Florence Planning Commission
P.O. Box 340
Florence, Oregon 97439

RE: Resolution 01-01-09-03
Annexation of 77.69 acres located east of Florentine Estates and north of the City owned
property containing the Water Treatment Facilities
Florentine

Dear Commissioners:

The Commission should keep in mind that it is not the responsibility of the City, or the Planning
Staff, to prepare and present evidence which would justify a requested annexation or rezoning.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all pertinent evidence and information is delivered to the Planning Commission.  With that in mind, we offer the following objections to this proposed annexation.

Who is the Actual Applicant?  The Staff Report indicates that the applicant is: Allan J. Kuebler and Florentine Estates, although the documentation in the file does not indicate what, if any ownership, interest Florentine Estates may have in this parcel.  Mr. Del Phelps (as an individual, not in any representative capacity) is listed as a contact, but nowhere in the documentation is there an indication that Florentine Estates has any legal interest in this parcel.

Request for Continuance - We are requesting a continuance of this hearing for the reasons set out below.  As the Commission is aware, every time a hearing is continued, it results in additional cost to the City.   In many instances, continuations can be prevented by ensuring adherence to regulations, such as adequate notice to the public - something that is essentially a clerical undertaking.  We are not unmindful of the inadequate staffing levels in the Planning Department, and assume that many of the errors and omissions indicated in these comments stem primarily from the staff’s overloaded schedules.  We believe that a recommendation from the Planning Commission for additional funding for the Planning Department would be the most efficient means of preventing these types of problems in the future.

Notice Requirements - The Notice of Public Hearing stated, “A copy of the staff report will be available at least 7 days prior to the hearing.”  The staff report was not available to the public until the afternoon of January 5, only 4-1/2 days before the hearing.  The hearing record should be held open to allow sufficient time for public comment.  Also see public agency notice deficiencies detailed below.

Cost to Existing Residents of Florence - See attached Cost Analysis.  The attached Cost Analysis can be viewed in two ways: It either represents a “cost” to the existing taxpayers, or a “subsidy” to the developer.  Either way, these costs come out of our pockets, over and above any possible SDCs or taxes to be paid by the annexation petitioners/developers, a total of  $13,858,840 for all three annexations.  The cost of this annexation alone is $5,474,336.  Each Commissioner should carefully review the attached Cost Analysis before any decisions are made.  Each Commissioner needs to be aware of just how much their decisions may cost - or save - the City taxpayers.

Not mentioned in the Staff Report is the cost to the City of withdrawing this parcel from Heceta Water District.  The City must pay for a portion of the District’s outstanding debt service at the time of annexation.

Wetlands - A comment about the applicant’s Wetland Delineation Report.  The actual field
investigation was conducted from September 1995 to December 1995.  While Florence did
experience an average rainfall that season, 110", it was preceded by 10 years of drought, where the annual rainfall was never above 75 inches.  The groundwater tables were extremely low that year due to the long term effects of the drought.  Existing vegetation is an integral part of any wetland delineation, and it can be assumed that a goodly portion of the normally present wetland vegetation indicator species had not had time to rejuvenate from the 10 year drought at the time the investigation was conducted, resulting in a report which would indicate less evidence of wetlands than would normally be expected in this area.

There also appears to be a discrepancy between the legal description of the parcels proposed for annexation and that indicated in the Wetland Report.  (See 8/6/96 Letter from Division of State Lands)

The City should not rely on other State agencies to protect the wetlands in this area, as the
applicant’s wetland consultant reports, “Since no disturbance of any identified wetlands is planned no permit application will be filed.” (Page 3)

Prior Staff Reports - In 1996, Community Development Director John Theilacker informed
applicant that staff could not support his request for annexation for numerous reasons, primarily because the proposal could not comply with the 1988 Comprehensive Plan criteria.  Only after a subsequent meeting with City Manager Hobson and Public Works Director Lanfear did Mr. Theilacker acquiesce to supporting the annexation request, with certain conditions.  Copies of those two letters are attached.

Inconsistent Documentation - Tax statements contained in the City’s files indicate that in 1996, Lot 2201 consists of 112.04 acres; Lot 100 is 37.69 acres, for a total of 149.73 acres.  The Staff Report indicates that Lots 100 and 2201 total 77.69 acres.  The “reaffirmed” Petition for Annexation contains exactly the same legal description for Lot 100 and Lot 2201 as did the original 1996 petition for annexation of 160 acres.  The legal description supplied for Lot 2201 is incomplete, and merely states “portion of tax lot 2201 ..." without specifying which portion, what size, what location, etc.  The Commission should clarify exactly which lots, and what acreage they are considering for adoption.

