Issues of Interest Comprehensive Plan Review CFF Comments 03/18/03 CFF Comments on UGB Expansion

Our Goal: To improve the livability of Florence through public education and community involvement.

March 18, 2003
CFF Comments on Urban Growth Boundary Expansion
and
Extension of 18th Street from Hwy. 101 to North Fork Road


---

March 18, 2003

Florence Planning Commission                                                                Lane County Planning Commission


RE:  Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update - Goal 14: Urbanization
        and Chapter 12, Transportation Systems Plan.

Commissioners:

Following are CFF’s comments regarding the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary and Transportation Systems Plan.

Thank you for volunteering your time to review this most difficult proposal.

Zane Ziemer
President

A.        The proposed UGB expansion is based, in part, on draft documents which have been neither signed nor finalized by the City Council.

Appendix 14 is either incomplete or the public has not been given opportunity to review the final
documents.  Until such time as the UGB Study, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Issue
Paper #1 and #2 are completed and presented for public review, decisions cannot be based on
information in any of these documents, as it is subject to change.

Below are listed some of the obvious deficiencies in Appendix 14:

     1.   1997 Urban Growth Boundary Study - this five year old draft document is incomplete, has
     not been finalized, has not been signed by the City Council.  The fact that this is still a draft
     in progress is illustrated by the comment regarding 10 acre minimum land divisions in the
     UGB, “These items will be included in the public review process of adoption of these
     findings.” and “The following draft findings, or something similar, need to be adopted by the
     City Council.”  (Page 15)  This is still a draft document and therefore cannot be considered
     as a basis for any decision.  

     2.   Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (attached to the 1997 UGB Study as pages 16-24)
     have not been adopted by the City Council, are not signed or dated, and are not “facts” until
     the City Council does so.  Pages are attached to the Findings which seem to have no relation
     to the preceding signature page (page 24).  The accompanying “1997 Urban Growth
     Boundary Study” clearly states: “The following draft findings, or something similar, need to
     be adopted by the City Council” (Page 15).  This is a draft document, and therefore cannot
     not be considered as a basis for any decision.

     3.   Issue Paper #1, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses (attached to the 1997 UGB Study as
     page 26)  is “being revised”, and is not included in Exhibit 14, although it is an integral part
     of the Urban Growth Boundary Study.

     4.   Issue Paper #2, Residential Land Uses  (attached to the 1997 UGB Study as page 27), is
     “being revised”, and is not included in Exhibit 14, although it is an integral part of the Urban
     Growth Boundary Study.  (Residential Land Uses, July 1997 . (Doc. 21)

B.   The comprehensive plan does not comply with Oregon State Land Use Goal 14: Urbanization.

Even if the City were to adopt the draft UGB Report and draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, State of Oregon Land Use Goal 14 states: “Urban growth boundaries shall be established to
identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land.  Establishment and change of the boundaries
shall be based upon considerations of the following factors:” The wording “shall” means the city
must base any changes on the following conditions. (Doc. 11)

          1.        Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements
          consistent with LCDC goals

          “... this amendment is not based on population growth rate requirements, as it appears that
     there is sufficient land within the current UGB to satisfy the community’s needs for the
     planning period, which is projected to be 3.0% AAGR.” (City of Florence Findings of Fact
     and Conclusions of Law on the need to amend the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, UGB
     Study, page 16)
 
It should be noted that not only are there no commercial or residential needs analyses in the
comprehensive plan, the Comprehensive Plan is premised on a 3% growth rate.  It appears from Map
14-2&3 that it involves approximately 200 acres.  Other documents prepared by the city state that
it is 173 acres.  The total land area inside City limits (as of October 2001 Industrial Lands Inventory,
Table I) was 2,133 acres.  This additional land, if annexed as planned, would mean a 9% increase
in total land to be provided City services, and a 13% increase in residential zoned land. (Issue Paper
#2, Residential Land Uses, July 1997, page 12 - “1,473.28 acres of residential zoning”) (Doc. 21)

The only analysis of need which could legally be considered by the city absent the expected updated
analyses is the currently adopted residential land needs analysis.  The “Urban Growth Boundary
Study” is still in draft form, has not been adopted by the city council, the accompanying Findings
of Fact have not been adopted or signed, and have no legal status.  The updated commercial and
residential needs analyses, even though listed throughout the comprehensive plan as though they
exist - do not exist.  The only existing, accepted land needs analysis is a 5-year old (1997) study
which was actually based on 17 year old (1986) information.  (Doc. 21)

Even absent a review of the supporting data, the following statements clearly illustrate that the
proposal to adjust the UGB complies with neither the State Land Use Goals, nor the City’s own
Policies as stated in the comprehensive plan.  There has been no additional testimony or city-
adopted analysis regarding the existing residential inventory since the draft was released.

