, it was recognized that an indoor aquatic complex would have a regional draw and should 
be developed and funded by either a regional agency or a partnership with adjoining cities. The City 
has identified a need for one indoor pool, and the future need for two additional indoor pools. 
2. Outdoor Swimming Pool: Currently, both outdoor pools managed by the City are old and have 
reached the end of their useful life. The future of Hawthorne and Jackson pools will depend on the 
timing of the construction of an indoor swimming pool. In the near-term, the City will seek to keep 
both pools operational. In the long-term, they will become prohibitively expensive to maintain, and 
the pools will need to be replaced. Replacement of these pools will not be eligible for System 
Development Charge (SDC) funds. 
3. Large Water Park/Playground: This Parks Element proposes the development of a large water 
park/playground. The proposed water park/playground may replace one or both of the aging outdoor 
pools in a manner that recognizes the most contemporary trends for outdoor pool facilities. 
Youth Activity Center 
Youth activities that were formerly offered at the Jackson Park Activity Center have been moved across 
the street to the Santo Community Center into an existing building which has been converted for this 
purpose. This facility compliments the existing meeting/class rooms and gymnasium at the Santo 
Center. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 14 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Jefferson Nature Center 
A natural resource center has been developed at the U.S. Cellular Community Park. This facility utilized 
an existing farmhouse located on the site. The facility houses offices, exhibits, and educational 
opportunities focusing on local ecosystems, as well as the current and historic aspects of the Rogue 
Valley. This facility is operated and managed by the Jefferson Nature Center, a non-profit special 
interest group. 
Indoor Recreation Center 
Because of the demand for indoor recreation space including gymnasiums, the City has adopted a 
project list that includes the development of three multi-purpose indoor recreation centers, twelve 
gymnasium courts, and a 10,500 square foot indoor swimming pool. Currently, access to school 
facilities has become difficult because of the demands of other user groups. Such indoor facilities would 
expand recreation opportunities considerably and help meet community needs for gymnasium and 
programming space. According to the 2004 survey and input at the public meetings, recreation centers 
would have substantial community support. 
Desired amenities within or adjacent to a recreation center include: 
• Indoor pool/outdoor water park 
• Gymnasium space for basketball, volleyball and similar activities, and organized sports 
• Fitness space (exercise/aerobics areas and weight training rooms) 
• Places for large group gatherings 
• Multi-purpose classrooms and meeting space 
• Specialized activity areas, such as dance studios, stage for performing arts, and other indoor 
recreation activities. An indoor recreation center could become a part of an indoor aquatic complex 
described above. 
Public Restrooms 
The public has clearly requested that restrooms be placed in public parks. Although public restrooms in 
parks are expensive to construct and maintain, they provide a convenience to the park user. 
• Permanent restrooms will be provided in Neighborhood and Community parks 
• Portable restrooms may be provided to facilitate seasonal uses of parks 
Sports Facilities 
The current deficiencies in sports facilities are: 
• Two adult natural turf or one artificial turf baseball fields 
• One additional indoor pool to meet the current need 
The need for additional sports fields and facilities were noted in the survey and documented in the 
Needs Assessment. The following is a list of objectives for the development and management of sports 
facilities: 
Sports Facility Development Objectives 
• Work with partner agencies, especially schools, to help meet demand for indoor and outdoor sports 
facilities. Develop and maintain inventories and evaluations of shared sports facilities. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 15 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
• Continue partnering with the school districts to ensure community access to school gymnasiums. 
• Assess existing and proposed sites for the feasibility of developing additional sports fields, 
particularly adult softball fields, youth baseball/softball fields, and adult and youth soccer fields. 
• Design soccer fields to accommodate related field sports, such as lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, and 
rugby. 
• Provide all-weather field surfaces and outdoor lighting to expand usability and playing seasons in 
community parks, special use facilities, or in shared school/park facilities. Consider lighting impacts 
to nearby residences when developing plans for these facilities. 
• Design sports fields in complexes to facilitate tournament play and league play, as well as to 
improve maintenance and programming efficiencies. 
• Pursue partnerships to develop a multi-use, indoor aquatic complex (in the long term). 
Sports Facility Management and Operations Objectives 
• Consider a three-tier maintenance schedule for sport fields with tournament fields receiving the 
highest level of maintenance and practice fields receiving the lowest level of maintenance. 
• Create a field scheduling committee to maintain the most efficient use of fields. This committee 
should be headed by City staff, but include representatives of the user groups and school officials. 
The procedure for scheduling should follow the methodology created in the Needs Assessment. 
• To maintain the fields for quality playing conditions, a rest and rotation schedule should be 
developed and followed. 
PATH AND TRAILS PLAN 
The Path and Trails Plan identifies potential routes for recreational trails, paths, and bikeways to provide 
a safe path network that links neighborhoods, parks, schools, recreation sites, and other community 
attractions. 
The plan includes: 
• Off-street paved, multi-purpose paths for walking and recreational biking. 
• A geographic distribution of path/trails balanced throughout the City. Acquisition of additional 
routes for future trails and paths can be extremely challenging and/or expensive, especially in 
West Medford where development is extensive. 
• Creation of a path and trail system will require inter-departmental cooperation for successful 
development of off-street paths during the construction of new streets. 
The Path and Trails Plan includes a major intra-community system to provide linkages between parks, 
community facilities, residential areas, schools, and open space sites. The system is based on providing 
east-west linkages to connect to the Bear Creek Greenway path. 
Some of the path pieces are already owned and maintained by the City. However, most of the system is 
not in place. Much of Medford will have to be retrofitted to accommodate paths. With an aggressive 
approach toward connecting existing and future pieces, Medford could create an extensive network to 
provide a wide variety of path/trail experiences. The focus of path/trail development should be placed on 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 16 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
undeveloped areas with consideration for development in "future growth areas" outside the current 
Urban Growth Boundary. Since the City's undeveloped areas are fast being developed, these paths/trails 
are most urgent. Medford also needs to place more emphasis on the maintenance of paths and trails 
already in existence. 
In public involvement venues, the community expressed a preference for off-street, paved paths for 
pedestrian and bicycle use. However, where path opportunities have been lost to development, it may be 
necessary to construct on-street sidewalks and bike lanes to complete specific segments. The plan also 
contemplates coordinating with Jackson County the joint planning and/or development of paths or trails 
that lay outside of the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 
Several of the proposed paths may be developed within linear parks and greenways, where wider 
corridors (minimum fifty feet) can be acquired. This development will help meet identified community 
needs for open space, greenways, and linear parks. 
Paths will have concrete or asphalt surfacing, with their width varying from five feet to twelve feet. 
Paths currently exist throughout the City, within parks, along streets, and adjacent to; greenways. The 
Parks Element identifies the need for 18.7 miles of paths. The 2009 SDC Capacity Improvements Plan 
has included thirteen miles of paths for development to serve future needs. 
Trails will have gravel or natural soil surfacing, with their width varying from five feet to twelve feet. 
Trails currently exist within Prescott Park and are scattered throughout a few Neighborhood and 
Community Parks, such as Bear Creek, Donahue-Frohnmayer and Holmes Park. The Parks Element 
identifies the need for 13.2 miles of trails. The 2009 SDC Capacity Improvements Plan has included 
11.3 miles of trails for development to serve future needs. 