The proposed zoning to Single Family Residential, and annexation must meet certain criteria:

Statewide Land Use Goal 11 - Public 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.

This standard requires the city to determine the need for adequate water supply facilities based on development plans and population projections, and to assure that the necessary facilities and services are available in advance of or concurrent with development.  (See Land Use Board of Appeals case 22 Or LUBA 369 (1991), Burghardt v. City of Molalla).  The showing of the availability of adequate services must be definitive, not merely feasible.  (See Land Use Board of Appeals case 22 Or LUBA 742 (1992), Southwood Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Philomouth).

The City’s Water Facilities Plan is merely feasible, not definitive.  Since the adoption of the Plan, the circumstances surrounding water supply have changed dramatically, and several alternative plans for location and number of wells have been put forth by the Florence Public Works Department.  No definitive plan has been adopted by the City.  No definitive resolution to the Clear Lake water supply problem has been found.  The most recent information available to the Planning Commission is that the County will be limiting Heceta Water District’s ability to withdraw water from Clear Lake to 1 mgd total.  The District presumably will provide customers inside the district boundaries with water before determining the amount available to sell to the City.  The City does not have an agreement with the District about provision of water to properties which are annexed to the City, and therefore the responsibility for water  will lie with the City.  The City cannot ensure that there is (or will be) sufficient water for all the annexations that are being proposed on this date.

Statewide Land Use Goal 14 - Urbanization.  Conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of:

     1.   Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services

A. Notice.   The City has not provided sufficient notice to affected agencies. The staff report states: “Affected agencies were also noticed.”  As of January 4, 2001, the only agencies which had received notice were: Lane County Boundary Commission, Lane County Land Management and Department of Land Conservation and Development.  Most of the pertinent government entities which should have received notice of this annexation hearing did not receive those notices until some time after January 4, if at all.  It has long been the custom of the City to notify affected public utilities and agencies and request their input so that the Planning Commission can have all information needed to make their decisions.  Although contrary to City policy, some agencies which were not notified as of January 4, 2001 include: Florence Public Works Department, Florence Police Department, Siuslaw Rural Fire Department, Central Lincoln PUD, Qwest Telephone, Heceta Water District, Siuslaw School District, Falcon Cable, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Soil and Water Conservation Service, US Corps of Engineers, Lane County Transportation, Lane County Public Works, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Transportation and US Environmental Protection Agency (Sole Source Aquifer Designation).

It is exceedingly difficult for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision when all
affected public utilities have not had adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed annexation.  The hearing record should be held open until all affected agencies have received notice and have had adequate time to respond.

B. Water.  The City does not have sufficient water capacity to serve the proposed
annexation.  “The issue to be addressed at the time of annexation is whether these utility services have capacity to serve the proposed annexation.” (City Staff Report, 1/9/01, page 2)

While it would be more convenient to view this proposed annexation in isolation, the Commission must view this in the full context of the other two requests for annexation on the agenda tonight.  The combined effect of the addition of 170 acres to the City cannot be ignored.

City has determined that it is in the city’s best interest to develop groundwater sources in order to meet future water needs.  The City’s Water Facilities Plan states that IF the existing plant facilities are “optimized”, (at a cost of at least $371,000) they could reliably produce 2.5 mgd.  The City has not instituted these “optimization” procedures, and there is no evidence that the City wells can reliably produce 2.5 mgd today.

Even if the Commission could rely on the reported “average” production indicated in the Staff
Report of 2.2 mgd by existing City wells, it must be remembered:

1.  At least 10% of that production is lost to “unmetered” use;
2.  A certain percentage must be used to backwash the filters,
3.  Well production does not equate to usable water production,
4.  Production levels from dunal wells are notoriously unreliable, and
5.   Dunal wells ultimately produce less water over time, and have a relatively short lifespan.

The City’s Water Facilities Plan prepared by Brown and Caldwell states: “The facility produces an average of 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) with a peak capacity of 1.8 mgd.”

 The Staff Report indicates that our current population of 6,865 could be expected to create a demand for 1.29 mgd, and gives the impression that the City can produce 2.2 mgd, and purchase 1 mgd from Heceta.  This narrative might lead one to conclude that the City has the ability to provide 3.2 mgd to its residents.   These figures and calculations are misleading, overly simplistic, and ignore many factors.   Just in basic terms, if the current City population needs 1.29 mgd, and the wells can produces 2.2 mgd, then why would the City need to purchase .5 mgd from Heceta Water District?

