City of Florence
Attn:  Mr. Ken Lanfear, Public Works Director
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon  97439

Dear Mr. Lanfear:

This is in regard to the recent City of Florence application for a right-of-way across BLM land in the SE1/4NE1/4, Section 14, T. 18 S., R. 12 W., Will. Mer.  The purpose of the proposed right-of-way request is to facilitate the City's construction of the Oak Street extension between 37th Street and 46th Street, adjoining the Fred Meyer store.

On December 11, 2001, Roger Middlebrook of Branch Engineering, Inc. delivered to our office updated engineering plans for the Oak Street extension project.  These updated plans revealed information that the planned physical infrastructure of Oak Street (the running surface, the curb/gutter, and associated utilities like sewer and water) passed very close to BLM land, but did not cross onto BLM land.

On December 12, 2001, a group of BLM personnel, including myself, visited the proposed right-of-way, meeting with you and Roger Middlebrook on the site.  The meeting reinforced that Oak Street would not occupy space upon BLM land.  The function of the right-of-way on BLM land would be to provide space for a tapered backslope away from Oak Street proper.

Several questions arose during the on-site meeting:

1.  What were the exact dimensions of the right-of-way requested by the City across BLM land?

2.  What stabilization plans are proposed for the BLM land immediately adjacent to Oak Street?

In response to these questions, the BLM received a letter dated December 14, 2001, from Branch Engineering.  The letter includes a statement that the backslope on BLM land above the street would be graded to a 2:1 slope and would be left unplanted.  An enclosed diagram shows the projected contour lines after grading the backslope.  Based on the information provided, it appears that the work associated with the planned Oak Street extension, as it affects the BLM land in the SE1/4NE1/4, falls within the authorized boundaries of; is consistent with the parameters spelled out in; and is of a nature similar to the activities authorized in, the easement granted by the BLM to Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. on September 20, 1999 (BLM easement OR 53849).  A copy of the OR 53849 easement document is enclosed for your perusal.

Under the above-described circumstances, the City of Florence has two alternative ways in proceeding.  The first alternative would be for the BLM to continue processing the City's application for a right-of-way across the subject BLM land.  As explained in the December 12, 2001 meeting, environmental review would proceed, after which a 30 day environmental assessment review and public comment period would be announced.  Assuming that a decision is made to issue the right-of-way grant after the public review period ends, and if no appeals are filed against the decision, a right-of-way grant would be issued to the City authorizing the work in support of the Oak Street extension.

The second alternative would be for the City of Florence to withdraw their application for a BLM right-of-way, and approach Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., negotiating with them to complete the necessary excavation and rearrangement of sand for the City under the terms and conditions of the OR 53849 easement.  if this alternative were selected, Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. would remain the responsible party to the BLM, and all work to be completed on BLM land would have to be accomplished within the boundaries of the easement, to the conditions and specifications outline din it, to the satisfaction of the BLM.

Please advise us as to which way you would like to proceed.  If you have any questions concerning any of the above information, please feel free to contact David Schroeder at (541) 683-6482.

Sincerely, Steven Calish, Coast Range Area Field Manager
Enclosure:  Copy of easement document OR 53849
CC:  Mr. Chuck Carncross, Store Director, Fred Meyer Store, 4701 Highway 101, Florence, Oregon 97439

Source:  U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene Office.

Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Fund
Attn: John Fink
Oregon Department of Transportation
355 Capitol Street NE, Room 434
Salem, Oregon 97301-3872

RE:  Application by City of Florence  for Local Street Networks Funds

Dear Mr. Fink:

Citizens For Florence is a local, grassroots organization committed to maintaining and improving the livability of Florence.  In the last three years, we have opposed re-zoning of land to accommodate a proposed “outlet mall”, demanded significant improvements in the development of the local Fred Meyer, and sought the only legal public access to Cannery Dune, the most visible open dune within the city limits of Florence.   All of these efforts have been successful.