Path and Trail Types 
The purpose of the Path and Trails Planshown in Figure 2, is to show how existing and proposed park 
and recreation facilities can be interconnected via a path system. The proposed plan identifies 
conceptual routes for paths. However, park trails would require a level of detail that can not be made 
visible on a City-wide map, at the scale shown. 
Paths within Public Street Rights-of-Wav 
• The easiest walkways and bikeways to build are those within public street rights-of-way. These 
include three types: 
o Sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes: Pedestrian/bicycle ways within public street rights-of-way 
are typically sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes. By state law, all new streets must have 
sidewalks and all new major streets must have bicycle lanes. Medford also requires sidewalks to 
be set back from traffic lanes by a planter strip. The adopted Medford Transportation System 
Plan (TSP) indicates existing and planned bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The planned walkways 
and bikeways will be part of new streets or improvement projects. The Medford Bicycle and 
Pedestrian Advisory Committee have developed recommendations regarding funding priorities. 
o Paths within street rights-of-way but separated: Paths that are within street rights-of-way but 
separated have two major concerns: (1) they can be dangerous, and (2) they result in having to 
acquire a much wider right-of-way. These separated paths are undesirable because they are not 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 17 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
perceived as a sidewalk, yet they cross many driveway and street intersections. These paths 
require very detailed design for even minimal safety. Paths that are along a continuous feature, 
such as the Biddle Road Path, can be safer since there are few intersections. These routes are 
ideal within linear parks; however, they are unsafe for cyclists if they do not have suitable 
locations to enter or exit from the street without causing the cyclist to ride against traffic. 
Additional on-street bicycle lanes are needed when a path abuts a major street to avoid conflicts 
between walkers and faster cyclists. This results in the need for a very wide right-of-way which 
can be nearly impossible to acquire in a developed area due to cost and impact. A separated path 
along a street, if necessary, can be accommodated more easily in undeveloped areas and would 
have to be coordinated very closely with street design engineers. 
o Accessways: Access ways are short public paths that serve as connections for non-vehicular 
travel. The City requires accessways to be constructed when cul-de-sacs are necessary or where 
there are overly long blocks. They are also useful to provide access to parks and schools if they 
do not abut a street. 
Paths Not Within Street Rights-of-Wav 
• Rights-of-ways for paths that are not within streets are very difficult to acquire unless done at the 
time of initial land planning and development. Property owners are often reluctant to grant or sell 
easements or land, and often object to having the public near their property if not on a street. These 
issues can be reduced if a detailed path and trail plan is adopted prior to any development. Studies 
have shown that properties near paths/trails have higher values. Paths should not be crossed 
frequently by at-grade intersections, so the best locations are along linear features that have few 
access points or crossings such as creeks, canals, freeways, airports, railroads, etc. Several proposed 
paths have been adopted in the Medford Transportation System Plan. Many irrigation canals exist in 
Medford, usually within easements granted to the Irrigation Districts. The City should work with the 
property owners and districts to obtain public access easements along the canals as some other 
Southern Oregon cities are doing. This opportunity will peak when the canals are piped to reduce 
evaporative loss from the open ditch that exists today. The path can then be developed over the 
piped irrigation canal. 
Paths/trails in Greenways 
• Greenways are typically linear open space áreas and contain natural habitat or vegetation, and most 
often, a waterway or wetland. Greenways can be less difficult to acquire since they are un-
developable, and property owners may be willing to donate or sell them. Medford already has 
regulations that restrict disturbance within fifty feet of the top-of-bank of Bear Creek, Larson Creek, 
and other fish-bearing streams. Medford also has an adopted Greenways and Paths Plan for the 
Southeast Plan Area. Policies to guide the management of these existing greenways are needed. 
To meet community needs for both path/trails and greenways, it is recommended that the City 
Council set a policy to strive to acquire all remaining natural areas that lend themselves to being 
greenways. Eugene has similar policies in place to protect riparian habitat. A Riparian Area 
Inventory and Assessment has already been prepared for the Medford UGB. In the past, Medford has 
avoided acquiring natural areas or their maintenance responsibility due to a lack of committed 
funding. However, public agencies may be the best stewards of such areas and greenways lend 
themselves to outdoor education/recreation opportunities as well as creating open space and 
separation between residential areas. Greenway path/trails also provide opportunities for many top 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 18 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
ranking recreational activities, both in terms of measured local participation and national and state 
trends. 
Greenways often contain paths/trails, which can conflict with habitat preservation. However, 
path/trails in greenways are less objectionable to property owners because few greenway path/trails 
directly abut private properties. It is recommended that the City Council set a policy to acquire 
public access easements when storm water maintenance easements are acquired within and along 
waterways. This dual purpose use is required within the Southeast Area. 
FUNDING 
The following 25-Year Capital Improvement Plan was adopted by the City Council on January 19, 2006, 
funded by a three-step Parks System Development Charge (SDC) increasing over three years. A Parks 
SDC fee for new single family residences of $2,544 started at 80% of this amount in 2006, moved to 
90% in 2007, and 100% in 2008. 
2007-2012 Budget 
Neighborhood Parks 
Community/Urban Parks 
Recreation Facilities 
Sub-total: 
$1,860,000 
$2,718,765 
$444.300 
$5,023,065 
2012-2017 Budget 
Neighborhood Parks 
Community/Urban Parks 
Recreation Facilities 
Sub-total: 
$1,200,000 
$3,000,000 
$549.000 
$4,749,00 
2017- 2022 Budget 
Neighborhood Parks 
Community/Urban Parks 
Recreation Facilities 
Sub-total: 
$1,860,000 
$2,589,300 
$596,700 
$5,046,000 
2022 - 2027 Budget 
Neighborhood Parks 
Community/Urban Parks 
Recreation Facilities 
Sub-total: 
$1,207,500 
$2,589,300 
$889,000 
$4,685,800 
2027- 2032 Budget 
Neighborhood Parks 
Community/Urban Parks 
Recreation Facilities 
Sub-total: 
$2,835,000 
$0 
$1,916,420 
$4,751,420 
25-year Compliance Costs $1,575,000 
TOTAL S27 ¿822,500 | 
The total cost for the 2005 preliminary 25-Year Parks Master Plan was estimated to be $118,951,250, 
requiring an SDC for new single family residences of $5,900. This was far more than the City financed 
through SDC at that time. The City adopted a reduced project list in 2006 totaling $27,822,500 by 
eliminating a standard for Special Use Areas and linear parks; eliminating five Neighborhood and two 
Community Parks; eliminating five Adult Baseball/softball fields, two Football fields, nine Soccer 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 19 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Fields, and one Gymnasium; and by not including Community Centers, an Aquatic Center, and many 
proposed path/trails. These eliminated facilities may be developed using alternative funding sources or 
developed with an increase to current SDC rates. 
The 2006 25-Year Plan identifies five new Neighborhood Parks for City Council funding, three utilizing 
existing park land. It also funds the completion of three existing and unfinished Neighborhood Parks. 
One additional new Neighborhood Park, Summerfield Park, was completed in 2007. 
The plan also identifies the sports fields at the existing U.S. Cellular Community Park, the development 
of one Community Park adjacent to the existing park land at Prescott Park, and the acquisition and 
development of two new Community Parks for City Council funding. 
