O'DONNELL Heather <br />Fro : RMMilks@aol.com <br />Serum Monday, July 06, 2015 4:25 PM <br />Tom O'DONNELL Heather M <br />Cc: juclark@peacehealth.org <br />Subject: Written Statement for Public Hearing on Request for Metro Plan Amendment Change <br />Ms. O'Donnell: <br />My name is Robert R. Milks. My address is 388 Dellwood Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405. 1 am currently the Chairman of <br />the Board of the Treehouse PUD Homeowners Association. I am also on the mailing lists for the Public Hearing <br />concerning Rest Haven Memorial Park's request to amend the Metro Plan to change land use designation(s) and for <br />invitations to attend Neighborhood-Applicant (Rest Haven Memorial Park) Meetings. <br />First, I would like to point out two problems I have with the "Notice of Public Hearing" that I received from the City of <br />Eugene ("City"). <br />The first problem is the omission of the reason for Rest Haven Memorial Park's ("Applicant") request for a Metro Plan <br />Amendment to change their current land use designation(s). The reason for the Applicant's request is clearly stated in his <br />January 16, 2015, application to the City: <br />"The property owner is seeking long-term productive uses for the portions of the subject property not currently <br />developed or platted with cemetery plots. Consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood context, the property <br />owner submits this application to enable those areas of the subject property to be developed for residential use." <br />By omitting this stated reason in the "Notice of Public Hearing", the City does not present a linkage between the Metro <br />Plan Amendment requested by the Applicant and the Applicant's stated intention to develop the subject property for <br />residential use. I believe this is critical information for homeowners in the affected area Thus, the City is not being <br />transparent to homeowners adjacent to or in the vicinity of Rest Haven who received the "Notice of Public Hearing". By <br />not being transparent, the City is, at the very least, not in spirit with EC 9.7730 (3): Criteria for Approval of Plan <br />Amendment / Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The result of this non-transparency, I'm afraid, will be a diminished turnout at <br />the Public Hearing and homeowners not being informed. (see more on this issue below) <br />The second problem is the Internet address for gaining access to the Applicant's application materials at Eugene Planning <br />in the "Notice of Public Hearing" is no longer valid (http://ceapps.eugene- <br />or.gov/PDDONLINE/LandUse/ApplicationSearch). The Internet address should have been http.//pdd.eugene- <br />or.gov/landuse/applicationsearch. Even then, using the proper address did not get the user to the Planning Division's <br />webpage. I wonder how many older homeowners, who are not good with computers, did not get to the Planning Divisions <br />webpage to view the Applicant's application materials. <br />On January 14, 2015, 1 attended the Neighborhood-Applicant Meeting at Rest Haven Memorial Park (this is documented <br />in the Applicant's application materials). The stated reason for the meeting was to inform attendees about Rest Haven's <br />request for a Metro Plan Amendment to change their current land use designation(s). When questioned about the <br />reason(s) for their request, the presenters said the meeting was about the Metro Plan Amendment to change their current <br />land use designation(s), and the attendees should only focus on that topic. Once again, the presenters at the meeting <br />could have simply told the attendees: <br />"The property owner is seeking long-term productive uses for the portions of the subject property not currently developed <br />or platted with cemetery plots. Consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood context, the property owner <br />submits this application to enable those areas of the subject property to be developed for residential use." <br />Just like the City in the "Notice of Public Hearing", the presenters at the Neighborhood-Applicant Meeting did not present <br />a linkage between the Metro Plan Amendment requested by the Applicant and the Applicant's stated intention to develop <br />the subject property for residential use. Attendees were deprived of this critical information. The presenters <br />were not transparent to the attendees. By not being transparent, the presenters, at the very least, were not in spirit with <br />EC 9.7730 (3): Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment / Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. The result of this non- <br />PC Agenda - Page 31 <br />