Issues of Interest Comprehensive Plan Review CFF Comments 04/17/03 CFF Comments on UGB Expansion

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

April 17, 2003
CFF Comments on Urban Growth Boundary Expansion
and
Transportation System Plan Update


---

April 17, 2003

Florence Planning Commission                                                                Lane County Planning Commission
250 Hwy. 101                                                                                        125 E. 8th
Florence, Oregon   97439                                                                       Eugene, Oregon    97401


Re:      Amendment to Florence Comprehensive Plan - Urban Growth Boundary
           Amendment to Florence Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Systems Plan

Commissioners:

Request for Supplemental Hearing

Lack of Notice - As of April 11, 2003,  City had not provided notice to effected property owners as required in ORS 227.186.   According to information provided by the Florence Planning Department, the City sent notices to 19 property owners on North Fork Road.  However, there are at least 13 other property owners who own land in this area, and will be effected, who have not received notice of these proceedings.  Therefore, we request a supplemental hearing be scheduled for at least 30 days after the notice is (or has been) sent out.  We also request the period for public testimony remain open until five working days before the next hearing is scheduled, as was allowed for the first hearing.

 Incomplete Documents - The draft which was presented to the public for review was not complete, Appendices upon which the document was supposed to be based were either outdated, “being revised”, or simply non-existent. 

Lack of Necessary Information - The document presented at the hearing does not contain any indication of the total acreage of the land proposed to be included in the UGB.  Conflicting Information Provided to Public - The map which was presented at the hearing is not the same as that submitted to the public in previous comprehensive plan update hearings.  Staff reported at the hearing that the “new” map, which had not previously been provided to the public, had already been approved by the City Council.  This assertion by staff is in dispute, and should be resolved prior to any decision making on the part of the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission should:

     1.   Determine exactly what map was approved by the City Council in January 2002. 
     2.   If the March 18 map is different from that previously approved by the City Council, then a second
     public hearing should be held where it is made clear to the public that this is a new map, and entails
     a different configuration of the UGB  than was originally contemplated by the City Council in their
     previous deliberations and decisions.

It is impossible for any reviewer to make a reasonable analysis of the implications of this expansion, and thereby provide meaningful testimony to the Planning Commission, without the above information.  It is no less impossible for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision without this information.

Therefore, we are requesting the Planning Commission hold another public hearing - after all relevant and necessary documentation and Appendices are available for public and Commission review.  

Coordination With Lane County

The City has not incorporated, or even considered, Lane County’s expectations for population growth in this part of the county.  Lane County will adopt the state-mandated coordination process for growth allocation to communities within the county, and the City should comply. 

Non-compliance With Statewide Goals and Guidelines

Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement:  We have previously submitted testimony regarding the inadequacies of the proposed UGB expansion with Statewide Goals and Guidelines.  In addition, the City has not complied with Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement.  As of Friday, April 11, notice had not been sent to all property owners or residents living inside or adjacent to the areas proposed to be included in the UGB.  Even if the City prepared and mailed the notices on the next work day (April 14), the earliest possible date for receipt by affected residents would be April 15 - only two days before the closing of the written testimony period on April 17 and only five days before the Planning Commission hearing on April 22.

Additionally, some of the Appendices to the document under consideration were either “being revised” at the time of the hearing, or did not yet exist.

Florence 2020 Comprehensive Plan Should Be Amended

New City Policy:  The effects on the environment and economy of the City’s new policy of expanding the UGB for the primary purpose of facilitating development should be included in the comprehensive  plan.

The City’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan, now adopted by the city and approved by DLCD, does not include any provisions for the UGB expansion as presented at the March 18 public hearing.   The following sections of the Comprehensive Plan will be effected by this expansion, and should be amended:

Goals 3, 4, and 5 - Some of the lands in the expansion are zoned Forest, Industrial, Natural Estuary, and Historical Lands, and the appropriate sections in the Comprehensive Plan should be revised to address the inclusion of these lands into the UGB inventory.

Goal 6.  Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - there has been no analysis of the impact of inclusion of the lands as it relates to increased pollution of air, water and land - from increases in housing density, traffic, non-point source pollution, storm-water runoff, etc.,  which is inherent in any change of land use zoning from a rural nature to one which is expected to allow urban uses. 

Goal 7.  Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards - there has been no analysis of the impact of inclusion of the lands as it relates to the city’s ability to respond to natural disasters and hazards such as Tsunami’s, seasonal flooding, residential drinking water well.  The Siuslaw is known to experience seasonal flooding.  The City’s Tsunami response plan must also be amended if these lands are included in the UGB.

