Director
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, N.E.., #200
Salem, Oregon  97310

RE:  Objections - City of Florence Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are the objections that the Florentine Estates Homeowners' Association Board of Directors is submitting to your office.

The Florentine Estates Homeowners' Association Board of Directors participated in the City's periodic review by submitting written testimony, as well as oral testimony at the Planning Commissoin level and at the City Council hearing level.  The testimony submitted is attached.

Also attached are our objections to the varoius sections of the comprehensive plan adopted under the relevant work tasks.

Our comments cover Goal 2, Land Use; Goal 11, Utilities and Facilities; and Goal 14, Urbanization.

In addition we wish to object to the City Council's arbitrarty decision to expand the UGB to include certain lands to accommodate a proposed Indian casino, as well as other neighboring parcels, without any public hearing, review or input.  We would appreciate knowing as soon as possible if this action must be appealed directly to LUBA, as opposed to being contained in these objections.

Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns about the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan.

Nola Fran Xavier, President

cc:  City of Florence

Link to Specific Comments:
Goal 2, Land Use
Goal 11, Utilities and Facilities
Goal 14, Urbanization

BACKGROUND:

One of our main overriding objections to the adoption of the Florence Comprehensive Plan is that the City Council totally ignored the public input. Our information was provided in writing and in oral testimony with no questions asked, no discussion and no changes of any kind on any issue we spoke to. The public hearings gave the appearance of being "lip service" to those attending. Compromises had been worked on outside the meetings for special interest individuals but for those of us who waited to speak at the appointed place and time, issues were already settled and nothing was changed or acknowledged. The city knows it has sent forward material that is flawed and needs to be revised but sent it anyway, apparently preferring to make revisions when it is returned to them for correction.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
 

Solution: Don't make any changes until the required studies are completed.
 

Solution: Change "should" to "shall"'
 

Solution: Address the specifics of the issue of barriers and buffering in the zoning ordinance where it is mandatory and not in the plan where it is confusing and inadequate.
 

Solution: Use the mandatory "shall" and include commercial areas.
 

Solution: Do the required analysis to determine "need".
 

Solution: Do a current study.
 

Solution: Remove reference to this parcel, be it 80 acres or 125 acres.

B.      WATER SYSTEMS SUPPLIES AND NEEDS

PAGE 85 & 86 - ALL RECOMMENDATIONS
 

Suggested Language: Change the action in ALL the recommendations to "must" or "shall". For example,

"1.     The City MUST identify and prepare a schedule, together with . . ."
"2.     The City MUST prepare a plan . . ."
"3.     The City MUST continue to pursue a variety of water sources, . . ."

and so on. Associated with each recommendation "must" be a time goal. When is the City going to accomplish the actions? Without the mandatory requirement and the schedule the recommendations are meaningless.

UNSTATED NEEDS
 

Suggested Language: Based upon the review of October 29, 2001, an additional recommendation should be:  "The City MUST develop a water conservation plan to be in place and effective no later than March 2002."
 

 Suggested Language: It is suggested that the additional direction be provided as:
"The City of Florence will not allow the annexation or development of any properties beyond development already approved prior to demonstrating the capability to produce 3.0 mgd."

PAGE 86 - BACKGROUND
Second paragraph, last line: "The City may work with Heceta Water District to obtain future withdrawals from Clear Lake up to sustainable units."
 

Suggested Language: Change to: "The City must work with Heceta Water District to obtain future withdrawals from Clear Lake to allow the City to meet the current demand."
 

Suggested Language: Delete the expression "up to sustainable units." and use the previous
suggestion language.

PAGE 87 - BACKGROUND
Schedule, Summer 2001
"Develop the capability to supply 2.0 mgd net to the City's water distribution system by: . . . rehabilitation and optimization of the existing wellfield and treatment plant Projected 2.2 mgd gross production with 2.0 mgd net capability"
 

This level of production has demonstrated that the City is barely capable of meeting the current demand, except for the months of July and August. The inability to meet the goal of the refurbishment effort puts that City behind in its ability to meet the demand for water after March 2002.

Suggested Language: Change the goal to: "Develop the capability to supply 2.0 mgd net to the City's water distribution system by:  . . . rehabilitation and optimization of the existing wellfield and treatment plant . . . no later than the summer of 2003."

Schedule, Summer 2002
"Develop the capability to supply 3.0 mgd net . . .by: . . . obtaining a groundwater use permit from OWRD for an additional 1.9 mgd."
 

Suggested Language: Add a time scale to the action: . . . obtaining a groundwater use permit from OWRD by March 2002."

Delete the actions, "constructing five new production wells" and "providing associated improvements to the water treatment plant."

Add to the defined action the following:
o       "Procure the property necessary to place the wells by March 2002."
o       "Develop a competitive contract for drilling the five new wells by April 2002."
o       "Award the contract for drilling the five new wells by July 2002."
o       "Implement the necessary upgrades to the treatment plant to increase the processing capability to 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) by September 2002."
o       "Begin drilling the five new wells by August 2002."
o       "As each new well is capable of producing water, test the wells for quality and production quantity within one month of completion of drilling."
o       "Complete the drilling of all five new wells by March 2003."
o       "Complete the testing and bring the five new wells on line by May 2003."
o       "Demonstrate the capability to produce 3.0 mgd from the entire well field by July 2003."
o       "Provide a final report to the City Council and the public detailing the testing and evaluation of the production capability of the expanded well field by August 2003."