We offer the following comments in opposition to the City of Florence’s application for funding because we are opposed to the partial development  of Oak Street, as planned.

Our group will be participating in the first public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan before the Planning Commission beginning in June.  Our group will be participating in the final public hearings before the City Council which will be held July through August.  If necessary, we plan to appeal decisions which we believe will be detrimental to the livability of Florence to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.

The public has not yet been given an opportunity to review, much less approve, the City’s plan to “extend Oak Street”.  For many years, the local people have worked to get all the schools centrally located, away from dangerous traffic areas.  Construction of the last school has finally been approved, and soon our children will be safe from traffic.  All local schools are (or will be) located on Oak Street.   Development of Oak Street as a “bypass” certainly is not what the public contemplated when it was determined that all the schools should be located on Oak Street.

All the “plans” upon which this project is based: Florence Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater
Management Plan, and Transportation Plan,  are still in draft stages.  The City’s application to ODOT is premature, to say the least.

For your convenience, our comments follow the same order as the City’s application.

B: 3.     State Highway Impacted

Highway 101 is the adjacent state highway, but this project will not “benefit” Highway 101.  If
anything, it will further impact Hwy. 101 traffic flow by requiring a stop light be located at the
intersection of Hwy. 101 and Munsel Creek Road in order to accommodate the cross-traffic from Munsel Lake Road which will occur.

B: 4.     Project Status

Additional Right of Way - Approximately 42% of the whole Oak Street project has not been acquired by the City, there are no funds available for purchase of the 42% remaining, and there have been no financing arrangements made to complete the remaining 42% of right of way purchase - all of which would be required in order to make this proposal feasible.  City’s application states: “The City does not currently have an adequate street plan for acquisition of right of way.”

Environmental Permits Required - Numerous permits would be required.  This project traverses area which is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, an open sand dune which is protected by Oregon State land use laws.  As of the writing of this letter, the city does not have any agreement with, or approval from, the BLM to build Oak Street on their property.  It is my understanding that cities do not have the right to condemn federally owned land.

Any Structures - The City has previously indicated their desire to build a public wayside area, which undoubtedly will include restrooms.  The application does not address this issue.

B: 6.     Replacement of Local Funding

We believe that one reason the City did not fund this project in the last budget was because they were concerned that the taxpayers would not approve a project of this magnitude, and one which would be so very disruptive to their local neighborhoods.   Once the public becomes fully aware of the implications of this extension of Oak Street, voter approval of future funding will be unlikely.  This proposed project is so site-specific, that it is obvious that it will primarily serve the needs of Fred Meyer store located where Oak Street traffic will access Hwy 101, not those of the City residents or the State of Oregon.

The City could have, but did not, require that Fred Meyer pay for construction of this section of Street at the time Fred Meyer applied for their permits.  It will probably appear to many that the primary beneficiary of this proposal is going to be the Fred Meyer store.

D:   Program Objectives

Project relieves pressure on state highway system by directing local traffic to local roads and improving flow of through traffic on state highway.

This project will not improve the flow of through traffic on Hwy. 101.  If this project is funded, it will necessitate a stop light be installed across Hwy 101 at Munsel Creek Road.  This will further slow down Hwy 101 through traffic.  It will also encourage even more use of Hwy 101 by locals by:

a.  Increasing the frequency of travel by locals on Hwy 101 because Oak Street will run    through residential neighborhoods, past four schools and the city’s main public park, which already has (and will require more) numerous stop signs and slower speed limits.  Locals will continue to use Hwy 101 because it will be faster and more convenient than travel on Oak Street.

b.  Increasing commercial development in the northern area of town, thereby increasing  local travel and congestion on Hwy 101 by moving it from existing business areas in Florence which are served by local roads.

c.  Encouraging commercial development in this area, which in turn will discourage commercial development in the portions of town that are already served by local roads.

d.  Create a “draw” of local residents to the increased commercial development from existing neighborhoods.  Currently, there no residential areas north or west of this area.  There are few residential areas located south of the area, and one major residential area (Florentine Estates) to the east.   Florentine Estates already has an access point for existing commercial development via Spruce Street, and stop-lighted access across Hwy 101 at 35th Street.   Development of Oak Street will draw business from existing commercial areas such as Old Town, and will increase traffic on Hwy 101.