          “... a good supply of vacant lots and unbuilt phases of approved residential subdivisions exist
within the city.” (5/5/2000 Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

          “A good supply of vacant lots and still-to-be completed subdivisions also exist within the
current urbanizable lands.” (5/5/2000 Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

          “... the analysis considered only single family development” (emphasis added) (5/5/2000
Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

          “... sufficient buildable land exists for the planning period without a need for major
adjustments to the UGB at this time.” (5/5/2000 Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

          “In conclusion, the assessment resulted in a finding that the current UGB remains adequate
for the following 20 year planning period.” (5/5/2000 Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

          “Although the UGB is adequate for the 2000 - 2020 planning period ...” (5/5/2000
Comprehensive Plan Draft, page 3)

    “Although residential demand does not require amendment of the UGB ...” (City of Florence
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the need to amend the City’s Urban Growth Boundary,
UGB Study, page 12)

    “The July 1997 Residential Land Use Analysis (Appendix 2) concluded that those lands so
designated comprise a sufficient supply of buildable lands to accommodate all expected types of
housing and all anticipated income levels for the 2000-2020 planning period, as required by State
law.” (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use, Background, page 15)

    “Even discounting those non-buildable lands, the 1997 study concluded that a sufficient
supply of buildable lands remain to satisfy the expected residential housing demand for the 20-year
planning period.”  (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use, Background, page
15)

    “Before the City can take informed action to deal with the limited supply of residential lands,
a new residential land use analysis must be completed.”  (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter 10, Housing Opportunities, Background, page 80)

    “She said that if we were to expand the UGB in any major way and taking any vacant land,
then we would have to have a Buildable Lands Analysis.”  (Testimony of Florence Planning Director
Sandi Young, Public Hearing regarding Adoption of Comprehensive Plan, January 14, 2002 meeting
minutes.) (Doc. 22)

2.   Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability

Need for Housing:  The same comments as listed in 1 above apply in this consideration - the City,in it’s own document, has admitted there is no need for more housing which cannot be met withint the current UGB.   The underlying basis for their calculations (Appendix 14) even states: “... if all projected growth can be accommodated on single family lots within the current UGB, then the UGB should be adequate to accommodate the projected growth for the planning period.”  This statement came after an explanation of exactly how they had tried to manipulated the numbers by excluding "wetlands” (which can be, and are regularly, filled for development), “lands over 15% slope (which can be, and are regularly, leveled for development), and an arbitrary figure of 20% for “roads, utilities, etc. (Appendix 14, page 10)

“... this amendment is not based on needed housing.”  (City of Florence Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on the need to amend the City’s Urban Growth Boundary, UGB Study, page 16)

In addition, regarding the proposed expansion of the UGB, there has been no analysis on how many
“golf course frontage lots” currently exist, much less how many  are needed to accommodate growth
in the next 20 years.

Need for Employment Opportunities:  The City has not even hinted, much less provided a basis for
the premise, that the proposed expansion of the UGB is in response to a need for employment
opportunities.  

Need for Livability:  “Increased opportunities for residential golf course frontage lots” as originally
stated in the comprehensive plan draft, can hardly be equated to increasing the livability of Florence,
except perhaps for a small handful of  developers.

A close review of the supporting data, at least that which has been provided for public review,
(Urban Growth Boundary Study) reveals all manner of number manipulation:

     a.   The report which has been provided to the public as “Appendix 14" is a June 30, 1997 Draft,
     is not a finalized, adopted, accepted document, and is incomplete as an attachment mentioned
     is not attached.  This fact was pointed out to the City Council at least as far back as June of
     2000. (Doc. 23)

     b.   Population data is based on a 1995 Center for Population and Census estimate.  Year 2002
     data is available, and should be used for any projections.

     c.   The “Comparison of Population Growth Rates” compares apples to oranges.  It compares a
     10-year growth rate of 7.0%, a 10-year growth rate of 1.6%, and a 5-year growth rate of
     3.7%, and not only comes to the conclusion that the three periods are comparable, but that
     a 3% growth rate should be used for the periodic review.  This is faulty science, at best, and
     manipulation at worst.

