HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 24 Vacation of One Block Segment of B Street Public Right-of-Way Between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, Case No. LRP2007-00019
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
September 17, 2007
Regular Meeting
Development Services
Andy Limbird o...~
x3784 ~
10 minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
V ACATIONOF ONE BLOCK SEGMENT OF B STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST, CASE
NO. LRP2007-00019
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Adopt Final Findings and Conclusions for the following: AN ORDINANCE
VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE
COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On July 16,2007, City Council concluded a public hearing on a request to vacate
public right-of-way for the segment ofB Street between 4th Street and Pioneer
Parkway East. City Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and gave second reading to the vacation ordinance (Attachment 2). City
Council directed staff to prepare findings and conclusions in support of the vacation
action. Testimony submitted opposing the vacation action and staff responses are
addressed in the final findings. If approved by Council, the findings and conclusions
will be appended to the vacation ordinance that will effect the vacation action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Recommendation
Attachment 2: Ordinance
Attachment 3: Findings and Conclusions of Law Supporting the Vacation Action
Attachment 4: Summary of Public Testimony Opposing the Vacation Action
DISCUSSION:
The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long, one-block segment of
.public street running east-west along the northern edge of the existing police and
courts parking lot. The City owns all abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public
right-of-way proposed for vacation. Vacation of the one-block segment of public
right-of-way is required to achieve full construction of the Justice Center site option
selected by City Council on February 28, 2006.
Il...~
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY ()F SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. LRP2007-00019
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
Vacation of a one-block segment of B Street located between 4th Street and Pi?neer Parkway East.
1. On May 7, 2007, the Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action in accordance with Springfield
Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Planning Case No. LRP2007-00019 - City of Springfield Police Department,
applicant.
2. The application was initiated in accordance with Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely
and sufficient notice of public hearing, pursuant to Sections 14.030 and 9.050 of the Springfield Development
Code, has been provided.
3. On June 5, 2007, a public hearing on the vacation request was held and the written record for submittal of
public testimony was held open to June 12, 2007. The Development Services Department staff notes and
recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been
considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Based on this record, the requested vacation application is consistent with the criteria of SDC 9.030. This general
finding is supported by the specific findings offact and conclusion in Attachment A, Vacation Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve the vacation request at a public hearing.
ATTEST
AYES: if
NOES: ~
ABSENT: I
ABSTAIN: 0
Attachment
1-1
VACATION
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE, 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF B STREET IN
BLOCK 1 OF THE MAP OF SPRINGFIELD, BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE
COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872
WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council has declared its intention to vacate public
right-of-way in the City of Springfield; and '
WHEREAS, the request for vacation was submitted in conformance with the provisions of
ORS 271.080 et. seq., and with the provisions of Article 9 VACATIONS of the Springfield
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support of
this vacation satisfy the criteria of approval for vacations found in Section 9.060(3) of the
Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interest of the City in carrying out its plans and
programs for the general development of the City; and
WHEREAS, lawful notice of the proposed vacation was published and posted; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 5,
2007 and June 19, 2007 in the Council Chambers of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield OR and recommended unconditional approval of this public right-of-way vacation
(LRP2007 -00019); and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street,
on Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Reading) and on Monday, the 16th day of July, 2007,
(Second Reading) at the hour of7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the proposed vacation and_
persons appeared to object;
(Bar Code Sticker)
Return to: City of Springfield - City Recorder, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Ordinance
Arttachment
2-1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The CounciUinds that the legal notice of the hearing was lawfully published and
posted; that _ objections were made at the vacation hearing held; that the public interest will not
be impaired by the vacation of the strcet right-of-way, and that vacation of said street will be in the
best interest of the public and increase the benefit of the property involved.
Section 2: The public right-of-way in the City of Springfield, as generally depicted on the
site map and more particularly described in the property legal description which are together
attached as Exhibit A of this Ordinance, is declared to be vacated.
Section 3: Findings 1 through 36 and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Common Council
in support of the street right-of-way vacation are hereby made part of this Ordinance by reference.
Section 4: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the special provision that in the event the
vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes it shall revert to public right-of-
way.
Section 5: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the establishment of temporary
casements or licenses for existing utilities located within the right-of-way to be maintained,
continued, repaired, reconstructed, renewed, replaced, rebuilt or enlarged subject to the provisions
of said temporary easements or licenses.
Section 6: The City Recorder is directed to tile certified copies of this ordinance with the
Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane County Surveyor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of
2007, by a vote of _ for and _ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this
day of
, 2007.
Mayor
..~~I'"-t'~< J.L ~ \ ~\ '-(
. ....~..~.f.I.L.{Q.i~~~=~~=~~
Ordinance
- 2 -
2-2
ATTEST:
City Recorder
State of Oregon )
) ss.
County of Lane )
Ordinance
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
as
by
(N ame)
ofthe City of Springfield~
(Posi.tion)
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON
My commission expires:
- 3 -
2-3
EXHIBIT A
I- 13800 S
en
<( - 3 G
w 4
>- ~O<
<(
~ .._. ,~.........._--_. l-
. ! 17-03-35-24
~ ..,.-._...._.._....._.w_... W
0:: 14100 1~ w
<( 0::
a.. Q S
.~ I-
0:: 13900 14000 I (J)
W , r, 4300
Q
w ~ ::I:
Z 5 6 ....