The “development” for which the project is being developed (North Commercial Area) has not even been subjected to a public hearing process.  It is strip development and urban sprawl at its finest. The draft Florence Comprehensive Plan which may contain re-zoning for this development is months away from being approved, and a recent consensus of the Citizens For Florence directors indicates a lengthy appeals process regarding this particular aspect of the review process as presently planned by the city.

Section E: Program Criteria

E: 4.     Local Street Networks projects must advance the following objectives ...

Project enhances safety of existing highway facilities ...

This project will not “enhance safety” on Hwy. 101 - see above re: increasing local traffic on Hwy 101.  The City’s application states: “The construction of the proposed portion of Oak Street provides immediate alternative access for a rapidly developing commercial center.”  This is not accurate.   It does not connect with the rest of Oak Street, does not “loop” to anywhere.  It will create even more cross traffic across Hwy 101 from Munsel Lake Road by encouraging more commercial development on Hwy 101.  The proposed project does little more than provide for easier delivery truck access to Fred Meyer, and justification for the City’s proposed strip development they euphemistically call the North Commercial Area.

The City’s application states “It is hoped that the Local Street Networks Fund will be extended by the Legislature ...”  This is a clear notice to all concerned that the City does not envision local funding to be available to complete this project, and this would be a waste of State taxpayer money.

Project improves efficiency and capacity of existing state highway facilities ...

This project would require installation of a stop light on Hwy 101, creating more congestion.  The City’s states “There are approximately 200 commercial properties on Highway 101 between 21st Street and the North Commercial Area, all of whom currently access Highway 101.”  There is no reason that local travelers would drive through myriad stop signs, school crossings, and residential speed zones on Oak Street to access businesses located on Hwy 101.  They will continue do as they have done in the past, drive the faster route on Hwy 101.  A survey of Kingwood or Spruce Street Streets, which travel parallel to Hwy 101 near the center of town would illustrate this point.  These streets are of sufficient width, straight, and for all intents and purposes, would appear to be a much better travel route.   But locals do not use them because there are too many stop signs and slower residential speed limits.  Local travelers use Hwy 101 because it is faster.

 If the City truly wanted to reduce local traffic on Hwy 101, they would not be proposing to re-zone residential or industrial property located on Hwy 101 to commercial, which is contained in the most recent  draft Comprehensive Plan.  As stated above, this project has little to do with reducing traffic on Hwy 101, and much to do with justifying re-zoning of land north of town for more commercial strip development on Hwy 101.

Project supports development or revitalization of a downtown, community center, or other area planned for compact development ...

The City states “The goal of the North Commercial Area is to reduce trips by providing commercial and personal services in a center in the north end of the city closer to existing residential development there, rather than placing all commercial/service development in the downtown or along Highway 101, as now exists.”  This is not accurate. There are no developed residential areas north of the project area.  There is nothing but an open sand dune (owned by BLM) to the west, there is nothing but commercial land to the east between the project area and Hwy 101.  There is one residential development in the area, Florentine Estates.  Florentine Estates is already linked to other off-Hwy 101 commercial businesses and the Florence downtown through Spruce Street.  This “extension” of Oak  Street, a street which does not even “extend” to the proposed project area, should not be approved.

Where appropriate, an urban-area project supports walking, bicycling and public transit ...