3.   Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services

The City’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law speak only to the city’s desire to:

       ▸  “ offer sewer service to the homes around Munsel Lake ...”
       ▸  “There are also plans for the city to be responsible for Munsel Lake Road, which it cannot
     do unless the road is within the city.”
       ▸  “... extend 18th Street ... through the area near the golf course ...”
       ▸  “ ... the golf course has plans to build ... approximately 50 unites of single family detached
     and 50 units condominium ... This amendment will further these plans as well.” (City of
     Florence Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the need to amend the City’s Urban
     Growth Boundary, UGB Study, page 16-17)

Although mentioned numerous times, there is no evidence that on-site sewage systems inside or
outside the UGB  are “failing”.  The fact that there is a high seasonal water table in the UGB does
not necessarily mean the systems are failing.  Surely, if they were failing, the County and/or would
initiate enforcement actions.  If the City is actually aware of any “failing” systems, they should be
reported to the County for corrective actions.  In fact, Bruce Mower, Lane County Sanitarian,
submitted testimony to the City Council, during a previous comprehensive plan approval hearing,
unequivocally stating that there were no failing septic systems in the UGB expansion area.  As
Mr. Mower is responsible for ascertaining that information for Lane County, it seems prudent to
place more weight on his information than that of unsubstantiated City staff report comments.  (Doc.
4)

The proposed expansion of the UGB to include almost 200 acres will address none of the purported
“failing septic system” problems, even if any such problems were accurately reported.  The draft
stated “At some point, these private systems will fail ...”    (5/5/2000 Draft, page 2)  That statement
could be made for every acre in Lane County which is not currently served by municipal sewer
services.  It is hardly justification for expansion of a UGB, when no actual need can be shown.

It is curious that the City is not proposing to expand the city limits to take care of “Lots in the area
of the far northwest part of the UGB are smaller, and are developed with small, older vacation
cottages, many of which have older, failing on-site sewage disposal systems.”  (5/5/2000 Draft, page
2) - while trying to justify the expansion in this area because, “At some point, these private systems
will fail, requiring public sewer service to reduce a public health hazard and potential contamination
of Munsel Lake.”   (5/5/2000 Draft, page 4)

The City does not have a sufficient domestic water supply to accommodate more. The amount of
water which they can purchase from Heceta Water District is limited by an easement restriction
placed by Lane County. Without permission from Lane County, Heceta Water District cannot convey
more than one million gallons per day across the easement.  This limitation is not just for the City’s
usage of water, but includes water which is to be used by Heceta Water District.  That means that
the City’s ability to supplement its water supply through purchase from Heceta Water District will
be limited to the difference between what the District uses and less than one million gallons per day,
estimated by Heceta Water District to be about 200,000 gallons per day during peak demand.

Although the District has almost completed a new water treatment plant, the one million gallon per
day limitation on a separate private easement which connects to the City lines will stay in place, and
there are no immediate plans to change the current delivery system to the City.  To the contrary, the
City  terminated the existing Intergovernmental Agreement with Heceta Water District, and no new
agreement has been adopted.

While the city claims to have goals of becoming self-sufficient on dunal wells, this goal has
remained unfulfilled for over 50 years.  Current plans for development of additional well fields on
federal lands are speculative, at best.  If the City is either unable to obtain permission to exceed the
1 million gallon per day limit, and/or the carrying capacity of  its present  infrastructure is not
increased, the City’s ability to provide water to its residents will be limited to that which it can
produce with dunal wells plus about 200,000 gallons per day from Heceta Water District.   These
circumstances, plus past experience with the short life and ever-increasing expense of maintaining
dunal wells - and the unfulfilled expectations of long term increased capacity - have not been
adequately considered, nor accurately reported. (Doc. 12)

The City does not have an adequate stormwater runoff management plan.  The draft plan that does
exist does not deal with the proposed expansion area at all.  Stormwater runoff from the proposed
expansion area could drastically effect residents inside the UGB, and development (which would
require filling of the wetlands) of this area will have negative impacts on surrounding City residents,
as well as all Florence taxpayers who will have to pay for the resultant stormwater management
problems.

The public facilities cost to the existing residents of Florence of expansion of the UGB in the
proposed area has not been adequately addressed.  The cost of increased demand on existing schools,
police, water, sewer, city administration, local street development, stormwater runoff management,
and health care facilities has not been considered. (Doc. 1, 2, 3, 20)

4.   Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area

The plan does not address the effect this expansion would have on of land uses within the existing
urban area.  The proposed expansion of the UGB does not make maximum efficiency of land within
and on the fringe of the existing urban area.  The same comments as for 1., 2. and 3. above apply.
 (Doc. 1, 2, 3, 20)

In the case of a change of a boundary, a governing body “... shall follow the procedures and
requirements as set forth in the Land Use Planning goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions.

Conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of:

     1.   Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services

As addressed above.

