Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

931 Lorane Highway Eugene, Oregon 97405 8 June 2003. Dennis M. Taylor, Eugene City Manager, 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Dear Mr. Taylor. Our property (tax lot 18-04-12-11-00600) is on the proposed Goal 5 inventory. We had been on the Metropolitan Natural Resources Study interested parties list since 2090, as is reflected on the 15 November 2002 listing (attachment 1). Since that time, however, we have been dropped off the list despite repeated requests to be kept infonned, which has severely hampered our efforts to participate in the process. The following describes some of our efforts to remain informed. . The first indication we had that the inventory adoption process was active again was when we received a notice for the Planning Commission hearing of 17 December 2002. We were unable to attend or properly prepare to comment at that time. On 27 January 2003, we contacted Associate Planner Ann Siegenthaler to request infonnation. We also requested to be kept infonned of developments. She suggested the issue may come before the City Council in February or March. In a follow-up email to Siegenthaler (attachment 2), we asked a number of questions and again indicated our interest in being involved in the process. We received no response. In a 3 February email to Senior Planner Neil Bjorklund (attachment 3), we requested a response to our questions and repeated our interest in being involved. In his response of the same date (attachment 4), Bjorklund acknowledged our desire to comment and infonned us of postponement of the City Council healing. Once again, in a 4 February email to Bjorklund (attachment 5), we restated our desire to comment. . On 7. April, we contacted Siegenthaler to find when the inventory process was to resume and received a retum message stating we must have received notice there was to be a Planning Commission work session on the next day. We did not receive notice (attachment 6). I again requested we be placed on the interested parties list and was told there w~s no record of earlier requests to be included. See attachment 7 for our 8 April response. . After we requested copies of the Planning Commission meeting minutes, we found out there had been FOUR WORK SESSIONS we missed. The 3 February meeting minutes indicate the Planning Commission on that date had reopened the record until 10 February. We were not told, even though we contacted Bjorklund on the same day and clearly stated we wanted to be involved. . According to the 10 February 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes, Commissioner Lawless stated communication with the publiC had been "woefUlly inadequate". According to the 17 March 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes, Deborah Jeffries commented the draft she had received was not on the web site and was difficult to find. We have had difficulty finding information via the web site as well. Jeffries further commented she agreed with an earlier speaker that the Planning Commission had not done an adequate job of gathering public input. On that date, the Planning Commission again reopened the record and kept it open until 28 March. We were not informed. . According to the 8 April 2003 Planning Commission meeting minutes, Commissioner Lawless stated more people whose properties would be affected should be contacted and provided a chance to submit data. According to the minutes, Siegenthaler commented "there were two categories of people, and one group sent letters and made calls and followed up on the process and the other comprised all the rest of the people who sent letters but did not follow up on them." She said staff did -a lot of coaching" with people who followed up on the process and directed them to the Significance criteria. We beg to differ. We tried very hard to get up to speed, but getting infonnation was an extremely frustrating exercise, as we tried to explain to Bjorklund in a 7 May emall (attachment 8). . A lot of the information regarding the Goal 5 inventory and the inventory process was extremely confusing. When the public notices for the City Council hearing and information sessions started RTTf\GfMENT ~ - 200~ lb~