Florence realistically has no public transit, nor has any reasonable facsimile of a public transit system been proposed.  This project, if it included a bike bath and pedestrian walk areas, would be a “road from nowhere to nowhere”.  Any bike path in this area would not connect to any other existing bike path except back to the bike lane on Hwy 101.  Any sidewalk in this area would not connect to any other sidewalk system that does not lead directly back to Hwy 101.  The only access a pedestrian will have to this “extension” is by walking in the gravel beside Hwy 101 from 35th Street to this area.  This project will encourage commercial development in this area, and increase pedestrian traffic along Hwy 101.

E: 5.     Proposed project provides cost-effective approach to improving operation of state highway system ...

Clear-headed zoning decisions on the part of the City, which re-direct commercial development to the core areas of Florence, would be a much more cost-effective method of improving the state highway system.  The City, through its proposal, is asking the taxpayer to further subsidize their insistence that they have an absolute right to use Hwy 101 as “Main Street Florence” by  encouraging even more commercial development on Hwy 101, rather than discouraging it.

E: 6.     Identify alternative solutions

If the City were to practice meaningful land use planning, expansion of Hwy 101 would not be
necessary.  The proposal to develop Oak Street will cost the State of Oregon much more in the long run.  The City states that it could proceed with a logical re-zoning effort, but has not “due to the requirements of the schedule for completion of the Periodic Review process.”  The City certainly found enough time to dream up the North Commercial Area concept.  They could have found the time to adequately review and revise existing zoning to accomplish a much more realistic solution to the Hwy 101 “dilemma”, if they had chosen to.

ODOT should keep in mind that the Florence Comprehensive Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan, and the Transportation System Plan, which are the underpinnings of the entire “Oak Street Extension” plan,  are still drafts.  They have not even completed the public review process, much less the expected appeals process.

F: 6.     Are all elements of the proposed project on the public right of way?

The City fails to mention that a large portion of this project lies on property owned by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.  The BLM has not indicated they are prepared to grant a right of way to the City for this project.  The city does not have the right of condemnation on federally owned land.  Any application by the city to BLM to acquire this property will be met with opposition by Citizens For Florence.

F: 8.     Describe land use and environmental requirements ...

As noted above, the plan does not comply with the current Comprehensive Plan, and neither the Stormwater Management Plan or TSP have been finalized.  The entire project is based on proposed plans which have not been approved by the City Council or other regulatory agencies.

The City’s application states, “Storm drainage is proposed to be carried by the city’s existing storm drainage system located in street rights of way consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.”  The City fails to mention that the Stormwater Management Plan has not yet been through the public hearing process, or the appeal process.

The City’s application states, “The Bureau of Land management owns a portion of the dunal area. However, they are party to the agreement signed by Fred Meyer for the extension of Oak Street through that portion of the proposed route. ”  This statement is misleading.  The BLM has not signed any agreement which would indicate that they would grant a right of way to the City.  The document upon which the City relies is a letter, prepared prior to the eventual signing of an easement between Fred Meyer and BLM, which states:

“The Easement Holder and the United States acknowledge that at some time the City of Florence may apply for and be granted by the United States a patent, lease, or easement affecting all or part of the easement area (of which the City of Florence may own, lease, or use part of all of the easement area for utilities, public street purposes, an interpretive center, a visitors wayside, or recreation and other public purposes).  The Easement Holder agrees to amend or terminate this easement as may be appropriate in order to accommodate such uses by the City of Florence so long as the Easement Holder is assured that there will continue to be adequate means to prevent the movement of sand onto the Development Property.” (emphasis added)

The City states: “additional permits may need to be acquired, but it is not expected that this will be difficult, nor that it will delay construction.”  To the contrary, the City’s proposed destruction of the Cannery Dune west of Fred Meyer is a hotly contested issue, and our group plans to oppose this project by all means possible, including the appeals process allowed by Federal regulations for protection of significant natural resource lands.

For all the above reasons, I respectfully request that you deny this application.

Thank you,

(signed)  Zane Ziemer
President

cc: Bureau of Land Management

Link to: Proposed "Extension" of Oak Street Map