County commissioners naysay city’s comp plan

Friday, Feb 19th, 2010
By Shawn Penrod Siuslaw News

Opponents of annexation say city is trying to create a ‘septic scare.’

The long saga of the adoption of Florence’s 2020 Comprehensive Plan by the City and Lane County continues with the county’s Board of Commissioners deciding Wednesday to send the plan back to the City Council for more changes.

Although the council had formally adopted the plan in 2002, co-adoption by the Board of Commissioners is required because the county is responsible for implementing the plans in the city’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Currently, the county uses the city’s 1988 comprehensive plan for development and property decisions.

Comprehensive plans have been required by state law since 1973. According to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Goals’ Web site, both cities and counties are required to “adopt a comprehensive plan and the zoning and land-division ordinances needed to put the plan into effect.”

New amendments based on recommendations from the Lane County Planning Commission as well as public testimony were added and adopted by the City Council in December 2009, and the city appeared confident that commissioners would approve the document.

The latest amendments regarded the implementation of a ground and surface water testing program and clarified the city’s annexation policy.

Florence Community Develop-ment Director Sandra Belson told the board the city was voluntarily giving up its right to island annexations.

“We believe we’ve been responsive to concerns,” said Belson.

Stephanie Schulz, Metro and Small City Planner for Lane County, said during Wednesday’s meeting that the co-adoption of the plan would ensure consistency between the county and the City of Florence.

Dave Perry, the south coast regional representative for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Develop-ment, told the board he supported the city’s proposal.

“They have met a lot of concerns that were broached over the past year,” said Perry.

Members of Citizens Against Annexation (CAA), however, did not mince words in expressing their opposition to the plan and its proposed amendments. Opponents said they believe the city is creating a “septic scare” in order to force residents in the UGB to annex.

Mike Lilly, a Portland-based attorney representing The Reserve, a subdivision north of Florence, told the board there were “serious problems” with the plan.

“(The plan) calls out findings that are simply wrong,” said Lilly.

Lilly had issues with wording in the plan he said implied the city had scientific evidence that septic systems in the UGB posed a threat to the city’s drinking water, whether they were failing or not.

Ralph Christensen, one of the authors of the 1982 North Florence Dunal Aquifer Study, told the board that septic systems do not present much of a threat from nitrates. He said as long as there were no more than 2.9 septic system per acre, there should not be a problem.

“The majority of residents in the UGB do not want to be a part of Florence,” said Stephanie Chestler, a board member of CAA. “They can’t afford to pay for a sewage system and don’t want to.”

Jerry Nordin, a board member for the Heceta Water District (HWD), said the water board opposes adoption of the plan and encouraged commissioners to not approve the plan “to put pressure on the city to get an IGA done.”

HWD and the City of Florence have been unable to reach a formal agreement for nearly a decade for water service in the UGB.

Lisa Arkin, a member of the Lane County Planning Commissioner, however, spoke in support of the plan, saying that despite initial concerns, the city had moved on from focusing on potential septic tank contamination.

“Knowledge is important,” she said. “We shouldn’t shy away from a testing program because we’re afraid of what we’ll find.”

Despite the county commission staff and Lane County Planning Commission’s recommendation for the board to adopt the plan and amendments, the opposition testimony appeared to affect the commissioners.

Springfield Commissioner Bill Dwyer had stern words for the city, saying he found it offensive that the city would “embellish” facts.

“This thing is not ready and I’m not going to vote for it,” he said.

Dwyer proposed that the board not look at the plan again until February 2011. Commissioners Faye Stewart and Pete Sorenson, however, were reluctant to postpone action for another year. Stewart volunteered to assist Commissioner Bill Fleenor and the county’s legal counsel to finalize the plan.

After a lengthy discussion about the costs of mailing out new meeting notices, it was decided the board would keep the record open and proceed with the next readings at its May 19 meeting.

“The message I want to send is: let’s get to work and make changes,” said Commissioner Rob Handy.

Calls to Fleenor for comment were not returned by press time.

George Goldstein, a local resident and member of the Lane County Planning Commission, voted against recommending the board approve the plan. He said his concerns had to do with omissions and errors in the plan.

“Mostly technical problems,” said Goldstein who noted there was no scientific evidence septic systems were failing in the UGB. He was also concerned about what he said was a lack of stormwater planning.

“Stormwater management needs to be addressed,” he said, but quickly added, “there is nothing wrong that can’t be solved.”

Florence City Manager Bob Willoughby was disappointed with the outcome.

“We’ve been working at this for a long time. Our hope and expectation was, after six or seven readings, that we could get a decision,” he said. “We’ve been working really hard to try and address all of the comments made by the public, by the (Lane County) Planning Commission, by the County Commissioners. We’ve done that and I think the City Council made it clear at their last meeting on this that they were done with this.”

Willoughby said that the next step is for him to report to the City Council at its March 1 meeting.

“I do know the City Council made it very clear, they are tired of having this come back with more requests, more changes and it’s time for an up or down vote,” said Willoughby.

As for the so-called “septic scare,” Willoughby acknowledged the city was originally concerned about failing septic systems polluting the water source.

“I think it was correct to say that initially we were concerned about thousands of septic tanks out in the UGB. But we moved beyond that a year ago, to a comprehensive testing program that includes industrial contaminants, surface contaminants, golf course contaminants,” he said. “Are we concerned about septic? We’re concerned enough to want to know if there is a problem. And if there’s not, great, there’s not a problem. We’re not going to create one just to annex somebody. The council has been very clear that we have a ‘no forced annexation’ policy. That hasn't changed. ... We still have that policy and that’s the policy of the council. How this co-adoption is being handled by the county affects all those policies, I don’t know. That’s a question for the council.”