March 13, 2001

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

RE:
Resolution 01-01-09-05
Amendment of 1998 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment of FCC Title 10
Zone Map Change
Deacon and Hilary Matthews

I. INTRODUCTION

  Citizens For Florence ("CFF"), an incorporated, not-for-profit, organization dedicated to maintaining the livability of the City of Florence and surrounding environs hereby submits the following written testimony in opposition to the proposed Florence Comprehensive Plan  ("FCP") amendment and zoning change as sought by applicant Deacon Matthews.

This testimony is submitted in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(b), which states in relevant
part that:  "[I]f the hearing authority grants a continuance.... [a]n opportunity shall be provided  at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence, arguments, or testimony."

In accordance with the Florence City Code (FCC) Section 10-1-3(B)(4), the Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed amendments to the FCP and Zoning Map  are consistent or inconsistent with and promote the objectives of the City's 1988  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.  The Planning Commission must also ensure that the application for the plan amendment and zone map change complies with the State Wide Land Use Goals ("Goals") and implementing regulations.  If there is not sufficient evidence or legal authority to support the proposed major amendments, then the applicant has not met his burden and the Planning Commission must not recommend the amendment as requested. As shown below, neither the applicant nor the planning staff have provided the necessary evidence to support the proposed amendment and zoning change.   Therefore, the Planning Commission should not recommend approval of the application at this time.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The proposed amendment to the FCP is major and therefore should be denied due to
applicant's failure to identify it as such and due to his conflict of interest as a member of the City's Citizens Advisory Committee.

The proposed FCP amendment would create an entirely new Limited Industrial/Commercial
designation and corresponding FCP map changes as well as new zoning district.   When applied to this site, it would transform what is currently identified as residential land in the FCP to an industrial site for concrete batch plants, excavators, and other heavy machinery/industry uses.  The loss of residential land and the adverse impact of industrial use on the City's and State's transportation, water, stormwater, electrical and wastewater facilities will likely result in significant impacts beyond the boundaries of the site.

Therefore, to label this proposed FCP amendment as anything other than major would be absurd. Yet, the application/petition is for a "minor change of zoning district boundaries and/or
comprehensive land use amendment."  (Emphasis added).   Not only is the application clearly
mislabeled, it fails to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with the FCP or
promotes the public interest as required under FCC 10-1-3(B)(4).  For this reason alone, the
application should be denied recommendation.

In addition, the FCP states that with respect to amendments to the FCP, "the City Council shall obtain the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Citizen Advisory Committee before taking action on a proposed major amendment."  The Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A to the February 13, 2001 Agenda for this proposal (and apparently the only "staff report" available) note that the applicant/land owner, Deacon Matthews, is a member of the same Citizen Advisory Committee that came up with the proposed new zoning designation and the same Committee that must recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council.  Since the applicant will presumably benefit financially if he succeeds in gaining approval of the proposed FCP and FCC amendments, his dual roles as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee and as applicant must be deemed an inherent conflict of interest.

B. The proposed amendment to the FCP is premature and in violation of the FCP because the
City has not annexed the subject property and it remains under the planning jurisdiction of Lane County.

Concurrent with the application for the FCP and zone map amendments, the applicant and other nearby landowners have applied for annexation and rezoning of the property to Single Family Residential.   The Staff Report for the annexation proposal states "...the applicants' intent is to eventually develop these site(s) consistent with the proposed Comp Plan designation of Limited Industrial/Commercial."

Chapter Eight of the FCP instructs that "[a]nnexations for those areas within the Urban Service Area should be considered only when the City Council deems such annexation is in the best interest of the City.   It is the intent of the City to limit annexations to those areas to which the City can provide services without placing an excessive demand on existing city services or a financial burden on the city residents."

CFF has previously filed comments with the City on the proposed annexation of the subject property demonstrating why the City cannot provide certain services, particularly water, to the proposed annexed area without placing an undue burden on the rest of the city.  CFF has also filed comments, dated 6/1/00, 6/8/00, and 8/30/00 pursuant to the FCP Periodic Review Update.  CFF hereby incorporates by reference into this testimony those and other comments submitted in opposition as evidence why the applicant's proposed FCP amendment fails to comply with FCC 10-1-3(B)(4) and the Statewide Land Use Goals 11 and 14 which require the City to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urbanization.

Furthermore, the proposed Resolution that the Planning Commission is being asked to review makes approval of the FCP and FCC amendments contingent upon annexation of the subject property.  This contingency raises significant issues of due process and fundamental fairness for two reasons.  First, the FCP states:

 "Lane County shall retain responsibility for land use decisions and actions affecting the City of
Florence Urban Growth Area, such responsibility to be relinquished over and within this area only upon its annexation to the City, subject to provision of contract annexation agreements, as
applicable. Lane County, as the jurisdiction with responsibility for land use decisions, shall be
responsible for public facility planning within this Urban Growth Area, with participation by City of Florence and Heceat [sic] Water District." FCP Chapter Nine at page 31.  (Emphasis added).

In other words, until annexation has been completed, the City, by its own admission, does not have authority to convert an area identified in the FCP as residential land into an entirely new zoning designation until it is fully annexed.  For this reason as well, the application/petition  should be denied.