     2.   Availability of sufficient land for various uses to insure choices in the market place

There has been no inventory of existing residential golf course frontage lots, therefore the availability
of sufficient residential golf course frontage lots cannot be determined.

     3.   LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan

The draft plan complies with neither LCDC goals, nor the existing acknowledged comprehensive plan.

     4.   Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas.

As stated above, the City has admitted that there is sufficient undeveloped land within the UGB, and
there is no need to expand the UGB.

Guidelines:  Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.

The draft Transportation Systems Plan, which is an integral part of the rationale for expansion of the
UGB, does not comply with this Goal.  The Draft states that “... the public right of way gained for
an east-west street ...” would be an added benefit.  Munsel Lake Road already provides an east-west
street through the proposed expansion to Hwy. 101.  The only indication of an east-west street is the
planned extension of 18th Street from Hwy. 101 to North Fork Road, to serve as a bypass for access
to a proposed Indian casino.  (City of Florence TSP Map, Chapter 12, Transportation Plan)

     5.   Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences.

The City’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law state: “No negative (environmental/energy)
consequences of adding these lands to the UGB have been identified above the normal consequences
of their planned and designated use.”  This is language is used throughout.  This does not comply
with Statewide land use goals in that it does not adequately describe the consequences.  The “normal
consequences of their planned and designated use” at the level allowed under county land use
regulations is decidedly different, and carries less negative consequences, than the level allowed
under City land use regulations.  It should be kept in mind that once property is inside the UGB,
property owners are then allowed to petition the city for annexation and so a city-annexed level of
“planned and designated use” must be considered.  (Doc. 1, 2, 20)

Air, Water and Land Quality - The Plan has not addressed the following impacts on the community:
decreased air quality, decreased water quality, increased rates of natural resource consumption, lost
open space and resource lands, lost visual and other amenity values, lost wildlife habitat, increased
noise, lost mobility due to traffic congestion (delays and increased commute time), higher cost of
housing, higher cost of living, increased crime, lost sense of community, increased regulation (loss
of freedoms), costs to future generations which will result from the planned expansion of the UGB.

Environment - the city states: “No negative environmental consequences of adding these lands to the
UGB have been identified above the normal consequences of their planned and designated use.”  
However, the city has failed to address the environmental impact to the Siuslaw River or the air and
water quality of Florence area, of higher density development which will be allowed if these lands
are brought into the city.

Energy - Environment - the city states: “No energy consequences of adding these lands to the UGB
have been identified above the normal consequences of their planned and designated use.”  However,
the city has failed to address the energy impact of higher density development which will be allowed
if these lands are brought into the city.

Economic - The economic consequences stated by the city are:

            ▸ “will help provided opportunities for the city to meet these needs.” (Second homes for
       vacationers and overnight accommodations)
            ▸ “... will improve the financial potential for the (golf) course ...”
            ▸ (City of Florence Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the need to amend the
       City’s Urban Growth Boundary, UGB Study, page 17)
          
The city neglects the economic impact on existing residents of the City.  Currently, development in
this area is limited by county regulations.  The primary purpose of a UGB is to facilitate annexation
into a city - which would allow these properties to be much more densely developed than is currently
allowed.  The city neglects to address the cost to the community of provision of water, sewer, police,
fire, school, parks, city administration, and health care services to this area.   Estimates of costs
which much be borne by taxpayers for each house are in excess of $32,000 per house.  (Doc. 1, 2,
3)

The issue of the impact of commercial development on Indian lands has not been adequately
addressed.  A March 13, 2003 work session of the Florence City Council elicited comments from
a tribe spokesman that the expansion of the City Urban Growth Boundary would facilitate the
following proposed commercial developments on the “Hatch Tract”:

               ▸    100 Room Motel
               ▸    1,000 Seat Theater / Convention Area
               ▸    Starbucks Coffee and Gift Shop
               ▸    Restaurant

The Tribal web site describes the proposed development as: “The casino, once complete will occupy
approximately 20 acres of the 98 acres of restored land.  The 50,000 square foot facility will include
a 13,000 square foot Las Vegas style casino, themed restaurants, retail outlets as well as multi-
purpose bingo/entertainment/meeting space.”  (Doc. 16)

There has been no analysis of whether or not this level of development would be allowed under
existing Federal environmental regulations - IF the City declined to provide water and sewer
services.  Any development on this property would have a direct effect on the Siuslaw River, which
is protected under federal regulations. There has been no final determination if the tribes will be
allowed to build a casino, a decision which is expected April 14, 2003.

Social - The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law speak only to “protecting the golf course” and
“benefits to the golf course” with respect to social impacts.  Conspicuous by its absence from these
findings are the effects to our community of a gambling casino, which is readily used as justification
for the expansion of the UGB elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan.  