The following recreational facilities are also included the 2006 25-Year Plan: 
Eighteen Youth Baseball/Softball Fields ($628,200) 
Thirteen Adult Softball Fields ($1,006,200) 
Ten Soccer Fields ($1,941,800) 
Two Gymnasium Basketball Courts ($1,500,000) 
Two and forty-five hundredths (2.45) miles of trails ($ 1,126,000) 
Summary of Costs for SDC Eligible Growth Required and Deficiency Projects 
Item Cost 
As the City's population increases^ new facilities must be built to maintain the City's current level of 
park, recreation and leisure services. Growth-required facilities that were not built in the past become 
deficiency projects which can no longer be funded through park SDC funds. The 2006 25-year cost of 
deficiency projects totals $3,881,780, which, when spread out over a 25-year period, will require 
$155,271 per year to complete. This is considered achievable, anticipating grants, donations through the 
Parks and Recreation Foundation, volunteer efforts, as well as non-SDC funding sources, both existing 
and proposed, such as the Car Rental Tax, the Park Utility Fee, and a $10,000,000 bond which is 
assumed in the January 2009 Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update. 
The City Council established a Park Utility Fee to be paid by the responsible party for each developed 
property within the corporate limits of the City. Such fee shall not be imposed in amounts greater than 
that which is necessary, in the judgment of the City Council, to provide sufficient funds to properly 
maintain parks, facilities, beautification and right-of-way areas. Collection of the fee for each property 
shall be made by a monthly charge which shall commence on the first day of August, 2005. The City 
Council may, from time to time, by ordinance, change the fee based upon revised estimates of the cost 
of properly maintaining parks, facilities, beautification and right-of-way areas, or other factors identified 
in the ordinance. 
1) SDC Eligible Growth Cost 
2) Park SDC Deficiency 
$23,940,720 
$3,881,780 
TOTAL $27,822,500 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 20 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
In 2009, the Medford City Council adopted an update to the 2006 project list with a proportional 
increase to the Park SDC. The SDC for new single family residences increased May 1, 2009 to 
$2,986.00 and May 1, 2010 to $3,433.00. The 2009 project list added the following projects to the 2006 
project list: 
• Twenty-eight acres of Neighborhood Park Acquisition and fifty-nine acres of existing and/or 
new park development 
• Fifty acres of Community Park Acquisition and sixty-five acres of existing and/or new park 
development 
• Three Youth and three Adult ball fields 
• Nine Gym courts 
• Eleven miles unpaved and thirteen miles of paved paths 
• 10,500 square feet of indoor swimming pool 
• Two Santo size Community Centers and one small Neighborhood Center 
The Parks Element contemplates all future park funding needs, both required and hoped for. It includes 
current maintenance and deferred maintenance from past funding shortfalls; replacement of aging 
facilities; upgrades needed to reduce maintenance costs; and new facilities expected of a vital and 
contemporary park system. The Parks and Recreation Department proposes a number of innovative 
funding strategies for the creation and maintenance of a park system the citizens of Medford have 
envisioned and need for their health and welfare. 
GUIDELINES FOR SITE SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS 
The following design guidelines apply to the acquisition and/or development of parks within each park 
classification. Each park classification includes a description of the park type, site selection and 
development guidelines, features to consider, and features to avoid. 
Mini Parks 
Mini Parks Description: 
• The typical mini park user: 
o Comes from within a quarter mile or half mile of the park, 
o Arrives on foot or by bicycle. ^ 
o Visits the park on a short time basis. 
Mini Parks Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Mini parks may be considered when they are privately developed and maintained, or in 
neighborhoods where there are no other viable options. 
• Typical size is less than one (1) acre 
• Access to the site should be provided via a local street with sidewalks. 
• Mini parks fronting on arterial streets are discouraged. 
• The site should have a minimum of 100-150 feet of street frontage. 
• Parking Requirements: On-street parking should be provided as street frontage allows. 
Mini Parks Features and Amenities to Consider: 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 21 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
• General landscape improvements (including tree planting) 
• Children's playground or tot-lot 
• Path connecting park elements 
• Picnic tables and/or small picnic shelter 
• Interpretive signage 
Mini Parks Features to Avoid: 
• Indoor recreation facilities 
• Active sports facilities 
Neighborhood Parks 
Neighborhood Parks Description: 
• Neighborhood parks provide nearby residents with access to basic recreation opportunities. 
• These parks are designed to enhance neighborhood identity, preserve or provide neighborhood 
open space, and improve the quality of life of nearby residents. 
• They are designed for passive and unstructured activities. 
• The typical neighborhood park user: 
o Comes from within a half mile of the park, 
o Arrives on foot or by bicycle, 
o Visits the park on a short time basis; 
Neighborhood Parks Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Optimum size is three to five acres, depending upon the availability of land. 
• At least 50% of site should be relatively level and usable, providing space for both active and 
passive uses. 
• The site should have at least 200 feet of street frontage. 
• Access to the site should be provided via local streets with sidewalks. 
• Neighborhood parks fronting on arterial streets are discouraged. 
• Parking Requirements: A minimum of three spaces per acre of usable active park area. Generally, if 
on-street parking is available, this guideline can be reduced by one car per 25 feet of street frontage. 
City code requirements may provide more specific parking requirements. 
• Active and noise producing facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, should be located at least 
100-feet from nearby homes or property zoned for a residential use. 
Neighborhood Parks Features and Amenities to Consider: 
• Open turf area for unstructured play 
• General landscape improvements (including tree planting) 
• Children's playground 
• Basketball (full or half) court 
• Path connecting park elements 
• Internal trail system 
• Picnic tables 
• Small picnic shelter 
• Volleyball court 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 22 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
• Multi-use fields for practice 
• Interpretive signage 
• Natural area/green space 
• Permanent restrooms 
• Community Garden 
Neighborhood Parks Features to Avoid: 
• High maintenance horticultural or annual plantings, unless sponsored and maintained by a 
neighborhood or community group 
• Indoor recreation facilities 
• Wading pools and similar types of amenities that require staff supervision or highly specialized 
maintenance 
Additional Considerations for School Parks: 
• The City may encourage joint acquisition and use of contiguous school and park sites for 
recreational purposes that are beneficial to both City...and School agencies. 
• Because of jointly developed school/park sites, facilities will be a mixture of active and passive 
uses. 
• This could include: 
o Paths systems 
o Picnic areas/facilities 
o Multi-purpose paved court 
o Small playground equipment 
o Baseball and soccer fields 
• Because these sites are adjacent to school grounds, landscaping will address safety and security 
issues. 
• Facilities generating crowds and/or noise will be located in a manner so as not to disturb adjoining 
residential areas. 
• When sport fields utilized for league play are located on school grounds, the City should assist in 
maintaining these fields. 
Community Parks 
Community Parks Description: 
• Community Parks (CP) provide visitors with active and passive recreation opportunities. 
• These parks often accommodate large group activities and include major recreation facilities, such as 
sports fields. 
• Community Parks are designed to enhance neighborhood and community identity, preserve open 
space, and enhance the quality of life of community residents. 
• Typical community park users: 
o Come from within one mile of the park, 
o Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or foot, 
o Visit the park for one to three hours. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 23 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Community Parks Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Average site size will be 15 acres with the optimum at 20 to 30 acres, but may exceed 50 acres. 
® Due to their size requirements, the acquisition of CP park sites will occur far in advance of need. 
Park development should occur when the area it serves becomes 50% developed. 
When possible CP sites will be located adjacent to middle or high schools. 