Goal 8.  Recreational Needs - there has been no analysis of the impact of inclusion of the lands as it relates to recreational needs which will result from a regional “draw” as is contemplated for some of these lands - i.e., a casino which is one of the primary reasons for the expansion.  

Goal 9.  Economic Development - there has been no analysis of the impact of the inclusion of the lands on the community’s economy.  The increased competition with local businesses which will be brought about by development of commercial land in this area - which is one of the primary reasons for the expansion - has not been considered.  There is evidence in the record which indicates one parcel - the Hatch Tract - is intended to be changed to heavy commercial use.  In addition, any adjoining parcels of land which are subsequently purchased by the Tribe which owns the Hatch Tract will become tribal land, and will be potentially changed to heavy commercial use as well.  The development of a commercial area, a “Florence East” if you will, on the existing economy and businesses in Florence has not been considered.

Goal 10.  Housing - there has been no analysis of the impact of the inclusion of the lands on the city’s housing supply.  The increased needs for housing which will be brought about by development of a casino - which is one of the primary reasons for the expansion - has not been considered.   Testimony on the record indicates that 300 jobs would be created by the development of a casino.  Many of the jobs will be taken by those who do not currently live in Florence.  Each of those 300 employees will need to have housing.   

Goal 11.  Public Facilities and Services - there has been no analysis of the impact the inclusion of the lands will have on the city’s water supply and Water Facilities Plan.  The Water Facilities Plan, an integral part of the comprehensive plan, should be updated concurrently with this UGB expansion. 

Goal 12.  Transportation - there has been no analysis of the impact the inclusion of the lands will have on the city’s Transportation Systems Plan.  The Plan which was presented for public comment does not address the UGB expansion at all.

Goal 13.  Energy Conservation - there has been no analysis of the impact the inclusion of the lands will have on the city’s plans for energy conservation, particularly as it relates to increased auto travel and overloading of city water and sewer systems, and the resultant costs to increase those services and systems to an acceptable level of production.

Goal 14 - Urbanization - the minimal staff analysis (available at the March 18 hearing) of the effect of this expansion is inadequate and incomplete.  At the time of the public hearing, Appendices were either missing, outdated, or did not yet exist.  The 2020 Comprehensive Plan indicates an acreage planned for expansion which does not reflect the actual acreage proposed in this expansion.

Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources -  there has been no analysis of the impact the inclusion of the lands will have on the Siuslaw River or the nearby (and downstream) estuary, tidal marsh lands, and on-site wetlands.

Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands -  there has been no analysis of the impact increased development - which will be encouraged by the inclusion of these lands - will have on the water quality, fish and shellfish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics of the Siuslaw River Outlet and adjacent ocean beaches.

Transportation Systems Plan

The Transportation System Plan contains no provisions for the UGB expansion, and should be revised and be presented for public review before approval. 

Requested Changes to Section 14 - Urbanization

Because of the unknown effects a casino might have on the Florence area, we are asking that you consider amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan by adding the following language:
     
             4.     The City shall not extend the UGB to encompass Tribal lands unless:

             a.  An agreement between the City and the Tribes provides that there will be no gambling or gaming
          establishments located on the land at any time in the future.
             b.  The Tribes agree to waive their sovereign rights with respect to this exclusion of gaming or
          gambling on the Tribal land.
             c.  The agreement provides that the City will withdraw any city services previously provided if gaming
          or gambling activities occur on the land.
             d.  Such an agreement is determined enforceable by the City's legal counsel.  If the terms of the
          agreement are not determined to be enforceable by the City, then the City shall not include
          the land in the UGB.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit our concerns,




Zane Ziemer, President
Citizens For Florence

---

4/17/03 - CFF Comments on UGB Expansion	05/13/03 - CFF Request for Opportunity to Respond
03/18/03 - CFF Objection to UGB Expansion	03/18/03 - CFF Document List
1/28/02 - Specific CFF Objections	1/28/02 - General CFF Objections
11/06/01 - Specific CFFTestimony	11/06/01 - General CFF Testimony
03/23/01 - Letter to City Council	03/13/01 - Comp Plan Amendment
08/30/00 - Comprehensive Plan	08/03/00 - Inadequate Time for Comment
06/19/00 - City's Response	06/19/00 - CFF Request to DA
06/15/00 - CFF Request to City	06/15/00 - CFF Goal
06/15/00 - Transportation	06/08/00 - Urbanization & Expansion of UGB
06/06/00 - Natural Resources: Wetlands	06/05/00 - Strategic Plan
06/01/00 - North Florence Commercial	05/22/00 - Oak Street Extension

• ---

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.