I ~
0 ~ 0
.,
- I
a.. "'" .. 7' 6f: 8 "0'
13
14
5
~~
66'
66'
66'
66'
33'1 33'
1
_ 1800
o
\(J
_ 1700
o
~
1600
1 500 _
C)
~
u,
"
1900
3
2
1
,
""
:::!
:r. t
....
4
.,.
-
2!
(:,
::J
<;)
\(J
4
:: 17-03-35-31
"'l'
34'
_ 2000
o
:\;
2100
o 0
o 0
C"J tol')
C"J (\5)
,."-. \
2400
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, filed and recorded in Book I
Page 1, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon, said point being the Northeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B
Street in Springfield, Oregon; thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet, more or less,
to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, which is the Northwest corner of B street and
Fourth Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Southerly projection of the Fourth street right
of way, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Blo'ck 1 of the Map of Springfield,
said point being the Northeast corner of B Street and Fourth Street; thence along the Southerly right of way of B
Street, 264 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being
the Southeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the
Northerly projection of the easterly right of way of Pioneer Parkway, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the
point of beginning, all in the City of Springfield, Lane County, Oregon.
Ordinance
- 4 -
2-4
VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
City of Springfield Case No. LRP2007-00019
APPLICANT
The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department
VACATION ACTION
The vacation of a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street right-of-way.
LOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED
The public right-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is a segment ofB Street located between 4th
Street and Pioneer Parkway East. The right-of-way lies on the boundary between Lane County Tax Maps
17-03-35-24 and 17-03-35-31.
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE VACATION
Finding I: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.080 prescribes:
(1) Whenever any person interested in any real property in an incorporated city in this state desires
to vacate all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, public square or other public place,
such person may file a petition therefor setting forth a description of the ground proposed to be
vacated, the purpose for which the ground is proposed to be used and the reason for such vacation.
(2) There shall be appended to such petition, as a part thereof and as a bas is for granting the same,
the consent of the owners of all abutting property and of not less than two-thirds in area of the real
property affected thereby. The real property affected thereby shall be deemed to be the land lying on
either side of the street or portion thereofproposed to be vacated and extending laterally to the next
street that serves as a parallel street, but in any case not to exceed 200 feet, and the land for a like
lateral distance on either side of the street for 400 feet along its course beyond each terminus of the
part proposed to be vacated. Where a street is proposed to be vacated to its termini, the land
embraced in an extension of the street for a distance of 400 feet beyond each terminus shall also be
counted. In the vacation of any plat or part thereof the consent of the owner or owners of two-thirds
in area of the property embraced within such plat or part thereof proposed to be vacated shall be
. sufficient, except where such vacation embraces street area, when, as to such street area the above
requirements shall also apply. The consent of the owners of the required amount of property shall be
in writing. [Amended by 1999 c.866 82J
Finding 2: ORS Section 271.130(1) prescribes:
The city governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080 anq make
such vacation without a petition or consent of property owners. Notice shall be given as provided by
ORS 271.110, but such vacation shall not be made before the date set for hearing, nor if the owners
of a majority of the area affected. computed on the basis provided in ORS 271.080, object in writing
thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting
property if the vacation will substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the ~ity
governing body provides for paying damages. Provision for paying such damages may be made by a
local assessment, or in such other manner as the city charter may provide."
Finding 3: In accordance with ORS 271.080(1), the area being vacated is a one-block segment of public
street.
Attachment
3..,,1
Finding 4: In accordance with ORS 271.080, the City of Springfield prepared a legal description of the
segment of public street to be vacated. The legal description was prepared by the City Surveyor and was
avaihlble for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening of the City Council Public Hearing on
the proposed vacation action. The legal description is attached to the enacting ordinance as Exhibit A.
Finding 5: In accordance with ORS 271.080, the City of Springfiel,d stated the reason for the proposed
public street vacation and the purpose for which the ground would be used. The reason and purpose were
available for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening of the City Council Public Hearing on
the proposed vacation action. The reason and purpose for the vacation action are stated on the Public
Hearing Notices for the Planning Commission Public Hearing held June 5, 2007 and the City Council
Public Hearing held July 2, 2007. The Public Hearing Notices were published in the newspaper and
mailed to adjacent landowners and residents as required by ORS 271.110 and provisions of the
Springfield Development Code.
Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.080 and 271.130(1), the Springfield City Council initiated the
vacation action by passing a motion on May 7, 2007. The motion is noted in the minutes of the City
Council meeting ofMay7, 2007. .
Finding 7: Notification of the proposed vacation action was given in accordance with ORS 271.110 and
the Springfield Development Code Articles 3.100 and 9.050(2). "Notification of Street Vacation" signs
were posted in conspicuous locations at both ends of the segment of public street proposed for vacation; a
legal notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Register-Guard) on June 15 and 22,
2007 prior to the City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action; and landowners and residents
within a 400 foot radius of the street segment were notified in writing of the Public Hearing. Affidavits
for the public mailout notification and newspaper publication are part of the record for the vacation
action.
Finding 8: All properties that directly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are
owned by the City of Springfield. There are no third-party properties that would be isolated or deprived
oflegal and physical access upon vacation of the right-of-way.
Finding 9: The Public Hearing was advertised, conducted and concluded before any final action on the
vacation was taken. The City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action was opened on July 2, 2007
and continued to the meeting on July 16,2007. The Public Hearing was concluded on July 16, 2007. At
the conclusion ofthe Public Hearing, Council directed staff to return on September 17,2007 for adoption
of findings in support of the vacation action.
