June 15, 2000

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

RE:      Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update - Goal 12: Transportation

Commissioners:

The draft Comprehensive does not comply with Statewide Land Use Goal 1: Citizen
Involvement.

3.  Citizen Influence. “...Citizens shall have the opportunity to be involved in the phases of the planning process as set forth and defined in the goals and guidelines for Land Use Planning ...”

The public has been excluded from participation in the review of relevant data upon which the Plan is based. The plan states it is based on certain data, much of which has not been provided to the public.   Many references to specific data upon which the Planning Commission is supposed to rely in its planning process has been typed in as “xxx”.  Many of the Appendices listed in the plan are either not available for review, or have not yet been completed.  Many of the relevant charts and tables are incomplete, with substantive data missing.

4.  Technical Information “... Information necessary to reach policy decisions shall be available in a simplified, understandable form.  A copy of all technical information shall be available at a local public library or other location open to the public.”

As of June 13, 2000, certain relevant, basic data (detailed below) upon which the Transportation System Plan was supposed to be based, and which is an integral part of the Transportation System Plan, was not available to the public.  According to the Planning Department, Appendices A, B and C had not even been completed, as of June 13, 2000,  and were still in Eugene.

Specifically in the Transportation System Plan, the following information is either blank, filled in
with xxx’s, not yet completed, or otherwise not available for review: 1.   Appendix A - Existing Conditions - Database and maps for existing streets, accident summary, description of existing land uses, natural and cultural features. Not completed and not available for review. (Page 17)

Access provided to the Public to technical data and complete Comprehensive Plan has not complied with City Code.

Florence City Code provides:

          City Code 10-1-3: Amendments and Changes, B. Quasi-Judicial Changes, (1) Initiation: A quasi-judicial zoning change and related Comprehensive Plan changes may be initiated by application of a property owner ... by resolution of the Planning Commission ...”

          City Code 10-1-3: Amendments and Changes, B. Quasi-Judicial Changes, (3) Notice and Public Hearing: Notice and public hearing for quasi-judicial changes to this Code and the
Comprehensive Plan shall be in accordance with Code Section 10-1-1-5.

          City Code 10-1-1-5, Land Use Hearings: “10-1-1-5 Land Use Hearings, B. Notification of Hearing, 1. At least twenty (20) days prior to a quasi-judicial hearing, notice of hearing shall be provided ...

          City Code 10-1-1-5, Land Use Hearings: C. Notice - Information provided, 1. The notice shall: f. State that application and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost;

In the instance of changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission stands in the same place as the “applicant” in Land Use Hearings.  The Code’s provision that the “application and applicable criteria” is available for inspection presumes that it is available as of the date the notice is mailed, which is 20 days prior to the hearing.  The public has not been given this opportunity for inspection of relevant technical data which is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan.

The draft Comprehensive Plan does not comply with Statewide Land Use Goal 2: Land Use Planning.

Goal 2 states: “All land use plans shall include ... inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal ...”

The draft plan is incomplete and does not contain all the factual information upon which it is
purportedly based.  Much of the data upon which the Transportation Plan was based had not even been completed as of June 13, 2000, only two days before the public hearing. (See above comments re: missing data.)  Other sections of the Draft Comprehensive plan also have missing data, as indicated by “xxxx” in the text.

Goal 2 states: “The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures.”

This plan, as written cannot provide a basis for any specific implementation measures.  A quick calculator review of the plan’s Goals and Policies are indicative of the intended ineffectiveness of the plan as drafted.  The Introduction states: “Policies are statements that provide a specific course of action moving the community toward the attainment of its goals. Policies have the force of law.”  Most laws say that something will or will not be done.  I, personally, cannot recall ever seeing a law that says someone “should” do something.  For example, there are no laws which direct that a person “should” drive on the right side of the road at all times, or “should” stop at all traffic lights, or “should” pay their taxes.  And yet, the policies listed, which have the force of law, are replete with “should” language.

The Goals and Policies section (pages 19 - 22) contains 12 Goals, each of which states that the City will do certain things - with the exception of Goal 9 which states the City should minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources and encouragement of non-polluting transportation alternatives.

This same section contains a total of 33 Policies, which according to the draft, have the force of law.  Contained in the 33 policies are only two statements that the City will do certain things (notify ODOT), and 36 statements that the City should do certain things to attain the goals.