     7.   Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.

The effect of denser development, which is made possible by inclusion in the UGB and subsequent
annexation into the city, on the Siuslaw River water quality and quantity (stream temperature
restrictions) has not been addressed.

C.   Proposed UGB Expansion does not comply with duly adopted Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use.

          Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use, Goal 2:  “To establish a land use
     planning process ... and to assure an adequate factual base for those decisions and actions.”
          “Policies, 1.    Designation and location of land uses shall be made based on an analysis of
     documented need for land uses of various types, physical suitability of the lands for the uses
     proposed, adequacy of existing or planned public facilities and the existing or planned
     transportation network to serve the proposed land use, and potential impacts on
     environmental, economic, social and energy factors.” (emphasis added) (Florence 2020
     Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use, Policies, page 10)

Note: The word shall, as used in the Comprehensive Plan, is specifically defined: “Shall - Used in
laws, regulations and directives to express what is mandatory.”

Absent the above required analyses, the proposed expansion of the UGB does not meet
acknowledged Florence Comprehensive Plan Policies.

D.   Proposed UGB Expansion does not comply with duly adopted Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 11, Utilities and Facilities

          A.  Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Goal:  “To provide cost effective collection and
     treatment of wastewater consistent with projected population growth and development
     needs.”
          “Policies, 3.    The City shall complete the proposed stages of an improved collection system
     in advance of need in order that the wastewater system maintains adequate capacity for
     proposed development.” (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan)

Note: The word shall, as used in the Comprehensive Plan, is specifically defined: “Shall - Used in
laws, regulations and directives to express what is mandatory.”

Absent findings showing the current collection system capacity, as well as the expected demand on
that system of the addition of  the proposed expansion of the UGB, does not meet Florence
Comprehensive Plan Policies.  Evidence in the record indicates that the proposed golf course intends
to develop “approximately 50 unites of single family detached and 50 units condominium”, and that
the proposed casino will develop a 100 room motel, 1,000 seat theater, “13,000 sq. ft. Las Vegas
style casino, themed restaurants, retail outlets as well as multi-purpose bingo/entertainment/meeting
space.” and will occupy approximately 20 acres.

There is no evidence that the city has the financial resources to comply with this requirement if the
UGB expansion is allowed.  These two major developments were not included in the City’s
Wasterwater Facilities Plan adopted in October 1997. (Appendix 11 of Florence 2020
Comprehensive Plan.)

          C.    Stormwater Management, Goal: “To provide a stormwater system that enhances and
     maintains livability through balanced, cost effective solutions to stormwater management.”
     (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan)

The areas proposed to be incorporated into the UGB are not included in the City’s draft Stormwater
Management Plan (Appendix 11 of Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan).

         F.  Public Safety and Health Related Issues, Goal: “To maintain public safety services
     at levels necessary to provide quality services to present and future residents and
     visitors.”
          Policies, 2.  The City shall maintain adequate water pressure and supply system to meet the
     standards of the National Fire Protection Association and/or American Water Works
     Association.  (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan)

During the summer of 2002, the city reservoirs were below an acceptable level during peak usage,
even with the purchase of water from Heceta Water District.  Inclusion of these properties into the
UGB, and expected annexation, will place even more demand on our limited water supply and water
production facilities.  The city’s current water system plan does not take into account the level of
demand which (1) has already been placed on the existing system and (2) which will be experienced
at an earlier stage in the growth of the city than was expected.

Transportation - The proposed expansion of the UGB will require the “East-West Connection
Highway 101 to North Fork Road.” (Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12,
Transportation, page 108).  Although not specifically mentioned in the Transportation Plan, the City
of Florence TSP map clearly shows that this expansion will necessitate the City extending 18th Street
from Hwy. 101, through a residential neighborhood, to the proposed gambling casino property and
North Fork Road.   The obvious safety, noise and pollution problems in these neighborhoods that
this expansion would create are not addressed.  If these lands are not taken into the UGB, then the
City has no obligation to provide access through our residential neighborhoods for traffic between
Highway 101 and a proposed gambling casino and golf course development.



Zane Ziemer
President

Attachments: Documents (Doc.) (See attached list of documents)
Document List
 

---

• ---

Maps	CFF Comments	ODOT Comments	DLCD Comments	Public Comments

---

 

Citizens For Florence P.O. Box 1212 Florence, Oregon 97439 E-mail Address: citizensforflorence@yahoo.com

Copyright © Citizens For Florence. Users may download information from this web site for personal use only.  Unauthorized copying or distribution of this site or any of its contents without the express permission of the author is expressly forbidden.