At least two-thirds of the site will be available for active recreation use. Adequate buffers or natural 
open space areas will separate active recreation areas from nearby homes. 
The site will be visible from adjoining streets and have a minimum of 400-feet of street frontage. 
Parking Requirements: Dependent upon facilities provided. Generally, 50 off-street spaces per ball 
field are required, plus five spaces per acre of active use areas. City code requirements may provide 
more specific parking requirements. 
Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park. 
Access to the site will be provided via a collector or arterial street with sidewalks and bicycle lanes. 
Community Parks Facilities and Amenities to Consider: 
Tot and youth playground 
Designated sports fields for baseball, Softball, and soccer. Fields may be in a complex within the 
park 
Open turf area for unstructured play 
General landscape improvements 
Looped path system 
Internal trails system 
Picnic shelters, including at least one capable of accommodating groups of 25 to 50 people 
Permanent restrooms 
Volleyball courts 
Tennis courts 
Basketball courts 
Horseshoe pits 
Other sporting facilities (lawn bowling, croquet, bocce court) 
Community scale skate park 
Water playground 
Off-leash dog area or designated dog park 
Community gardens 
Concessions or vendor space 
Interpretive signage 
Natural area/green space 
Indoor recreation center or other indoor recreation space 
Public art 
Performance space, such as a stage area or band shell 
Special facilities such as an indoor recreation center or swimming pool 
Storage or maintenance buildings. If visible, these will be architecturally compatible with other park 
elements and any exterior work areas will be screened from view 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 24 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Special Use Areas 
Special Use Areas Description: 
• Special use areas are unique sites often occupied by a specialized facility. 
• Some uses that fall into this category include waterfront parks, boat ramps, botanical gardens, 
memorials, community gardens, single purpose sites used for a particular field sport, or sites 
occupied by buildings. 
• Typical users of special use areas: 
o May come from throughout the city or beyond (depends on use), 
o Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or foot. 
o May visit the park for one hour to more than three hours (depends .on use) 
Special Use Areas Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Siting criteria depend on the types of facilities proposed. 
• Prior to the development of any specialized recreation facility, such as a pool, recreation center, 
sports complex, etc., the City will prepare a detailed cost/benefit analysis and maintenance impact 
statement. 
• Size will depend upon the facilities to be provided. 
• Site should front on a public street. 
• Parking Requirements: Depends on facilities provided. 
Special Use Areas Facilities and Amenities to Consider: 
• Facilities and amenities will depend on the proposed activities and site use. 
Linear Parks 
Linear Parks Description: 
• Linear parks are developed or landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as 
railroad rights-of-way, creeks, canals, power lines, and other elongated features. This type of park 
usually contains path/trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas. Activities are generally 
passive in nature, such as walking, biking, wildlife watching, etc. 
• Typical linear park users: 
o May come from throughout the city (depends on site), 
o Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle, or foot, 
o May visit the park for one (1) or more hours. 
Linear Parks Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Linear parks should generally follow continuous special feature strips, with a minimum corridor 
width of fifty (50) to seventy-five (75) feet. 
• Due to the shape, configuration, and potential for user noise in linear parks, user impacts on 
adjoining neighbors will be considered. Fences, walls, or landscaping may be used to provide some 
privacy for neighbors, but the provision of these features will consider user safety. 
• Paved paths will be designed to accommodate maintenance and patrol vehicles. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 25 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Linear Parks Facilities and Amenities to Consider: 
• Paved paths 
• Trails 
• Landscaped areas 
• Maintained natural vegetation 
• Picnic tables 
• Orientation and information signage 
• Trailhead or entry/ kiosk 
• Turf areas 
• Ornamental plantings 
• Fences, landscaping, or other features to control access near adjoining residential areas 
• Viewpoints 
• Seating areas 
• On-street or off-street parking at trailheads. Amount depends dn facilities and anticipated use of the 
path/trails 
Linear Parks Facilities to Avoid: 
• Active use areas (sport fields, paved courts, etc.) 
Natural Open Space/Green ways 
Natural Open Space/Greenways Description: 
• Natural open space/greenways are publicly owned or controlled natural resources that are managed 
for conservation, environmental education, and passive recreational use, such as walking and nature 
viewing. This type of land may include wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar spaces. 
• Environmentally sensitive areas are considered open space and can include wildlife habitats, stream 
and creek corridors, or areas with unique and/or endangered plant species. 
• Typical open space/greenway users: 
o Come from throughout the city, 
o Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or,foot, 
o Visit the park for one (1) or more hours. 
Natural Open Space/Greenways Site Selection and Development Guidelines: 
• Site size will be based on natural resource needs. Acreage will be sufficient to preserve or protect the 
resource. 
• The City will consider alternative ways of preserving natural open space besides outright purchase, 
such as acquiring conservation easements, encouraging donations of land, land trades, etc. 
• Emphasis for acquisition will be on lands offering unique features or have the potential to be lost to 
development. 
• An analysis should be made to determine if unique qualities and conditions exist to warrant 
acquisition. 
• Development and site improvements should be kept to a minimum, with the natural environment, 
interpretive and educational features emphasized. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 26 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
• Natural open space areas should be managed and maintained for a sense of solitude, separation, or 
environmental protection. 
• Parking and site use should be limited to the numbers and types of visitors the area can 
accommodate while still retaining its natural character and the intended level of solitude. 
• Where feasible, public access and use of these areas should be encouraged, but environmentally 
sensitive areas should be protected from overuse. 
Natural Open Space/Greenways Facilities and Amenities to Consider: 
• Interpretive signage 
• Off-street parking if a trail is located within the site 
• Picnic shelters 
• Picnic areas 
• Path and trail system 
• Trailhead or entry/ kiosk 
• Viewpoints or viewing blinds 
• Interpretive or educational facilities 
Natural Open Space/Greenways Facilities and Amenities to Avoid: 
• Turf areas 
• Ornamental plantings 
• Active use areas 
Recreation Path and Trails 
Recreation Path and Trails Description: 
• Recreation path, as described here, provide off-street bicycle and pedestrian links to parks, with 
recreation emphasized. These include paths within greenways and linear parks. Guidelines are not 
presented for on-street bikeways or accessways intended mainly for transportation. 
• Typical trail and path users: 
o May come from throughout the city (depends on site), 
o Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle, or foot. 
Recreation Path Site Selection: 
• Non-motorized routes provide the following primary purposes: 1) recreation off street paths 
providing a recreation experience; or 2) non-motorized transportation links which may be identified 
in the Medford Transportation System Plan\ 3) on-street bike lanes. 
• The city will seek to develop non-motorized routes to provide linkages to parks, schools, and other 
destination points. 
• Recreation paths will be located outside street rights-of-ways, or will be separated by traffic lanes by 
a generous landscaped separation. 
• Where routes use street rights-of-way, the street should be designed to minimize potential conflicts 
between motorists and pedestrians and bicyclists. 
• Paths that are within street rights-of-way but separated will be designed, when possible, along 
continuous features, so that they do not pose hazards when crossing driveways and intersections. 
• If possible, path crossings by streets should occur at signalized intersections. 
• Paths may need to utilize street rights-of-way in order to complete a segment link. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 27 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
• Since paths are so difficult to provide after an area has been developed, advanced detailed path 
planning for developing areas is essential. 
