May 21, 2003

RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AFTER APRIL 17 DEADLINE

The staff report (dated May 13, 2003) submitted as a “Discussion Item” to the Planning Commission in draft form, was revised after the April 17 deadline for new evidence had passed. This staff report and accompanying documents contained new evidence which the public had not been allowed to comment upon.  The Planning Commission granted an additional period, to May 21, for the public to respond to this new evidence.

UGB Study and Report (May 13, 2002)  

This report re-states much of the staff’s evidence which had previously been submitted, and appears to clarify or attempt to further substantiate some of that evidence.  However, the basic substance of the city’s reasoning for expanding the UGB seems to be: “The proposed UGB expansions are for the purpose of provision of services.” (Page 7)  

The city’s original proposed expansion included land north of Munsel Lake Road as well as the Hatch Tract, purportedly for the same reasons.  That land was later removed (informally) from consideration by the City Council.  The logical conclusion would be that the City Council had determined that there were no failing septic systems which needed preventative measures, or city services desired.  However, the only evidence in the record on this subject is that the City Council was “persuaded” to remove the property north of Munsel Lake Road  after the Gun Club submitted testimony opposing inclusion because of a “high potential for conflicts”.  (Page 5) The Hatch tract was removed from consideration because the Tribes “are no longer requesting city services for the development of the Hatch Tract.” (Page 6).  This ‘pick and choose’ application of land use regulations is contrary to Oregon Land Use Law.  

City’s Stated Reasons for UGB Expansion:
City’s Rationale:  Provide a redundant “loop” system for water supply to areas inside city limits. (Looping of the sewer system is also mentioned as a reason for expansion, but it is difficult to view that assertion with any seriousness - see CFF comments below.)
CFF Response: There is no evidence on the record that existing city systems require this “loop” system in order to adequately provide for existing city residents, or that existing city residents are somehow being harmed by the existing “un-looped” system.
City’s Rationale:  To provide sewer system to address possible failing septic systems.
CFF Response:  There is no evidence on the record which substantiates any claim that any septic systems are failing or are expected to fail - except statements made by staff.   There  is considerable evidence, including testimony by the Lane County Sanitarian, to the contrary.
City’s Rationale: “The inclusion of the entire length of Munsel Lake Road would eventually lead to City maintenance of the entire road.”
CFF Response: There is no testimony on the record which would indicate: (1) that changing the present maintenance arrangement (shared costs with Lane County) would be of any advantage to the city; or (2) why this change would be a basis for expansion of the UGB.  The city should not be creating situations which would impose an additional burden to the city’s already stretched thin budget.  
City’s Rationale: “There were several requests from property owners for inclusion within the UGB.”
CFF Response: A request by a property owner for inclusion inside a UGB is not a legal basis for expansion of the UGB.  If the city is adopting this as policy, the entire concept of an Urban Growth Boundary would be meaningless, and it would directly controvert statewide land use goals and guidelines.

Other Concerns

There are references to maps which are not in the record: “... requests for inclusion as shown on the attached map.  Requests for exclusion are also mapped.”  (Page

Energy and Social Impacts: The report states that there would be “limited consequences” in the proposed expansion because  “very little land development will result from the inclusion of these lands.”   However, the Planning Commission and City Council have both received testimony indicating that the golf course property intends to develop 50 new homes and 50 new condominiums.  The May 15, 2003 staff report states that the potential impact of development of vacant or redevelopable land in the proposed expansion would be a total of 198 new homes.  

Compatibility with Nearby Agricultural Uses:  The report states, “There are no commercial agricultural operations adjacent to any of the proposed extensions.”  This statement is misleading.  The rules do not specify that the agricultural uses be either “adjacent” or “commercial.”  The issue is “nearby agricultural  uses.”  There is testimony on the record that nearby properties on the east side of North Fork Road are agricultural in zoning as well as use.

Hereafter Infamous ‘Poop Loop’:  

The May 13, 2003 staff report states: “North Fork Road, between Highway 126 and the intersection with Munsel Lake Road, was included to allow looping of water and sewer lines for improved service.”  “... a loop system connecting water and sewer trunk lines in Highway 101 with water and sewer trunk lines in Highway 126 provides a redundant system ... and creating a back-up system if there is a system failure somewhere in the loop.” “... and to provide for looping of the system.”   (5/13/03 Staff Report pages 2, 8)   We have been unable to find any authority which would recommend that sewer systems be looped.  City sewer lines are not looped.  As one Planning Commissioner aptly stated, so long as “it” still runs downhill, it is unlikely a looped sewer system would be desired.  If such a system were preferable, then we would suggest the city provide such “looping” for homes inside city limits before worrying about homes outside city limits and outside the UGB.

RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED MAY 15, 2003

Inaccurate information:

May 15, 2003 memorandum from Sandi Young, Florence Community Development Director to the Florence Planning Commission states:

“The adopted TSP (January 2002) does not speak specifically to the extension of 18th Street, or any other street.” (Page 1)

This statement is inaccurate, as well as misleading.  The TSP Map which was provided to the public on May 20 as the map which would be adopted by the Planning Commission specifically shows Project G-1, 18th Street Extension, going from the City limits to North Fork Road.  The Plan provides a budgeted item of $790,000 to pay for that extension.  The Florence Transportation System Plan contains the following mentions of extension of 18th Street.   

