Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the East Ravine Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends addendum to East Ravine Park and Trail master plan, removes tentative line about Site G
Summary
The Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission voted to recommend staff’s proposed addendum to the East Ravine Park and Trail master plan, prioritizing a lakeside community park and trail connectivity, and approved an amendment removing tentative language about Site G.
Get email alerts on the East Ravine Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission voted to recommend that city council adopt staff’s proposed addendum to the East Ravine Park and Trail master plan, prioritizing a lakeside community park, trail connections and smaller neighborhood parks, and approved an amendment removing tentative language about Site G.
The addendum recommendation was moved by Commissioner Brown and seconded; the commission then voted in favor. Commissioners also amended the recommendation to remove the plan’s last sentence about Site G so the final addendum retains site G but omits the sentence that suggested shrinking it pending development.
The addendum directs council-level prioritization of a community park around Vandenberg Lake (Site A/B) and greater emphasis on trail connectivity that would allow smaller neighborhood parks (sites E and F) to supplement, rather than replace, the community park. Zach, parks staff, told the commission: "plan for parks within that 10 minute walk, and then you can always work back from there depending on how the official plan develops." He also noted corrections to the packet (one instance listed a "10 mile" walk; staff will correct that to "10 minute").
Commission discussion focused on prioritization, safe pedestrian crossings and the tradeoff between trail connections and land-acquisition costs. Commissioner Brown said removing or downgrading the western trail segment and relying on sidewalks could save land-acquisition costs, but several commissioners stressed that any reduction in neighborhood-park size depends on "safe crossings" to ensure residents can reach the community park. Zach confirmed staff had included a natural resources inventory and a land-use response from the community development director; staff reported there is currently no intent from the public school district to include school property in the development area.
On Site E (near Keats Avenue) staff explained the elevated location is likely to host a water tower and that a small neighborhood park around the tower could be an efficient use of the land, with minimal additional acquisition required. On Site F staff described a low-priority mini-park or possible homeowners-association park that could act as a trail hub where east-west trails converge. Staff said Site G, south of Eightieth Street, was included to serve a potentially segregated neighborhood but acknowledged vehicle and County Road 19 crossings would be an access obstacle.
The commission debated whether to finalize its recommendation at the meeting because only four commissioners were present and the commission will not meet in July; Commissioners expressed a preference to provide council with prioritization guidance now rather than delay until August. Following discussion, Brown moved to "follow staff recommendation and add the language as an addendum to the East Ravine Park And Trails master plan as outlined, correspondence from 03/10/2025 as Zac proposed and just summarized for us." The motion passed after an amendment to remove the last sentence about Site G.
The commission’s recommendation is advisory; council will consider the addendum and any final decisions on park acquisition, design and budget. Staff said the final addendum and corrected packet language will be provided to council as the commission’s preferred prioritization.
Less critical details: commissioners asked for coordination with public safety on crossings and flagged the possibility that private developments (for example, a retirement community with its own courts) could change neighborhood needs. Staff noted many specifics depend on future development patterns and the city’s comprehensive plan.