• Developers should be encouraged to provide public paths through proposed developments, where 
such improvements would provide needed linkages between path/trail routes and access to public 
destinations. 
Recreation Paths and Trails Facilities and Amenities to Consider: 
• Staging areas for path/trail access 
• Picnic sites 
• Seating areas 
• Trailhead or entry/ kiosk 
• Interpretive signage 
• Orientation and information signage 
• Amenities should be site specific 
Trail Guidelines: 
• Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, steep slopes, surface drainage and other 
physical limitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs. 
• Trail alignments should avoid sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, riparian vegetation, 
large trees, etc. 
• Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for non-motorized multiple uses, developed to the 
standard necessary to minimize potential user conflicts. 
• Centralized and effective staging areas should be provided for trail access. Trailheads should include 
parking, orientation and information, and any necessary specialized unloading features. 
• Trails should be looped and interconnected to provide a variety of trail lengths and destinations. 
They should link various parts of the community, as well as existing park sites. 
• Recreation trails should be interesting to the user and maximize the number and diversity of 
enjoyable viewing opportunities. 
• Trails should be located and designed to provide a diversity of challenges. Enhance accessibility 
wherever possible. 
• Linkages and trail location and orientation should encourage users to walk or bicycle to the trail, 
depending upon the expected and desired level of use. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 28 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
CONCLUSIONS 
The following are conclusions about the provision of parks, open space and leisure services in Medford 
drawn from public involvement activities, a community needs assessment, and analysis of existing 
facilities and operations. These conclusions provide a foundation for the Parks Goals, Policies, and 
Implementation Strategies. 
1. Medford's population is growing rapidly and will continue to do so over the planning period of 2005 
to 2030. This population increase is the primary reason for the increasing demands for parks and 
recreation services. 
2. In the past, the City has shown great vision in acquiring and developing pprk and recreation facilities 
to meet the growing need. As Medford grows, the City will need to meet existing financial 
challenges in order to build new parks, facilities, and paths/trails and adequately maintain current 
ones. 
3. Medford is a very active community, with higher measured recreation participation levels than the 
average of other Northwest cities surveyed. This level of participation would support an expansion 
of recreation programs and facilities to meet existing and future community needs. 
4. The basic concept of the proposed park system is to assure that every neighborhood in Medford is 
served by a neighborhood or community park. Thirteen additional neighborhood parks and five 
community parks are needed to meet community needs in the years 2005-2030. Some of the 
facilities are not on the 2009 25-year Project List because the city will not support a park system 
development fee large enough to include all proposed park facilities. 
5. Of all park and recreation services, surveyed residents mostly want the City to upgrade existing 
parks, provide more sports fields, and develop a city-wide path/trail system. 
6. The City of Medford is a significant provider of recreational programs in the region. Programs and 
services need to be expanded in nearly all areas, especially for youth, teens, and seniors, to meet 
increasing community needs. 
7. To increase program participation, recreation programs could be expanded in several areas identified 
by survey respondents, including arts and crafts, cultural arts, concerts, special events, and family 
activities. 
8. Recreation programs are often subsidized by the City to keep programs affordable. According to the 
results of the survey, residents would like program subsidies to continue, particularly for youth and 
seniors. However, recreation programming must be more cost-effective. 
9. Future park and recreation services in Medford must reflect the needs of a changing population. 
Medford has an above average and increasing proportion of senior citizens. 
10. The City needs to replace the deteriorating swimming pools at Hawthorne Park and Jackson Park. 
11. While Prescott Park is valued as a natural area, community residents want park access improved, 
with overlooks/viewpoints and trailheads developed at the site. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 29 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
12. Medford has several creek corridors that offer exceptional recreation and conservation opportunities. 
13. By the year 2030, Medford will need an additional 15 miles of paved paths and 11 miles of trails. A 
system of recreational trails, paths, and bikeways would provide a safe place for walking, biking, 
and non-motorized transportation. 
14. City of Medford General Fund, grants, and donations are the primary sources of funding for 
improvements, maintenance, and the expansion of facilities in existing parks. 
15. An increase in the use of concessionaires in the City's parks would generate needed revenue for the 
park and recreation system, while providing user support services and business opportunities. 
16. Parks System Development Charges (SDCs) are an important source of funding for the acquisition 
and development of new parks and open space areas. Since SDCs are paid by new residential 
development, the fees are meant to fund capacity enhancement projects. The City regularly updates 
its SDC methodology and increases the SDC rate for all housing units. SDC funds will be 
particularly important to fund new parkland in Southeast Medford, where the City is rapidly 
growing. 
GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 
The goals, planning policies, and implementation strategies listed below create a framework for the 
realization of the Parks Element and also will help measure its success. 
Goal 1: To provide for a full range of recreational activities and opportunities to meet the needs of all 
residents of Medford. 
Policy 1-A: The City of Medford shall use the Parks Element as a factual basis in the land use 
decision-making process. 
Policy 1-B: The City of Medford shall recognize the social and economic value of other providers in 
the City and nearby county, state, and national recreation resources that provide recreation for 
Medford residents, create tourist expenditures within the City of Medford, and attract businesses and 
industries to the City. 
Implementation 1-B (1): Provide park and recreation programs that complement nearby county, 
state, and national recreation resources. 
Implementation 1-B (2): Pursue partnerships as a key means for leveraging community 
resources and minimizing duplications of effort. 
Policy 1-C: The City of Medford shall be a primary provider of recreation programs and services 
community-wide. 
Implementation 1-C (1): Provide park and recreation facilities to support community 
programming needs. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 30 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Implementation 1-C (2): Expand the City's role as a primary provider of recreation programs 
and services and increase programming to meet changing demographics and growing community 
needs. 
Implementation 1-C (3): Establish more revenue-generating programs to increase program 
funding to help fund or subsidize other programs and services. 
Implementation 1-C (4): Provide a new water park to generate additional revenue and to meet a 
growing, community-wide demand for aquatic services. 
Implementation 1-C (5): In the long-term, consider an indoor recreation center/aquatic facility 
to help meet future community needs for swimming, gymnasium, and programming space. 
Implementation 1-C (6): Consider other financing approaches, including a general obligation 
bond, to fund the development of additional facilities and significant park upgrades. 
Policy 1-D: The City of Medford shall provide park land and facilities conveniently located and 
economically accessible to all members of the community. 
Implementation 1-D (1): Locate parks and facilities in underserved areas. 
Implementation 1-D (2): Provide program services to all ages, abilities, and economic and 
cultural backgrounds. 
Implementation 1-D (3): Offer programs at a range of costs (free, low-cost, full price) and 
implement other strategies to ensure program affordability, while meeting city financial goals. 
Implementation 1-D (4): Implement the Southeast Medford Area Plan Map with regards to 
greenway paths/trails, parks, and recreation facilities. 
Goal 2: To preserve natural resources in the Medford Urban Growth Boundary that provide open 
space or have unique recreational potential, encouraging development with parks and recreation 
facilities if appropriate. 
Policy 2-A: The City of Medford shall emphasize acquiring park land having natural features or 
resources that need protection or are of significant interest to the public. 
Implementation 2-A (1): The City should seek to acquire riparian corridors where feasible to 
protect these natural resources and to offer potential sites for path/trail development. 