▸       Long Range Priorities (15-25 years), G-1, Extension of 18th Street, $790,000. (TSP 1/14/02 - page 172)

▸       Project G-1-2-3 18th Street Extension.  (City of Florence TSP Map)

▸       G-1, 18th Street Extension East to Munsel Lake Road, $790,000.  (TSP 1/14/02 - page 168)

▸       G-2 18th Street (Willow Loop to Highway 101).  (TSP 1/14/02 - page 168)

▸       2. Potential Long Range Projects ... a. East/West connection Highway 101/North Fork Road. (TSP 1/14/02 - page 163)

▸       b.  Collector Facilities ... 18th Street (Oak Street to Munsel Lake Road) (TSP - page 158)

▸       G. Other Local Street Improvements; 1. East-West Extension (Highway 101 to Munsel Lake Road)  (TSP 1/14/02 -                 Page 140)

▸       G. Other Local Street Improvements; 1. East-West Connection Highway 101 to North Fork Road. This connector]
          may need to be construed (sic) in the future to mitigate congestion on Munsel Lake Road. (TSP 1/14/02 - Page 108)

Water Needs:

The water usage (188 gallons) is an average daily usage.  However, the City of Florence Water Facilities Plan indicates a multiplying factor of 1.75 is required when determining water needs, because the city must plan for provision of peak day demands of its citizens.  The January 2001 staff report prepared for the Planning Commission when they were considering the expected water usage of proposed annexations (Morales, Cocciolo, etc.) used an estimated average household size of 2.3 persons.   

Staff did not present any water usage information on the three parcels which are also recommended by staff to be included inside the UGB.  Because there is no map of these parcels, and the description provided in the staff report does not include the actual acreage, it is impossible to estimate the water need of these three parcels.  Those  three parcels must be included in any estimation of water need.

A more accurate picture of the level of water need which would be created in these two areas would be:

            Area 1 (Munsel Lake Road)

Net estimated dwelling units:
 101 
Average household size (persons):
  x 2.3 
Total number of new water users
 232.3
  232.3
Average daily water usage
 188 gpd
Peak demand factor 
  x 1.75 
Total per person water need
 329 gpd
  x 329 gpd
Estimated water need for Area 1
76,426 gpd
Area 2 (Golf Course)
Net estimated dwelling units:
 97

Average household size (persons):
  x 2.3 
Total number of new water users
 223.1
  223.1
Average daily water usage
 188 gpd
Peak demand factor 
  x 1.75 
Total per person water need
 329 gpd
  x 329 gpd
Estimated water need for Area 2
73,400 gpd

Water Line Costs:

Although the $60/linear foot estimates are customary in the industry, the location of water and sewer lines will have a dramatic effect on the actual cost of laying the line.  For example, laying of water and sewer lines along existing roadways (such as Munsel Lake Road) would require considerably more man-hours for traffic control, flaggers, supervisors, actual working time delays to allow for passing traffic, etc. than would laying lines in undeveloped areas or along neighborhood streets.    

 EVIDENCE MISSING IN THE RECORD

The staff report dated May 13, 2003 indicates there is a map showing “requests for inclusion” and  “exclusion” (page 2).  There is no map showing these parcels.         

The text of the report indicates “three parcels shown on the attached map” (Page 9) which staff is recommending for inclusion in the UGB.  There is no map showing these three parcels.                                                                       

The Planning Commission requested that staff provide estimates of water need for all land to be included in the UGB.  There were no estimates of water need provided for these three parcels.  

There are 13 exhibits listed in the Staff report, Exhibits A through O:                                                                     

There is no map showing the three parcels described by staff, and which are recommended to be included in the UGB.  The only description provided by staff of three parcels in the record is:

“a small property north of North Fork Road adjacent to Rhodoview Dunes and inclusion of a developed property at the intersection of Munsel Lake Road and North Fork Road.  There is another larger parcel north of North Fork Road between the city boundary and the small parcel which should also be included for efficient provision of services, if the other two parcels are included.” (Page 7)

There is no other detailing of which parcels are being recommended for inclusion, other than the staff recommendation that three parcels “shown” on a non-existent map be included.  The staff provided information regarding water usage on Area 1 and Area 2, but did not provide any information on the other three parcels recommended for inclusion.

At a previous meeting, it appeared some Planning Commission members were considering simply including those properties who wished to be included, and excluding those properties who so desired.  The record shows that the owner of one parcel, the Severy Estate, has requested that some their property be included inside the UGB.  The Severy lot (1300) shares a common boundary line with the Hatch Tract (proposed for casino complex), and it is well known in the community that it is slated to be transferred to the Tribe when the estate is probated.  Nearby property owners have been told that the tribes intend to locate tribal offices on the Severy property.  This property is not indicated as being included in the UGB on any map, nor is it described in the paragraph on page 7 in the staff report (see above).  See attached letter from Severy Estate attorney, David Clark.

There has already been considerable confusion regarding maps of the UGB boundary in this process.  We would request that the Planning Commission clarify, on the record, which parcels are to be inside the UGB and which parcels are not.,

Thank you for your consideration,

Zane Ziemer, President

Attachment:    April 16, 2003 Letter from David Clark

cc:    Florence City Council
        Lane County Planning Commission
        DLCD Director