These goals and policies set the stage, and tone, for the rest of the plan - a plan which guarantees there are no rules to be broken, no plan which cannot be skirted, no policy which cannot be ignored in order to fit the needs of the moment, no goals which cannot be easily mis-directed to accommodate special interests or political or monetary influence.

The draft comprehensive plan does not comply with Oregon State Land Use Goal 12:
Transportation.

Goal 12 states: “A transportation plan shall

2.   Be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs.

The draft plan which has been prepared for public review is devoid of relevant data which would be necessary if the plan were actually based “upon an inventory of local ...”.  Certain appendices, upon which the draft plan was purportedly based, were not completed at the time this plan was drafted, and therefore it is impossible that the plan was based on that information.  According to Planning Department staff, the following appendices were still being drafted in Eugene as of June 13, 2000:
Appendix A - Existing Conditions, Appendix B - Population and Employment Projections,
Appendix C - Needs Analysis, Appendix F - unknown.

In addition, certain maps and Figures A-1, A-2, A-3a, A-3b, A-4, A-5a, A-5b, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4/5, B-5/6, and C-1 were not on display at city hall as indicated in the public notice.  Planning staff indicated that these documents were available “somewhere” in within city hall, but it would take some time to compile them for public view.  This was two days prior to the public hearing.

4.   Avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation.

The plan encourages continued and increased reliance on automotive transportation by focusing on extension and “enhancement” of roadways, and fails to provide for any realistic public transit system.

5.   Minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs.

The draft plan contemplates strip development by encouraging commercial development north on Hwy. 101,  far removed from the “downtown area” as defined in the plan.  The impacts on local businesses of the plan to encourage “big-box” commercial development, and the reduction of existing commercial property values by the addition of more commercial land, has not been considered or evaluated.

6.   Conserve energy.

The plan discourages energy conservation because it encourages sprawl and strip development.  Both sprawl and strip development force consumers, employees and consumer goods producers to use fuel more, and increases the costs of municipal infrastructure more than urban in-filling.

7.   Meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services.

The “public transportation” provisions of the plan do not adequately  address the needs of those who do not have automobiles.  The “shopper shuttle” and “general public transit route” do not serve the needs of those who do not have automobiles, they serve the needs of business on Hwy. 101 and the physicians at Health Associates.  Implementation of even this low level of public transportation was only given “medium priority”, behind: an interpretive sites and parking for the bridge, the commercial portion of the boardwalk, a feasibility study of natural gas pipeline, and all proposed airport improvements.

8.   Facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy.

The proposed transportation plan relies heavily on the extension of Oak Street as an “arterial”.
Documentation attached offers an explanation for this obviously  ill-planned proposal.  The City and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) “made a deal” on October 14, 1997.  ODOT agreed to refrain from objecting to a city project, and in return the City agreed to extend Oak Street.

          “THE AGREEMENT ...DLCD Appeal: DLCD staff agreed that, pending approval from the  department, DLCD would not appeal a local decision to approve the re-designation, given that #2, above, occurs.”  (Note: The local decision dealt with development of the Fred Meyer store and the proposed Outlet Mall.)

          (#2 above) “ 2. The City staff agreed to pursue an amendment to the text of the Florence Comprehensive Plan at the time the City Council takes action on the Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the factory outlet mall site.  The text amendment would be to add a
policy to the effect that the City shall plan a connected local street network parallel to Highway 101 ...  to prevent all traffic from accessing Highway 101 at a single location; ... Extension of Oak and Spruce Streets will be considered as alternatives to achieve these objectives.”  (See attachment to this testimony)

This is hardly an adequate basis for transportation planning.  This type of “planning” is counter
productive, flies in the face of public participation goals, and weakens our local economy through expenditure of tax moneys on inefficient, unproductive and wasteful projects.

The plan is unrealistic in its financial basis.  Of the total 67 Future Transportation System
Improvements listed (Page 5-74, 75), only 11 have an estimated cost - the other 56 improvements have no cost estimates listed.  Three reasons for this come to mind.  Either the City has no intention of complete the 56 improvements, or the plan is as presented is based on non-existent data, or financial implications of the plan were not considered as required.

9.   Conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.  Each plan shall include a provision for transportation as a key facility.

The plan does not conform with Lane County’s transportation plan.  The City’s plan classifies
Munsel Lake Road and Heceta Beach Road as “Minor Arterial Facilities”.  The County’s plan
identifies these two roads as “Major Collectors”. (Page 53)

Thank you for this opportunity to comment,

(signed)
Zane Ziemer, President

Attachment: October 14, 1997 Draft Meeting Notes