Finding 10: No landowners or residents within the 400-foot public notification area submitted testimony
opposing the street vacation.
Finding 11: The street vacation will not compromise safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular access in the area.
Finding 12: Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d) states that "safe and convenient"
means bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements which:
(A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic which
would interfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips;
(B) Provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations such as a transit stop
and a store; and
(C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians considering destination and length of trip;
and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally 1;4 to 12 mile.
3-2
Finding 13: In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way and
closure to public travel would not interfere with or discourage pedestrian, cycle or vehicle travel on the
adjacent public street system due to excessive traffic or other unusual hazards. East-west traffic
circulation can be accommodated on adjacent local and collector streets. The adjacent and parallel public
collector street (A Street) is less than 300 feet to the south. .
Finding 14: In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way would not
result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle trips that are more than \14 mile from being a direct route of travel
between destination points. Vacation of the segment ofB Street would result in out-of-direction distance
for passage from the eastern end ofthe subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end of the right-
of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) of about 600 feet ( <1/8 mile) for bicycles and vehicles using surface
streets. Vehicles and bicycles have the option of using either A Street or C Street for the east-west
segment of the trip. The out-of-direction distance would be even less for pedestrians using the public
sidewalk system, or bicycles and vehicles passing through the mid-block alley north ofB Street.
Finding 15: A travel distance diagram for the public streets. surrounding the proposed vacation area is
provided as Figure 1 in the staff report for the vacation action. For purposes of preparing the travel
distance diagram, staff used GIS mapping infonnation and a calibrated m~asuring wheel to verify
potential vehicle travel distances. Measurements were taken in the field from points within the travel
lanes of the public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area to detennine likely travel distances for
vehicles. Travel distances for pedestrians using the public sidewalk system and public alley are less than
the distances described for vehicles, but are not described on the diagram as there are more short-cutting
opportunities for pedestrians than vehicles. The diagram also is intended to illustrate maximum out-of-
direction travel distances.
Finding 16: The -600-foot out-of-direction distance is limited to trips that have an origin and destination
. on B Street and that would otherwise pass across the vacation area. Trips that have an east-west
component and that are not confined to B Street can be accommodated on adjacent public streets without
any out-of-direction travel. Trips that have origins and/or destinations outside the B Street alignment and
require a north-south travel component can be made on adjacent public streets with minimal or no out-of-
direction travel distance.
Finding 17: In accordance with Springfield Development Code Section 32.020(l)(a)l.b, block length for
local streets shall not exceed 600 feet. The proposed vacation action will not create a north-south block
length exceeding 600 feet. As measured from the north edge of street right-of-way on A Street to the
south edge of street right-of-way on C Street, the distance is approximately 575 feet. The existing mid-
block alley between the proposed vacation area and C Street reduces this maximum block length distance
be~ause it will continue to accommodate east-west vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian passage.
Finding 18: Pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicle passage will not be obstructed on the adjacent public streets
outside the vacation area. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle passage through the east-west mid-block alley
north of B Street can be accommodated within the existing l4-foot wide paved surface.
Finding 19: The public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area are developed to City standards
with sidewalks, paved travel lanes and street lighting. The adjacent public streets are designed to
accommodate one lane of vehicle travel in each direction and parking on both sides. The pavement
widths are sufficient to allow for continuous traffic flow in each direction with full utilization of the
curbline for parking. Therefore, negotiating the public street system adjacent to the proposed vacation
area will not create any unusual hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicles.
Finding 20: Safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travel will be maintained with the proposed right-of-way
vacation. The surrounding public sidewalk and street system adjacent to the vacation area will not be
altered by the proposed vacation action. Speed limits are 20 mph and traffic control signage is in place on
3-3
the local streets adjacent to the right-of-way proposed for vacation in order to maintain safe vehicle and
bicycle passage through the area. Additionally, the width of pavement on the adjacent public streets is
comparable to the proposed vacation area. Therefore, vehicles and bicycles will have the same
opportunity for safe passage, parking and maneuvering.
Finding 21: A Traffic 1mpact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by an independent traffic engineering
consultant to evaluate the impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation (Springfield Justice Center
Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engineering, July, 2006). The TIA was placed in
the record of the vacation proceedings. The TIA examined the existing and po~t-vacation street system in
the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible impacts ofthe proposed right-of-way vacation
to vehicle movements and the performance of nearby intersections. The TIA concluded there would be
minimal impact on the downtown transportation system with the proposed vacation of public right-of-
way.
Finding 22: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation concluded that the proposed
vacation action would have minimal impact on the transportation system. The report determined that
levels of service would be maintained on nearby intersections and that no traffic mitigation actions would
be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the vicinity ofth~ Justice Center.
Finding 23: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 9 - Vacations contains Criteria of
Approval for vacation of easements, rights-of-way, plats and other City property. The section describing
the criteria of approval reads: .
9.060 Criteria of Approval
(1) For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions
or deny the application. The application shall be approved if the Vacation isfound to be
consistent with the following criteria:
(a) There are no present or future services, facilities or utilities deemed to be necessary by a
utility provider and the easement is not necessary; or
(b) If the utility provider deems the easement to be necessary, public services,jacilities or
utilities can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner in an alternate location.