Second, a contingent approval of the amendment petition requires CFF to expend considerable time and money resources to contest, and potentially appeal, a land use decision that is contingent on another land use annexation decision that may not be ultimately approved.   Yet, the applicant seeks to amend the FCP now, rather than wait for annexation or completion of periodic review, due to undisclosed "financial commitments. This represents backwards attempt at land use planning substantially that prejudices CFF's interests and those of the community.

C. The proposed zoning change and FCP amendment will violate the requirements imposed by the FCP and Statewide Land Use Goal 10  to assure that adequate numbers of needed housing units are available at prices and rents that are affordable to a broad spectrum of Oregonians.

Chapter III of the FCP states that one of the objectives of the Plan is  "[t]o support a  variety
of residential types and new concepts that will encourage housing opportunities to meet the housing needs for households of varying incomes, ages, size, taste, and life style."  Objective 1 at page 4.

Similarly, Goal 10, otherwise known as the Housing Goal, requires local comprehensive plans and land use regulations to "provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state."   The Goal imposes an affirmative duty on local governments to provide a mix of housing types and densities that is commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and future residents as well as comply with the urbanization requirements of Goal 14:
 

"Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the provision of appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Such land should be necessary and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs of all income levels."

 Recognizing the shortage of affordable housing, the Oregon legislature has further defined
"needed housing," to include a wide range of housing opportunities within an urban growth
boundary.   ORS 197.303(1).  This statutory requirement applies directly to all local government land use procedures, regulations and decisions affecting proposals for the development of needed housing. It imposes a continuing, direct, and mandatory obligation upon all local governments.

 Notwithstanding these clear Goal 10, statutory, and FCP requirements, the application and
staff report fail to identify what impact the removal of land slated for residential zoning in the FCP will have on the affordable housing market or how this removal will impact the public interest.

The applicant's and staff's failure to discuss the impacts of the proposed plan amendment and
zoning change on the long term availability of affordable housing is particularly glaring in light of
recent studies and news reports that demonstrate a shortage of low-income housing in the Florence area.   For example, a 1993 study by Sarah Summers who analyzed the "Impacts of Retirees on the Oregon Coastal Zone," and in particular, the demographic changes occurring in Florence  found that while:
 

the impact of retirees on the economy of Florence has so far looked bright, [] there are two major problems occurring, which have the potential to become worse.  These problems are a shortage of affordable housing and a preponderance of low-income jobs that are available to family wage earners....

The shortage of affordable housing, both to rent and to buy, has increased as land and construction prices have risen....  There is no decent moderate income housing for young families....

For these reasons, the application to amend the FCP and change the zoning ordinance to remove land currently identified for the City's long-term residential needs must be denied due to lack of supporting evidence.

D. The applicant has failed to show that the proposed conversion of the subject property from
residential to industrial will adequately protect the surrounding aquifers, aquatic life, coastal
resources, and public facilities in the Munsel Creek area as required by Statewide Use Goals 5, 6 and the FCP.

Goals 5 and 6 in particular mandate the conservation and protection of wetlands and groundwater resources. The Goals require the City to ensure that "waste and process discharges" of future development will comply with applicable state and federal environmental statutes and rules.  Goal 6 also directs planning bodies to ensure that waste and process discharges from future development will not degrade, overload, or threaten the availability of air, water, or land.

Likewise, the FCP states that "Land use decisions which affect the water quality of Munsel Lake, Munsel Creek and the Siuslaw River must be cognizant of their ecological and recreational significance.  The same consideration in regard to maintaining good water supply for residential use is doubly important.  Id., at page 29.  Given the hydrology of the subject area, any heavy industrial development may be a conflicting use with the nearby North Florence Dunal Aquifer that the City has identified as an important domestic water supply.  CFF submits that the Planning Commission cannot find Goal 5, 6 or FCP compliance without substantial evidence provided by the applicant and/or the City assessing the quantitative and qualitative impacts of the industrial storm water discharge on the aquifer and Munsel Creek.

E. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed FCP amendment complies with
Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule.

Goal 12 is implemented by the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR") that emphasizes
measures to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel, and to reduce reliance on the automobile.  These measures are intended "to assure that the planned transportation system supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas which will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other areas of the country."

The TPR requires the following with respect to comprehensive plan amendments as they relate to local, state, and regional transportation system plans ("TSPs"):

(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
 

(a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility;
(b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes.

(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it:
 

(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.

OAR 660-012-060(1), (2).  Thus, if the proposed amendment to the acknowledged plan will
significantly affect the Highway 101 and Munsel Lake Road intersection or other nearby
transportation facilities, including the proposed expansions of Oak Street or Munsel Lake Road West, which it undoubtedly will, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the mandatory standard of OAR 660-12-060(1) by either (1) limiting the allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; or (2) amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses; or (3) modifying the land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and by encouraging alternative means of travel.  Yet, the applicant has failed to discuss, much less show compliance with, the foregoing mandatory TPR requirements.

III.   CONCLUSION

It is premature for the City to authorize a major land use change such as proposed here, when
the land subject to redesignation has not yet been annexed to the City and where its development depends on the provision of urban services that may not be available.  For the foregoing reasons, the applicant has failed to explain how the public need for affordable housing, transportation, public facilities, natural resources, orderly economic development, and planning will be enhanced by the proposed plan amendment and zoning change. Therefore, the application must be denied.

Zane Ziemer, President