A more realistic review of the City’s water capacity would include the following.  During summer months, the City regularly purchases in excess of .5 mgd from Heceta.  If the City’s peak capacity is 1.8 mgd, and the maximum which can be purchased from Heceta is 1.0 mgd, then the maximum peak capacity is 2.8 mgd.  Again, that figure must be adjusted to allow for “unmetered” use (10%).  (Note, the Florence Water Facilities Plan (WFP) states that the City’s actual “unmetered” water use was 15.1% in the past.  Assumptions used in the WFP were 10%. It is entirely possible that the 10% figure is overly optimistic considering the age and condition of Florence’s water mains, and a higher number should be used when calculating water needs.) It appears that an optimistic level of usable water production available to the City right now is about 2.5 mgd.  A quick calculation (see attached Water Needs Analysis) can show the inadequacy of the existing system if these annexations are approved:

Estimated existing City water production              2.50 mgd
Estimated need after annexations                     -   2.95 mgd
           Water capacity shortfall                           (  .45 mgd)

The WFP  also states that in order to build a treatment capacity of 3.0 mgd, the City would have to expand the plant and add three more wells, at a cost to taxpayers of at least $1,065,000.  Again, it should be noted that “treatment capacity” does not equate to usable water produced.  A “3.0 mgd plant” cannot produce 3.0 mgd of usable water to its customers.  A certain amount of the water will be lost to “unmetered” uses, and a certain amount must be retained in the system for backflushing, storage, etc.  A 3.0 mgd treatment capacity plant will not provide enough water for the proposed annexations.

The next step up in production is detailed in the WFP.   In order for the City to provide 4.7 mgd from wells, it would need to have at least 14 wells and spend over $11 million.  There is no evidence that the City has even seriously contemplated, much less approved, the expenditure of over $11 million for a 4.7 mgd facility.

The Staff Report states that the projected completion date for the new wells and plant expansion is “early 2002".  Unfortunately, time and funding often interfere with projected completion dates, and the 2001 completion date is speculative, at best.   The report does not state what the expected capacity of the “new wells and filters” will be in 2002.

The City does not currently have an agreement for withdrawal from Heceta Water District, which  therefore requires that the annexed area be withdrawn from Heceta Water District upon annexation, and water be provided by the City. The report does not comment on what this would cost, or entail, or if it is even possible given the structure and pressure requirements of the City’s water distribution system.  In addition, in 1991, a letter from Heceta Water District indicates there may be problems with the City’s ability to provide sufficient water pressure absent an agreement with Heceta.  This issue has not been addressed by the Staff Report.

C.   Sewer Facilities - The Staff Report has not adequately considered the future implications of the cost to existing residents.  While the sewer system reportedly currently has the capacity to serve 12,500, it should be kept in mind that the addition of the three annexations tonight effectively represent an increase in the City population of over 18%.  Looked at another way, this means that right now, the population inside city limits represents about 55% of the capacity of the sewage treatment plant.  The annexations will increase that to 65% - leaving us with only 35% of the capacity of our new plant left available for future growth.  Once we use up that 35%, we will have to pay for another expensive upgrade to the
sewage treatment plant.

D.   Stormwater Management Facilities - The Staff Report has not addressed the potential threat to the North Florence Dunal Aquifer, a federally protected aquifer. The Staff Report has not addressed the added potential of groundwater contamination of not only the existing City well fields, but the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  The Stormwater Management Plan does deals only with surface water, not groundwater.  Some possible contaminants which would enter the groundwater flow (directly upstream from the City wellfields): Accidental or intentional spills of pesticides, herbicides, motor oil, gasoline, pet wastes, paint and VOCs, etc.  The current laws do not require testing of drinking water for all possible (and known) contaminants from urban development.  The cost of “clean up” of the City’s well field in the case of contamination has not been addressed.

The applicant’s 1996 Groundwater Stormwater Analysis regarding the effect of development on the City’s well field states: “... when the pumps are in operation it can be expected that some of the groundwater from this area will be captured by the well field.  The study area is thus “tributary” to the City of Florence well field.”  And “When the well field is in operation some portion, though probably not all, of the groundwater beneath the expansion area will be induced to flow toward the well field by the drawdown of the pumping wells.  According to the measured ground water contours (which dictate groundwater gradients and flow directions), ground water from north of 35th Street along Highway 101 will flow to the Florence well field.”  It should be noted that the 1996 researchers were not aware of the City’s current plans to put even more wells in the well field, which will have an even greater “drawdown” effect on the groundwater flow direction.