(2) Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-ofway, other City property, or Partition or
Subdivision Plats is reviewed under Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application shall be approved if the
Vacation isfound to be consistent with the following approval criteria.
(a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local
Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan
District map, or Conceptual Development Plan;
(b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 1997: and
this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and
(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection
or any other benefit derivedfrom the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or
Subdivision Plat.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.060(2) where the land affected by the proposed
Vacation of public right-of way, other public land as specified in ORS 271. 080, or public
3-4
easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be used for a public purpose, the
request shall be reviewed under the Type IV procedure. The City Council may approve the
Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the following criteria:
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
(c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and
reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-
012-0045(3);
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtainedfrom the vacation than from
retaining the right-of way in its present status; and
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ehswe that the vacated property will remain in
public ownership.
Finding 24: The vacation is not a public utility easement, therefore Criterion 9.060(1) is not applicable.
Finding 25: The vacation is a segment of public street right-of-way that will remain in public ownership
and will continue to be used for a public purpose (Justice Center facility). Therefore, Criterion 9.060(2) is
not applicable; the applicable Criterion of approval is 9.060(3).
Finding 26: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(a), the vacation action was initiated by City Council on
May 7, 2007 and pursuant to ORS 271.130(1).
Finding 27: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(b), notice of the vacation action has been given pursuant to
ORS 271.110(1). Notice of the vacation action also has been given in accordance with the City's
Development Code (SDC 3.100 and 9.0S0) and Municipal Code (Section 3.20S).
Finding 28: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(c), approval of the vacation would not compromise safe,
convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-
012-0045(3). As described in the above findings, the out-of-direction travel distance for vehicles, cyclists
and pedestrians is not expected to be morethan 600 feet. Theout-of-direction travel distance is minimal
or non-existent for trips with origins and destinations outside the linear alignment of the street containing
the vacated area.
Finding 29: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(d), the public benefit attributed to a public Justice Center
facility with secure parking area and ancillary building that serves the entire municipal area is deemed to
be a greater benefit than retaining the one-block segment of street right-of-way for public travel.
Finding 30: It is of critical importance and public benefit to maintain a safe Justice Center facility with a
contiguous, secure parking area. The preferred design of the Justice Center facility includes the
contiguous secure parking area, and therefore requires the one-block segment of public right-of-way
proposed for vacation.
Finding 31: Damage and vandalism to police vehicles is an ongoing problem that requires repairs at the
expense of taxpayers. Incorporating the proposed vacation area into the Justice Center will improve the
security of publicly-funded police and special operations vehicles and equipment stored at the facility
(testimony from Police Chief Jerry Smith dated May 16, 2007). It is of public benefit to deter damage
and vandalism through administration of a secure parking area that is contiguous to the Justice Center
facility .
3-5
Finding 32: Safety and security of police officers and the public are paramount
other interested parties that submitted testiniony in support of the vacation action.
parking area immediately adjacent to the police station will prevent responding officers from
cross a public street to reach their vehicles. The secure parking area will result in quicker times
for police officers because they don't have to travel as far to their vehicles and don't have to cross a
public street. Therefore, the proposed vacation will benefit the greater community, particularly those
requiring timely police assistance.
Finding 33: The preferred site design for the Justice Center includes an ancillary building for retaining
police and court records, evidence, recovered items, and police equipment. Proximity to the Justice
Center and security of the ancillary building is necessary to protect the integrity afits contents, The
preferred placement of the ancillary building is within a portion of the street right-of-way area proposed
for vacation.
Finding 34: The secure parking area adjacent to the Justice Center can be used for emergency
of jail prisoners. The secure parking area provides a contained muster area for prisoners that
could be subject to an uncontrolled release in the event of an emergency evacuation~ Providing a.
contained evacuation area increases the safety and security of the community and the prisoners ..
themselves. The secure parking area that can be used for emergency evaclJation is within the street rigilt.. .,
of-way area proposed for vacation. ..,
. . '.
Finding 35: Based on Findings 29 to 34, the benefit obtained from the proposed vacation area (through
its use as an integral part of the Justice Center facility) is of greater public benefit than retaining the right-<..
of.way in i~spresent status. .,
;~::" ;: ": .'.",,: ;-:-::
Finding 36: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)( e), a special condition has been inserted in the e?~~tin~;.\'\t,;:
o~dinancerequiring that the right-of-way revert back topublic right-of-way if the vacated areace~est~C..:: ,.
be used. for the purpose of a municipal Justice Center. The special condition is intended to ensure the Jand ., .. .
is retained in public ownership.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings and the record of the vacation action (City of Springfield Case No.
LRP2007-000 19), the right-of-way vacation is consistent with and meets the applicable requirements of
ORS 271.080 & 271.130(1), OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), and Springfield Development Code Sections
9.060 and 32.020(1)(a).
~o..~\"\ ,j L11.t"\~J
'",- (Ti TCl,. ,~_~.
3-6
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY OPPOSING VACATION ACTION
Three people submitted testimony opposing the proposed vacation action. The written testimony
opposing the vacation action is provided below, verbatim, and in chronological order of receipt. The
testimony includes three written submittals received over a one-year period prior the initiation of the
vacation action. Those providing testimony opposing the vacation action are Scott Olson (1-28 and 34-
80); Bob Foster (29-31 and 33); and Anne Ballew (32).