Implementation 2-A (2): Develop effective natural resource management plans for significant 
natural areas within parks and other City-owned or controlled lands, such as oak savanna, 
riparian areas, and wetlands, to identify management priorities and to guide acquisition, 
development, and restoration decisions. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 31 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Policy 2-B: The City of Medford shall give special consideration to the Bear Creek corridor in order 
to protect this dynamic natural and recreational resource for the enjoyment of present and future 
generations. 
Implementation 2-B (1): Directly and/or cooperatively acquire and plan appropriate park and 
recreation sites and public access along the Bear Creek corridor. 
Policy 2-C: The City of Medford shall give special consideration to Prescott Park in order to protect 
this dynamic natural and recreational resource and most significant scenic view for the enjoyment of 
present and future generations. 
Implementation 2-C (1): Follow the recommendations of the Prescott Park Management Plan 
and regularly update the Plan. 
Implementation 2-C (2): Pursue land additions to Prescott Park when opportunities become 
available. 
Implementation 2-C (3): Pursue inclusion of Prescott Park in the Medford Urban Growth 
Boundary for eventual inclusion within the City of Medford. 
Implementation 2-C (4): Increase access and public enjoyment of Prescott Park by developing 
appropriate facilities to enhance appreciation of natural resources, the outdoors, and Medford's 
unique environment. Until included within the Medford Urban Growth Boundary, improvements 
within Prescott Park must comply with Jackson County land use regulations, as well as state 
rules and statutes, which may limit the extent of improvements on land outside of UGBs. 
Goal 3: To provide an interconnected park and recreation system that is well integrated with the 
community. 
Policy 3-A: The City of Medford shall seek to develop a major intra-community system of paths to 
provide linkages between parks, neighborhoods, community facilities, schools, and open space sites. 
Implementation 3-A (1): Seek links to other transportation methods, such as developing parks 
along bus routes or encouraging bus transit to serve the parks. 
Implementation 3-A (2): Develop a detailed path and trails plan to recommend routes for 
meeting future community needs for an additional fifteen miles of paths and 11 miles of trails by 
the year 2030. 
Policy 3-B: The City of Medford shall seek to acquire natural and other corridors to link parks and 
open space throughout the community. 
Implementation 3-B (1): Develop a long-range public open space plan that provides for an 
interconnected system of creek corridors, greenways, wetlands, and other significant natural 
resource areas. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 32 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Implementation 3-B (2): Acquire missing links in corridors and parcels that are contiguous to 
other public open spaces to provide maximum benefits for recreation and wildlife. 
Goal 4: To coordinate park and recreation planning, acquisition, maintenance, and development in 
the City of Medford to serve a broad spectrum of citizen and institutional interests. 
Policy 4-A: The City of Medford shall design and maintain parks and recreation facilities in a safe, 
attractive manner, to serve as positive amenities for the community and the neighborhoods in which 
they are located. 
Implementation 4-A (1): Adopt and utilize the Guidelines for Site Selection and Development 
in the acquisition and/or development of parks within each park classification. 
Implementation 4-A (2): Implement a consistent park signage program for use throughout the 
system and install signage where needed. 
Policy 4-B: The City of Medford shall evaluate and design park and recreation facilities to minimize 
operation and maintenance costs. 
Implementation 4-B (1): Include projected maintenance costs in design proposals for parks and 
recreation facilities. 
Implementation 4-B (2): Consider maintenance costs, including transportation and 
loading/unloading of equipment, before acquiring park Sites smaller than one acre. 
Policy 4-C: The City of Medford shall define and standardize maintenance procedures, including 
cost estimates for maintaining Medford parks, recreation facilities, and beautification areas. 
Implementation 4-C (1): Allocate an average minimum maintenance cost per acre annually for 
maintenance of each park type and increase maintenance funds using this guideline as new parks 
are added to the City's system. 
Implementation 4-C (2): Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan to define use of 
herbicides and pesticides on City-owned or controlled properties. 
Implementation 4-C (3): Develop a parks maintenance management plan that defines 
maintenance levels, performance standards, and budget allocation. 
Policy 4-D: The City of Medford shall encourage joint acquisition and use of contiguous school and 
park sites for recreational purposes that are beneficial to both City and School agencies. 
Policy 4-E: The City of Medford shall work with partner agencies, especially schools, to help meet 
demand for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. 
Implementation 4-E (1): Develop and maintain inventories and evaluations of shared sports 
facilities. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 33 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
Implementation 4-E (2): Continue partnering with the school districts to ensure community 
access to school gymnasiums and other sports facilities. 
Policy 4-F: The City of Medford shall allow compatible, revenue-producing concession facilities 
and services within parks that enhance visitor use and enjoyment of the City's parks. 
Policy 4-G: The City of Medford shall have a parks planning process that implements the park uses 
described herein. 
Implementation 4-G (1): Investigate development of objective land use and siting review 
criteria. 
Goal 5: To maintain and enhance community livability in Medford by promoting the aesthetic quality 
of the urban environment. 
Policy 5-A: The City of Medford shall recognize trees as valuable amenities that contribute to the 
livability of our city through the proper selection, placement, preservation and maintenance of trees 
along our streets, in open spaces, and in parks. 
Implementation 5-A (1): Develop a tree protection ordinance for adoption by the City Council. 
Implementation 5-A (2): Develop a street tree ordinance for adoption by the City Council. 
Implementation 5-A (3): Provide a mechanism for a tree recognition program. 
Policy 5-B: The City of Medford shall require the provision and continued maintenance of 
appropriate landscaping in conjunction with new development. 
Policy 5-C: The City of Medford shall encourage the establishment of public art in parks, on public 
grounds, and in public buildings. 
Implementation 5-C (1): Investigate mechanisms for displaying art in public places. 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 34 
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 
WORKS CITED: 
Following is a list of documents that are referred to within this Parks Element. They are listed in the 
order that they appear in the Parks Element. These documents are available online at the website 
indicated. In addition, a copy is available at the City of Medford Planning Department, City Hall 
Lausmann Annex, 200 South Ivy Street, 2nd Floor, Medford, OR 97501. 