Schedule, Summer 2008
"Develop new groundwater source and water treatment facility to meet future demands."
 

It is suggested that the City plan the detailed actions required to accomplish this milestone by at least one year prior to this date. To be meaningful, the detailed plan must include the significant actions, the cost of each action and the date for accomplishment.

Suggested Language: Modify the statement to correspond to the new schedule approved by the City Council as: "Develop new groundwater source and water treatment facility to meet future demands by the summer of 2006."
 

Suggested Language: It s suggested that the following language be added to this goal: "The City of Florence is required to develop a plan for the development of the expanded well field and treatment plant that includes action definition, schedules or milestones, costs and the individual responsible for the actions."

Further, it is suggested that the following language be added to this goal: "The City of Florence is directed to provide the plan to the public citizens of Florence and hold public reviews of progress no less frequently than quarterly."

C. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1, page 88
"The City should prepare and adopt a stormwater management plan which integrates multiple objectives including piped and natural drainage systems, drainage and flood control, water quality protection, land resource management, wellhead protection and erosion/sedimentation control into a coordinated management framework."
 

The Planning Commission has reviewed and proposed modifications to the implementing ordinance for the Stormwater Management Plan but the submission of the Ordinance to the Council is being held in abeyance depending upon court action on Measure 7.

The City Planning Commission has reviewed and modified the recommended implementing ordinance. The City Council review of the proposed ordinance is being held until the decision on Measure 7. This implies that, if Measure 7 is declared constitutional, that no Stormwater Management will ever be done.

Suggested Language:  The recommendation should be changed to: "The City has prepared and must adopt a stormwater management plan which integrates multiple objectives including piped and natural drainage systems, drainage and flood control, water quality protection, land
resource management, wellhead protection and erosion/sedimentation control into a coordinated management framework."

The following language should be added: "The City Council must review and adopt the implementing ordinances recommended by the Planning Commission by March 2002. The ordinance could be delayed in effect until the decision on Measure 7 is made."

Recommendation 2, page 88
"The City should update existing regulations, and adopt new regulations as necessary to implement the stormwater management plan."
 

Suggested Language: Modify the language to: "The City shall adopt new regulations as necessary to implement the stormwater management plan by March 2002."

UNSTATED

Suggested Language: Add the following language to the Comprehensive Plan: "The City shall adopt a financial plan for implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan by March 2002."

Page 188, Polices, #2, a) & b) states that the proposed change provides for a demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirementsŠ Again, based on assumptions, not facts as developed by doing the required needs and analysis studies.

Solution: Do the required study.

Policies 2, c) The proposed change is necessary for and/or will not hinder, orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services. We have provided pages of  documentation regarding water issues. This city service is not yet available and until it is on line and production is shown to be adequate for the already existing service population, new annexations should not be done. There have been many delays over the proposed time line
and we are still waiting for the water to be available.

Solution: Do not allow annexations to proceed until adequate water is available.

Policies 2, e) " annexation will be cost-effective for the city." We provided the city with a study "The cost of Growth in Oregon" regarding the costs of annexation to cities. Eben V. Fodor who is a generally accepted authority did this. The costs to cities per new house is staggering. When growth doesn't pay its own way, the use of public sector resources to fund growth can result in a net subsidy of growth by taxpayers. Established residents who are not benefiting from additional growth will find this subsidy to be inequitable, especially in a community such as Florence where a large percentage of the population is elderly and on fixed incomes.

Solution: Remove the term "cost-effective" and require use of realistic figures in showing costs of urbanization of proposed annexations to the city.

Page 190, Matrix of city issued building permits. Reference to the multiple listing as of October 2001, availability of lots and dwellings. We provided the city with 6 months of reports all showing an average of 700 properties available. The difference here is that we are looking at the area, their figures only report within the city limits. However, whether within the
city limits or out of the city limits, the 700 properties are still available. We don't believe that most buyers are concerned with whether a property is within the city limits or not. It matters to the city. However, the cost of adding property to the city should matter to all of us as
demonstrated in the Fodor study. We also called attention to the item of average market time required to sell a piece of property. It is over 250 days. That certainly indicates that there is an abundance of property available and that a buyers market is in effect and has been for a long
time.

Solution: Do the required needs and analysis before assuming annexations are required.

Page 190 & 191, Three adjustments to the UGB. We object to the addition of property which was done after the public hearings. This provided no opportunity for comment. We are particularity disturbed by the addition of the portion know as the Hatch Tract which is solely for the purpose of an Indian Gaming Casino. Feelings in this community run very high regarding this issue and to add it to the plan without any opportunity to take public
comment is unconscionable.

Solution: Remove this section from the plan.