1. The staff report fails to identify that the TransPlan Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been adopted
into the Metro Plan.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The TransPlan Goals, Objectives
and Policies have been adopted by - and are intrinsic to - the Metro Plan.
2. Closing off a collector street at it's [sic) intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector street
traffic to adjacent local street, shutting offpedestrian and bicylce [sic) public ways, seeking
variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal development overlay zone is
not consistent with this goal.
Response: The vacation action is not dependent upon a "variance" for block lengths or connectivity.
The vacation does not cause out-of-direction travel for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists (from one
side of the vacation area to the opposite side) to approach or exceed standards of OAR 660-012-
0045(3)( d). The vacation of public right-of-way is the same process irrespective of the street
classification attributed to the affected area.
3. The objective [of vacating the right-oi-way area) did not intend to result in street closure because it
is unsafe for the police to need to cross a public street to get to the secured vehicle parking area. The
objective is aimed at making the street a safe place for all of us.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will not affect
the safety of the public street system for users as demonstrated in Findings 11 through 22.
4. This proposals [sic) street closures do not support this objective because it limits access to the transit
station, inhibits walking, bicycling, and created [sic) out of direction auto travel.
Response: The vacation action will result in minimal interference with vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycling trips on a one-block segment of public street. The vacation action will not have any adverse
effect on access to the transit station, which is located three blocks south of the vacation area.
5. The applicant created a citizen advisory committee to assist with siting issues but has refused to
consider project alternatives that are within the jinanciallimitations of the project and keep the
streets open. The advisory committee recommendation to the City Council was to consider
alternatives to the closure of B Street but the Council voted to proceed with street closures. The
applicants [sic) testimony at hearing was inaccurate with repect [sic) to the consitency [sic) of the
committee's recommendation and the subsequent City Council action and direction to staff. This
application also inappropriately ties the street vacation to the discretionary use approval through the
proposed conditions of approval yet has not addressed the vacation approval criteria or done the
necessary public notice for a street vacation.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The decision made by Springfield
City Council to pursue the vacation action in accordance with State statutes and City policies is
documented in the Council minutes. The Discretionary Use approval requires vacation of the street
right-of-way to facilitate construction of the Justice Center in accordance with the selected site option.
Attachment
4-1
Several land use actions were taken in support of the project prior to advancing the vacation action.
Proper public notice of the vacation action was given in accordance with City policies and State
statutes.
6. The land use policies in this area were derivedfrom this objective of TransPlan and it's [sic]
dependance [sic] upon Nodal Development and creation of attractive modal choices. The proposed
use is inconsistent with the following policies of Trans Plan.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action does not
contravene provisions of TransPlan or the City's Nodal Development Overlay District. The Justice
Center development is consistent with TranPlan nodal development policies because it is a centrally-
located, civic, employment-generating use that is served by vehicle, transit, pedestrian and bicycle-
oriented modes of travel. TransPlan also contemplates variation in the size, amount and type of civic
uses and development patterns (TransPlan Land Use Policy #1).
7. The proposed use will sprawl surface parking thoughout [sic] a significant portion of the property
within the Nodal Development zone, eliminating potential for development more consistent with the
objectives of the zone.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The area proposed for vacation is
within the Downtown Exception Area, and there are no parking requirements pursuant to the
Springfield Development Code, Article 18.070.
8. Closing B Street, a collector street of recent reconstruction withfederalfunding assistance, and
dirverting [sic] traffic to local streets not constructed to the same standard is inconsitent [sic] with
this policy.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation criteria apply to
public rights-of-way, irrespective of the street classification. The street was not reconstructed with
federal money. A traffic study was prepared for the Justice Center project demonstrating that
adjacent local and collector streets can safely accommodate the new flow of traffic upon vacation of
the right-of-way.
9. Elimination of existing improved public corridors to avoid walking across the street is not consistent
with this policy [of corridor preservation).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will not
adversely affect pedestrian street crossings.
10. The proposed use is not cons tent [sic] with this policy [of neighborhood livability).
Response: This isnot relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will not affect
nt:ighborhood livability, which is something that cannot be appropriately quantified.
11. The proposed use is not cons tent [sic] with this policy [ofmobility and safety for all modes of travel).
Response: The vacation action will not adversely impact mobility or safety for any modes of travel.
12. The proposed use is not constent [sic] with this policy [of a coordinated roadway network).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will not have
an impact on the regional coordinated roadway network.
4-2
13. By restricting pedestrian accessibility the proposed use is not constent [sic) with this policy [of
transit improvements).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will not have
an adverse impact on pedestrian movements as they relate to the regional transit network. The
principal transit station serving the city is three blocks south of the vacation area, not adjacent to the
vacation area. Bus service will be maintained for the neighborhood in the vicinity of the vacation
area.
14. Closure of streets within the neighborhood of the transit station is not constent [sic) with this policy
[of bus rapid transit} or the very signifcant [sic) investment the public is making the BRT system
[sic).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action does not
affect the provision of bus rapid transit service to the city. Future BRT service is planned along the
north-south road adjacent to the vacation area, but the service is not dependent on the vacation area.
15. Closing collector streets is not consist [sic) with this policy [ofbikeways on arterials and collectors).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action does not
affect the provision of bikeways along major streets. There is an existing multi-use pathway running
north-south along the arterial road adjacent to the vacation area. The multi-use pathway will not be
affected by the vacation action.