1. Joint Powers Agreement with Jackson County Regarding Maintenance of the Bear Creek 
Greenway Path within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (www.ci.medford.or.us/ 
Page,asp?NavID=2365) 
2. Bear Creek Master Plan (www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1690) 
3. HMT Complex, Field One "Artificial Surface" Usage Comparison (www.ci.medford.or.us/ 
Page.asp?NavID=2365) 
4. 2010 Parks & Recreation Artificial Turf Comparison to Natural Grass Fields 
(www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavID=2365) < 
Public Art Selection and Acquisition Policy (www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=2121) 
25 Year Project List Adopted 1/19/06 (can be found in the 2006 Parks and Recreation System 
Development Charges Methodology Update - www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavID-2365) 
2009 Updated Project List (can be found in the January 2009 Parks and Recreation System 
Development Charges Methodology Update - see #16 below) 
8. Prescott Park Management Plan (www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavTD=2365) 
9. Prescott Park Management Plan - 2008 Update (www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavID=2365) 
10. Aquatic Facility Planning Study, ORW Architecture and Councilman Hunsaker 
(www.ci. medford.or.us/ Page. asp?Na\TD=2365) 
11. REMI Northwest Feasibility Study (www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavID=2365) 
12. Medford Transportation System Plan (www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=864) 
13. Southeast Plan (www.cLmedford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1691) 
14. Riparian Area Inventory and Assessment (www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=870) 
15. January 2009 Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update 
(www.ci.medford.or.us/ Page.asp?NavID=2365) 
Revised Draft 10/15/10 35 




PROPOSED TAXLOTS ADDITION TO PARKS SCHOOLS GLUP - CP-10-001/GLUP-10-002 
August 30, 2010 
CURRENT PROPOSED 
GLUP GLUP 
MAP NAME OF PARK/SCHOOL DESIGNA- DESIGNA-
ID FACILITY MAPLOT FEEOWNER ACRES TION TION 
1 E. Main Street Green n/a RIGHT OF WAY 0.27 n/a PS 
2 Delta Waters School Park 371W081400 MEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT 549C 19.75 UR PS 
3 Bear Creek Greenway 371W19BB3300 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.13 CM PS 
4 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park 371W20BD2101 CITY OF MEDFORD 5.83 UH PS 
5 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park 371W20BD2200 CITY OF MEDFORD 4.29 UR PS 
6 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BA1101 MEDFORD CITY OF 2.20 UH PS 
7 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BA1200 MEDFORD CITY OF 1.11 UR PS 
8 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BA1300 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.81 UR PS 
9 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BA502 MEDFORD CITY OF 2.02 UH PS 
10 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BA503 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.48 UH PS 
11 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BB2803 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.62 UH PS 
12 E. McAndrews Pathway 371W21BB2804 MEDFORD CITY OF 3.19 UH PS 
13 Oregon Hills Park 371W22216 MEDFORD CITY OF 14.91 UR PS 
14 Summerfield Park 371W27BC4000 MEDFORD CITY OF 1.56 UR PS 
15 Ruhl Park 371W29AB9400 MEDFORD CITY OF 1.22 UR PS 
16 IOOF Eastwood Historic Cemetary 371W29C1800 MEDFORD CITY OF 19.32 UR PS 
17 Vogel Plaza 371W30BC5500 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.24 CC PS 
18 Bear Creek Greenway 371W30BD5100 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.22 CC PS 
19 Bear Creek Greenway 371W30BD6500 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.10 CC PS 
20 Bear Creek Park 371W30DB1700 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.18 UH PS 
21 Bear Creek Park 371W30DB3100 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.13 SC PS 
22 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32B3602 JACKSON COUNTY 1.31 UR PS 
23 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA2501 JACKSON COUNTY 0.46 UR PS 
24 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA2701 JACKSON COUNTY 0.39 UR PS 
25 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA3001 JACKSON COUNTY 1.55 UR PS 
( \ -Vh 
CP -10 -601 /&UXP -10-00 Z. 
PROPOSED TAXLOTS ADDITION TO PARKS SCHOOLS GLUP - CP-10-001/GLUP-10-002 
August 30, 2010 
CURRENT PROPOSED 
GLUP GLUP 
NAME OF PARK/SCHOOL DESIGNA- DESIGNA-
ID FACILITY MAPLOT FEEOWNER ACRES TION TION 
26 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA3401 JACKSON COUNTY 0.20 CM PS 
27 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA3500 JACKSON COUNTY 0.57 CM PS 
28 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32BA3600 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.47 CM PS 
29 Bear Creek Greenway 371W32D606 JACKSON COUNTY 5.73 UR PS 
30 Bear Creek Greenway 372W12C805 JACKSON COUNTY COURT HOUSE 0.47 UR PS 
31 Table Rock Park 372W12D1001 CITY OF MEDFORD 2.25 Gl PS 
32 Table Rock Park 372W12D1002 CITY OF MEDFORD 4.39 Gl PS 
33 Bear Creek Greenway 372W12D5100 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.81 Gl PS 
34 Howard School Park 372W13BC1601 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.38 UR PS 
35 Bear Creek Greenway 372W24AD8200 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.73 CM PS 
36 Santo Community Center 372W24CC3100 MEDFORD CITY OF 3.80 UR PS 
37 Court St. Beautification Area 372W24DB2200 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.30 CM PS 
38 Alba Park 372W25AD11900 MEDFORD CITY OF 1.49 CC PS 
39 Mayor's Fountain 372W25DA3500 MEDFORD CITY OF 0.29 CC PS 
40 Lewis Park 372W26DA2000 MEDFORD CITY OF 8.14 UH PS 
41 US Cellular Community Park 381W04201 CITY OF MEDFORD 3.87 CM PS 
42 Bear Creek Greenway 381W04202 JACKSON COUNTY 1.19 CM PS 
43 Bear Creek Greenway 381W04301 JACKSON COUNTY 57.82 CM PS 
44 Bear Creek Greenway 381W04C100 JACKSON COUNTY 11.28 CM PS 
45 US Cellular Community Park 381W04C200 CITY OF MEDFORD 5.16 UR PS 
46 US Cellular Community Park 381W05106 CITY OF MEDFORD 123.55 CM PS 
47 US Cellular Community Park 381W05107 CITY OF MEDFORD 1.29 CM PS 
48 Bear Creek Greenway 381W05601 JACKSON COUNTY 15.99 CM PS 
49 US Cellular Community Park 381W05A100 CITY OF MEDFORD 1.00 CM PS 
50 US Cellular Community Park 381W05A1100 CITY OF MEDFORD 0.63 CM PS 
51 US Cellular Community Park 381W05A200 CITY OF MEDFORD 2.64 CM PS 
TOTAL ACRES = 333.45 

Page 1 of 2 
Praline M. McCormack 
From: Moore, Ed W [ed.w.moore@state.or.us] 
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 10:34 AM 
To: Praline M. McCormack 
Cc: Punton, Amanda; Ed Moore 
Subject: CP-10-001 and GLUP-10-002, DLCD PAPA 016-10 
Praline, 
As we discussed on the phone, I have reviewed the above PAPA for the Medford Comprehensive Plan to update 
the parks and recreation portion of the Public Facilities Element to incorporate the 2006 Parks, Recreation and 
Leisure Services Plan (PRLSP). I t is my understanding that the PRLSP was approved by the Medford Parks and 
Recreation Commission back in 2006 and forwarded to City Council for adoption. This PAPA represents the 
process through which the City Council will consider adopting the PRLSP and incorporating its recommendations 
into the City's comprehensive plan. 
After reviewing the material provided with the proposed PAPA submittal to the department against the currently 
adopted Parks and Recreation Section of the Public Facilities Element of the Medford Comprehensive Plan, the 
Department has several concerns with the proposal that need to be addressed: 
1. The PRLSP includes parks and trails that are located outside of the City's UGB and outside the existing 
Comprehensive Plan planning area. Is it the City's intent to expand the planning area of the comprehensive 
plan to include these facilities beyond the UGB? 
2. Since the PRLSP extends beyond the Medford UGB and appears to be outside the scope of the City/County 
Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA), how has Jackson County been involved in the adoption 
process to-date? Is the County going to co-adopt those aspects of the PRLSP into the County's 
comprehensive plan that are outside Medford's UGB and beyond the scope of the UGMA? DLCD has not 
received a proposed post acknowledgement plan amendment notice from Jackson County. Unless Jackson 
County co-adopts those portions of the PRLSP that are outside Medford's UGB, adoption of the PRLSP 
would violate Goal 2 which states that "Each plan and related implementation measure shall be 
coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units." 