The applicants Stormwater Analysis states: “The potential for the accidental or illegal dumping of hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials can never be fully addressed in stormwater management:  the ways which these releases occur and the range of constituents potentially involved is so great compared to their frequency of occurrence, that no cost effective method could hope to address them all.”

E.   Streets and Sidewalks - No notice to ODOT. Oregon Department of Transportation has not received notice of, or adequate opportunity to comment on, this annexation request.  No decisions should be made until this agency has had sufficient time to comment.

Although mentioned in the Staff Report for the Morales annexation, this staff report fails to discuss the impact on the proposed Spruce Street extension.

F.   Fire Protection - No notice to affected agencies. The Siuslaw Rural Fire Protection District has not received notice of, or adequate opportunity to comment on, this annexation request.  When consulted in 1996 about this application, the SRFPD stated they wished to be consulted re: loss of this area from their tax base.   No decisions should be made until this agency has had sufficient time to comment.  Also, see attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

G.   Power and Communications - No notice to affected agencies. Neither the Central Lincoln PUD, local cable company, or local telephone company has received notice of, or adequate opportunity to comment on, this annexation request.  No decisions should be
made until these agencies have had sufficient time to comment.  Also, see attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

H.   Police Protection - No notice to affected agencies. The Florence Police Department has not received notice of, or adequate opportunity to comment on, this annexation request.  No decisions should be made until this agency has had sufficient time to comment.  Also, see attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

This Staff Report clearly indicates that the City cannot provide adequate police protection at this time, other than “a very limited level of preventive law enforcement” and “emergency services.”

2.   Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place.  While the Staff Reports that there are “several ways to address this criterion”, no conclusion or finding that this annexation meets this criteria  is offered.  The report also fails to discuss the dramatic devaluation of an existing buildable lot when the “pool” of buildable lots is increased (from 124 lots currently) by adding 560 more potential lots.

The Staff Report states that an examination of the City map illustrates the need for additional land for single family residential development.  Staff appears to be confused between a need for choices of housing types for city residents and opportunities for developers, not necessarily the same thing.  What staff is trying to illustrate is their perceived need for more developable land - land which can be purchased in large chunks, subdivided and sold off at a tidy profit.  There is no stated need in the Comprehensive Plan (either the 1988 or proposed new plan) for development opportunities.  The need, if any, which must be addressed is for housing choices, not development opportunities. In that respect, Florence has sufficient residential land to provide for housing through development (124 empty lots) and development or re-development of existing underutilized residential parcels.     In fact, the staff developed the data for, and this Planning Commission approved, the statement in the new Comp Plan:  “... a good supply of vacant lots and unbuilt phases of approved residential subdivisions exist within the city.” (5/5/2000 Draft, page 3)

3.   LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan. This rezoning does not comply with LCDC goals or the applicable 1988 Comprehensive Plan.  The Staff Report clearly states: “The Urban Service Area section of the Plan was written to control, as
much as possible, development in the Urban Service Area outside the City limits in a way which allowed redevelopment to city standards upon annexation, and which prevented density of development requiring extension of sewer service to areas of failing septic systems.”  Regardless of whether the staff believe the 1988 Plan to be outdated, it is the ruling authority in this instance, and  the annexation request must comply with the existing standards as set out in the 1988 Comp Plan.  If the petitioner wishes their application to be required to conform with the more “updated” version of the Comprehensive Plan, they must wait until it is formally adopted and acknowledged, and then re-apply.

The Staff Report states that” Objective 4 directs the City to encourage development to occur within the city limits with controlled outward growth.”  Once again, the staff confuses the need for housing with the need for development opportunities.  Adding over 170 acres of virtually vacant residential land to the existing residential base is not encouraging development within the city limits.

The Staff Report states that “Policy 5 states that medium to high density development shall be
allowed only if adequate water and sewer capacity is available and the proposed development meets all other criteria.”  Sufficient water capacity is not available at this time, and there is no evidence showing when it will be available.

For these reasons, this annexation request should be denied.

Zane Ziemer, President

Attachments:
1996 Tax Statements (2)
1996/2000 Petition for Annexation
8/12/96 Letter from John Theilacker
8/30/96 Letter from John Theilacker
8/6/96 Letter from Division of State Lands
4/15/91 Letter from Heceta Water District
Cost Analysis - Proposed Annexations
Water Needs Analysis - Proposed Annexations
Myths & Facts About Oregon’s Urban Growth Boundaries
The Cost of Growth in Oregon: 1998 Report