16. The proposed use is not constent [sic) with this policy [of bikeway connections to new development).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action does not
affect the provision of bikeway connections to new development.
17. The proposed use is not cons tent [sic) with this policy [of providing a pedestrian environment).
Response: The vacation action will not adversely impact the provision of a pedestrian environment in
the downtown. The vacated area will be part of a major downtown destination that is fully accessible
. to pedestrians and other users.
18. The proposed use is not cons tent [sic) with this policy [of providing continuous and direct routes).
Response: The vacation action will not create an unreasonable amount of out-of-direction travel for
street users.
19. Removal of a street in excellent condition is not consistent with this policy [of operations,
maintenance and preservation of transportation facilities).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action will affect a
one-block length of improved street; the remainder will be open to public travel.
20. The proposed use is not constent [sic) with this policy [of short-term project priorities).
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is being
planned and budgeted independent of transportation facilities and projects.
21. The public street is not suitable for the proposed use as a secured police compound and is not
compatable [sic) with the neighborhood or the existing public use of the street. The applicant nor
4-3
staff [sic) have addressed the location size or operating characteristics of ajail in addressing this
criteria. The relationship of the jail and church entrances should be addressed. Ajail is not an
office.
Response: The determination of greater public benefit for the vacation area is a decision that the City
Council will make. This second part of this statement is not relevant to the vacation criteria of
approval.
22. Bicycle, pedestrian, and trasit circualtion [sic) will be impeded by the proposed use. A traffic impact
analysis typically required by the city for this type of application was not submitted with the
application. The project architects have stated that the secure parking area is not requiredfor
emergency evacuation and is not likey [sic) the primary evacuation route.
Response: The vacation action will have minimal impact to bicycle, pedestrian and transit
circulation. A traffic impact analysis was prepared prior to the vacation action. The parking area is
not required for emergency evacuation but provides a viable option should a secure muster area be
required for jail prisoners.
23. The traffic analysis had not yet been reviewed by city staff at the time this finding was prepared. The
testimony at the [Discretionary Use) hearing which indicated that the reported increased traffic
volumes on C Street would not require mitigation is not consistent with city imposed requirements on
other recent developments in the city with over 1,000 vehicles per day on a local street.
Response: This statement is directed to a previous land use action and is not relevant to the vacation
criteria of approval. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the vacation action determined that no
mitigation was required for the changes to local traffic patterns.
24. Other than avoiding any improved use at all of the property abutting the residential neighbors, the
application does not address how entrances, (which the architect discribed as akward [sic))
landscaping, (which there may not be any room for) screening or other mechanisms are being
proposed to address this criteria.
Response: This statement is directed to a previous land use action and is not relevant to the vacation
criteria of approval. The site plan for the Justice Center building - not including the area proposed
for vacation - includes the building entrances, landscaping and screening. The site plan was
approved through the City's Site Plan Review application process which includes notification to
adjacent landowners and residents, and provision for appeal. The decision was not appealed.
25. What does where applicable mean? Ifit means during site plan review then that is where this criteria
would be located not under discretionary use approval criteria. There should be evidence and
findings that is [sic) seems likely or at least possible that this proposal can comply with the code
requirements.
Response: This statement is directed to a previous land use action and is not relevant to the vacation
. criteria of approval.
26. How can the adverse affects [sic) be mitigated throughfuture conditions or code standards? The
stafffindingfails to address how the proposed street vaction [sic) can meet the standards for a street
vacation or any of the PLO/NDO zone standards.
Response: This statement is directed to a previous land use action. It has been demonstrated that the
vacation action meets the applicable criteria of approval.
4-4
27. The city proposal depends upon the use of considerable property for which they do not yet have
control. The proposed use depends upon the use of parking facilities north of Fourth Street which are
not city owned The city also needto complete street vacations prior to having a building right to the
street. This proposal can not comply with the street vacation criteria which include no loss of any
beneficial use. Until the city can demonstrate their ability to effect the street vacation they do not
have control of the street for their facility.
Response: This statement is directed to a previous land use action. The vacation action would allow
the City to close the street to public travel and use the vacation area for the Justice Center facility.
28. The variance provisions of the city code do not apply to the vacation of streets. The vacation criteria
refer specifically to the street conectivity [sic) and block length standards.
Response: The City agrees that variance provisions of the Code do not apply to the vacation of
streets. Street connectivity and block length is only one consideration of the vacation criteria. It has
been demonstrated that the vacation action is consistent. with State statutes pertaining to block length
and connectivity standards.
29. I think you have a problem - blocking off B St. as an arterial to build your prison, records building,
police extension is not a good idea at all. For sure that would send a lot more traffic to city hall
down A St., or make C St. (a residential street) a busier street. I don't understand why you couldn't
build your prison, etc. in another part of Springfield... not block a main street to do this. And you
want me to vote for funding this idea in November. What is the possibility it won't get built, and
voters like me will vote against it because you will block off B from Pioneer Parkway to 5th St. I am
strongly considering voting no - at this time. Tho I strongly support prisons & more officers. I'm not
in favor of the current construction idea blocking access to City Hall, post office the normal way I go.