3. Page 4 of the PRLSP identifies 2 standards for trail construction, but Figure 2 does not distinguish which 
trails are built to which standard. From the discussion in the PRLSP, one of the trail standards could be 
considered "urban" by design (10-foot paved) and the other "rural" (Mountain bike). Figure 2 needs to be 
amended to distinguish between trails that will be built to urban standards and those that will be built to 
rural standard. 
4. The PRLSP proposal provides urban level services outside the Medford UGB and states that it would be the 
City's intent in implementing the PRLSP and seek land outside the UGB for new park sites "where large 
parcels are not available or where land cost are prohibitive"(Page 11). In fact, Figure 3 shows proposed 
community park in Prescott Park (outside the UGB on resource zoned land) and a future neighborhood 
park in Chrissy Park, also located outside the UGB. The provision of parks to serve urban population must 
be provided within the Medford UGB to be consistent with Goal 14. In order to implement the 
recommendations of the PRLSP for Prescott and Chrissy parks, the UGB will need to be expanded to bring 
them inside the UGB. 
Aside from the above, the proposed PRLSP appears to be very comprehensive in its dealing with the park, 
recreation and leisure services needs of Medford. Please place this e-mail in the record of all proceedings for this 
plan amendment. Please feel free to contact me should you need additional clarification regarding our concerns. 
Respectfully, 
Ù/'Ù ; «'SA»»-«!» <•---•-- _ 
10/11/2010 
Fd 
Ed Moore, AICP | Regional Representative 
Community Services Division 
Dept. Land Conservation and Development 
South Willamette Valley Office 
644 A Street | Springfield, OR 97478 
Southern Oregon Office 
155 N First Street | Central Point, OR 97502 
Voice: 971.239.9453 | Fax: 541.726.2509 
ed.w.moore@state.or.us | www.oreqon.gov/LCD/ 
10/11/2010 
MINUTES - Planning Commission Meeting September 9, 2010 
Motion: Forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of TF-10-052 per the 
Revised Staff Report dated September 2, 2010, including Exhibits A through E. 
Moved by: Commissioner Shean Seconded by: Commissioner Potter 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 8 - 0 
50.4 CP-10-001/CP-10-002 Consideration of a Class "A" Major Legislative Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment proposal to replace the Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services section of the Public 
Facilities Element, adopt the 2006 Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Plan into the 
Comprehensive Plan by reference, amend the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) Map by adding new 
Parks/Schools, apply the Greenway designation to existing Riparian Corridors, and correct mapping 
errors by removing the Parks/Schools designation from several privately-owned parcels. City of 
Medford, Applicant 
Proline McCormack, Planner II, presented a staff report. There were two additional handouts, a letter received 
on September 3, 2010, from DLCD and a memo from Pete Young, City of Medford Parks Department. Staff 
recommended forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council. 
Commissioner McFadden asked what property owners would have to do to if they wanted to change their 
GLUP designation in the future. Ms. McCormack responded that it would require a Comprehensive Plan Map 
Amendment to change the designation. 
There was discussion on amending the UGB to include Chrissy Park and Prescott Park. Ms. Petrou reported 
that they would not propose a UGB amendment just for the parks; the intent is that when the UGB amendment 
is done it will include the parks. There was discussion on the concerns that it could hold up the UGB 
amendment. Ms. Petrou noted that staff will discuss the issue with the new local DLCD representative. 
Commissioner Tull asked why remove the parks designation on the proposed parcels. Ms. McCormack 
responded that the parcels are not parks or schools. It is a correction to a mapping error. Commissioner Tull 
asked if it was related to developing Bear Creek. Ms. McCormack responded that it was not. 
Commissioner McFadden indicated that he has seen different language for trails and paths scattered 
throughout the Land Development Code. He would like them to be gathered into a more concise location in the 
code. 
Pete Young, Parks and Recreation Department, commended Ms. McCormack for her work on the amendment. 
The public hearing was opened and no testimony was given. The public hearing was closed. 
Commissioner Tull commented that Ms. McCormack spoke to the issues raised in DLCD's letter. 
Motion: Forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for approval of CP-10-001 & GLUP-10-
002, as per the Staff Report dated August 31, 2010, including Exhibits A through P with the following 
changes: 1) Amend figures 2 and 3 to remove trails that are not located in proposed Urban Reserve 
areas; 2) Correct references to trails and paths as necessary; and 3) Add language regarding trail and 
path standards. 
Moved by: Commissioner Tull Seconded by: Commissioner Shean 
Commissioner Jackie conveyed that Chrissy Park, Prescott Park, and any other pathway, greenway, or other 
park amenity can be included on the Parks Plan in spite of the fact they are not in the City or the UGB with the 
notation that they are on the Parks Plan and will become city parks to the extent they are ultimately brought into 
the UGB and the City. Ms. Petrou responded that they would be talking to the loGaFbOCPSSBQB^ee what it 
takes to get this acknowledged. EXHIBIT #,.,. y . _ 
MINUTES - Planning Commission Meeting September 9, 2010 
Commissioner Locke indicated that he was very concerned that the City does not have an eradication policy in 
place for parasitic plants, especially Mistletoe. Infestations are concentrated primarily among established oak 
trees, creating on-going destruction of the host trees. It is short-sighted to the point of being shameful that the 
City is not actively engaged in protecting its legacy oaks. 
Commissioner Tull asked why we should not initiate a UGB expansion for only Chrissy and Prescott Parks. Ms. 
Petrou noted that right now it was not something that was important enough to take staff away from their 
current tasks. Commissioner Nelson clarified that the motion was to include Ms. McCormack's changes. 
Roll Call Vote: Motion passed, 9 - 0 
60. Report of Citizens Planning Advisory Committee. None 
70. Report of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission. 
70.1 Commissioner Entenmann reported that the Commission approved the Great Harvest Bakery 
application at the meeting of September 3, 2010. 
80. Report of the Joint Transportation Subcommittee. None 
90. Report of the Southeast Plan Implementation Advisory Committee. 
90.1 Commissioner Tull reported that the Committee met on September 8, 2010, and discussed further 
planning done for Master Plan development commercial core area, particularly about how to facilitate 
the planning for the Riparian Area, the north portion of the commercial core, and how to resolve some 
of the property owner issues as it presently stands. 
100. Report of the Planning Department. 
100.1 Bianca Petrou reported that Staff spoke to the City Council about the Housing Element during a recent 
study session. It is scheduled for a public hearing on October 7, 2010. At the last City Council meeting, 
the property line adjustment code amendment was approved, along with the Meadows Lane UGB 
mapping correction. Ms. Petrou reported that the study session scheduled for Monday, September 13 
has been cancelled. She noted that the terms for Commissioners Hokanson, Nelson, and Tull will 
expire this January. They will receive a letter from the City Manager's office this month. An open house 
on the Riparian Corridor will be held on Tuesday September 21, 2010, at the Santo Center. 
Commissioner Tull asked if there was dialogue between Jackson County and the City on street 
development. Ms. Petrou responded that there were ongoing discussions, and they are working toward 
not having it hold up the Regional Problem Solving process. 
110. Messages and Papers from Chair of Planning Commission. None 
120. Remarks from the City Attorney. None 
130. Propositions and Remarks from the Commission. 
130.1 
140. Adjournment. 
140.1 The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. The proceedings of this meeting were digitally recorded and 
are filed in the City Recorder's office. 
Submitted by: 
Kristy Grieve 
Recording Secretary 
Approved: September 23, 2010 
4