I wonder why more wasn't said about this openly. Town Hall meetings, etc. If there were I didn't
know about them. I think the city planners did not consider that people like me would oppose this
idea. If there was a vote tomorrow I would vote No. I would like a response from vour planning
devartment soon! P.s. I would vote Yes to fund extra cost walkway link buildings above B St. like you
have at City Hall. I think other Springfield residents feel the same way like Scott Olson.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation area is one block
length and is not part of an arterial street. The traffic study prepared forthe vacation action
determined that traffic can be safely accommodated on adjacent streets, including A Street which is
designated as a collector street. The City's Planning division is processing a request for vacation of
public right-of-way initiated by the City Council, not the staff.
30. Please do not vacate B St (at 4th & B). I wouldfind this a major inconvenience - driving to the city
hall- even walking to the Library. Please reconsider parking your cars at some location in
Glenwood instead - or out at 32nd and Main St. - and leave B St. open. I'm sure you've checked with
State Land Use Board - but let me know you've checked ... before going ahead and closing B St.
permanentlv. I'm not along in being concerned by this future closure. P.s. I will be out of town at
March 13th meeting, & 'til end of March so I can't put my 2 cents in verbally. I realize you probably
will close B St. despite my opinion. I do work at the Springfield Library as a shelver 5 hours/week as
a volunteer, and go to the Library often... I realize the alley between B & C St. on 4th will probably
still be there - so I'll walk that way when B is closed at 4th - but driving on A or C St. will be more
congested & difficult - you will need to put 4 stop signs on 5th & C St., or make C more of an arterial
to move traffic instead of on B St. P.P.s. I was mistaken vacation of B from Pioneer Parkway East to
4th to be vacated, loss of the public's use of the arterial 'B' St. to City Hall is a real blow to drivers
comingfrom West D St. Hope this can be averted & common sense prevail move to another solution.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. It has been demonstrated that the
4-5
vacation will not have a significant adverse impact on pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle connectivity to
the downtown area, including City Hall and the Library. Findings 11 through 22 demonstrate that
safe and reasonably direct means of travel will be maintained in the vicinity of the proposed vacation
area.
31. Dear Mayor Leiken and City Council Members: I heard there was a strong proposal to block off B
St. between 4th and 5th St. permanently. Though only one of 4 proposals being considered. I would
find it a major inconvenience to be forced to drive down A or C St. to get to City Hall, Library, etc. I
hope you will change the plan to allow B St. to be open, not closed. If nothing is definitely decided by
the time of the vote in November, I may vote against the bondfor a new police building, etc. Though
I support a more adequate police force & building. I am very much opposed to having B St. blocked
off forever. I volunteer at Springfield library & often drive there - though I also walk. Would be nice
if you at least will respond to concerns about the decision to close B St. at 4th St. in Springfield News
newspaper... or let me know if you stand strongly infavor of closure ofB St. to car traffic there. No
City Council meeting open to public has happened before the vote! There should be one or other
people like me may cause the ballot to fail by voting No. tho' we support adequate police building, etc.
[Remainder of letter is specific to respondent's concerns about repairs to City Hall carpet and
support for the Library].
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation area is a one-block
segment of B Street between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East (not sth Street). The vacation action
was initiated several months after this letter was received. Proper notification of the vacation action
was given, including personal written notification to the author of this letter. This testimony is in the
record of the vacation proceedings.
32. The amendment to Springfield Development Code Article9 [sic], Vacations allows the Springfield
City Council to unilaterally remove public right-ofway from general usage, i.e. public streets, and
use that right-ofway for alternative public purposes. This change allows the City Council to place
an employee parking lot and a storage facility in the middle of B Street, between 4th Street and
Pioneer Parkway East. That change will mean daily, over 1,000 vehicles, including a bus, will be'
diverted to A or C Street for traffic to connect to either Pioneer Parkway. Assuming a 50% split, that
means that at least 500 vehicles, including the bus, will travel along C street, a residential street
within the Washburne District. I am very opposed to closing a concrete arterial so that less than 50
city employees can have secured parking, particularly since the other 350 employees do not have that
benefit. While I support discretionary power for the Council, I believe that their decisions should
meet the same standards of justification applied to private developers. Allowing a private developer
to close a public street to place a parking lot and a storage facility upon it would require
considerable weight of evidence to be an "allowed variation". I hope that during your consideration
of the proposed change, you will require additional conditions to be applied to the decision-making
process when a public right-ofway is approvedfor "alternative public purposes".
Response: This is not directly relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. This testimony was
submitted specifically for the March 13,2007 Planning Commission Public Hearing on amendments
to Springfield Development Code Article 9 (Vacations). The Code amendments were adopted on
April 2, 2007. The TIA prepared for Justice Center project demonstrates that no adverse impacts to
the street system or traffic flow will result from of the proposed vacation action. Lane Transit District
already has re-routed bus traffic onto A Street (not C Street) to accommodate construction staging for
the Justice Center building. The bus route is expected to continue using A Street upon vacation of the
one-block segment of street right-of-way.
33. I realize the closure for B Street at lh or wherever is likely to happen though I and other motorists
would prefer some other arrangement would have been decided. I realize the city has finite monies &
the planners thought a garage for parked cars right there was the best idea, that to build an
4-6
underground garage probably was too expensive & so wasn't chosen. With B Street blocked there,
could the city designate C St. or D St. as a collector street, & have no stop sign going east & west at
4th St. I could change my route, but I don't like beingforced to go farther out of the way to go to the
Springfield City Hall and/or the post office. B Street seemed to work better for residents like me who
live on West D St. I work as a volunteer at Springfield Library 5 or more hours/week. So I'm often
driving down B St. likely no more. Maybe I'll have to go down A St. instead Can you work with me
& make Cor D St. a collector street at least to 5th St. from Pioneer Parkway (East) & eliminate east-
west stop signs at 4th & Cor D St.? Then I'll drive down Cot D to go to City Hall after B St. is
closed I appreciate at being notified about the planning meeting Tuesday June 5th [2007J at
7pm... unfortunately I won't be able to attend & say no Idon 't want B St. dosed forever just so a
parking lot or whatever will block the access on B St. for cars to City Hall. It is more than just a
convenience factor, like Eugene did many years (a business decision) when vibrant stores like Wards,
Newberry 's, Woolworth's were located there & it was a pedestrian mall only. Now it is open to autos
again. It just seems like motorists are being blocked, because the city can't figure out something
else... and for lack of money to do that something else. I regret that this meeting is just a formality in
the process to close B St. forever at 4th & B St. Sounds like the decision has been made when
variance was approved Once again I appeal to you planners don't close B St. forever at this spot!!
Please. No, I'm not going to sue the city or join citizf!ns in a trial-legally city has the rights to
close. I also realize Pioneer Parkway will likely be altered with the median for rapid transit lane, but
I hope the redwoods on that center strip can be saved & not cutdown... Seems like a terrible waste of
beautiful big trees, just to save 2 or 3 minutes to get to Peace Health Hospital.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action was initially
presented to the City Council in a public hearing meeting on July 2, 2007. In addition to notification
for the June 5, 2007 meeting (of the City's Planning Commission), the respondent was notified in
writing of the City Council public hearing meeting.
34. I have been involved with the planning and development of the urban form for more than 30 years. I
feel privileged to live and work within six blocks of Springfield's City Hall. I am attracted here in
part by the potential we have to make Springfield even better than it already is. The fact that our
street grid is still largely intact is essential to my feelings about this area and itsjuture. We are
considering development of a Justice Center in a highly sensitive location at the interface between
our prized historical neighborhood, the town's commercial center and the Willamette River. We can
not create new historical town centers. The ones we have are special places and deserve careful
consideration of any plans to significantly change their character. The street grid and open public
ways are the underlying fabric from which we crea!e the sense of place and vitality we seek.
Achieving the kind of place we desire requires that we carefully consider both what activities we
place there and how those activities are located and interrelated with each other. Success demands
both the right mix offunctions and the right facilities. Infact it is our insistence upon developing a
compatible mix of activities and their interrelationships that must guide the decision making process.
We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element. If afunction can
not be made to fit within the larger context of the area, then it belongs in a different place. Our land
use planning process requires that we work our way down from macro broad state wide goals, down
to comprehensive plan policies, to development codes, refinement plans, andfinally site specific
developments. This is the context in which we must proceed with all new development proposals. I
believe this is particularly true when we are working on the development of a public facility.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City shares the respondent's
desire for successful completion of a public facility project in the downtown core.
35. It seems to me that the Justice Center planning has somehow become reversed and is asking us how
we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate the project instead of how can the
project be developed to fit the area's plans. I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to
4-7
consider any alternatives during the project development process which considered tradeoffs in the
functional and space program with the associated site constraints. Placement of a lower cost
ancillary building within a street right of way is an example. I do not see how this project can be
made feasible at the selected site unless the elements that have been lumped into the building
program can be open to discussion and reconsideration.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City Council's selection of a
preferred site option and decision to construct the Justice Center at the chosen location is a matter of
public record and is not relevant to the subject vacation action.
36. When considering the siting of a justice center in downtown Springfield we should ask two questions;
1) How does including this activity contribute to the desired vitality of the area? And 2) How does the
facility contribute to our overall sense of place? If this project requires a three block area without
intervening streets then we are looking in the wrong place. I am totally convinced that we are far
better offdoing nothing in this situation then [sic] we are to proceed with the wrongproject. If the
functional demands of a justice center can not fit harmoniously within the requirements for a healthy
town center and preserve the integrity of our public ways and spaces, then it simply needs to be
located elsewhere. If concessions need to be made they should to be [sic] in the functional
requirements of the new facility, not the function of the neighborhood and greater community. This
area is evolving and the right things will happen ifwe are patient and responsive when opportunity
presents its self [sic]. We may have an opportunity before us now. We must not be short sited [sic]
and sacrifice the integrity of the greater community to accommodate the inflexible requirements of
city staff. The public has very narrowly supported the project in both bond andjail operations
elections. The projects [sic] approval can hardly be considered a mandate to ignore our land use
policy and give the police anything they askfor including a collector street so they can park next to
the door and store paper records and stolen bicycles in what is now the city street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City is not ignoring relevant
land use policies in proceeding with the vacation action. The majority of voters approved the Justice
Center construction funding measure and jail operation measure with full knowledge that vacation of
street rights-of-way could be required to accommodate the facility.
37. I along with many others worry that our local efforts to solve what has become a crisis in the Lane
County criminal justice system may be confounding the problems and aggravating a more holistic
regional solution. I wonder how many others of the 53% of voters that supported the bond measure
were unaware as I was that the new jail would not do anything with the felony offenders accounting
for 85% of Springfield's 2004 charges. Thefelony criminals will continue through the Lane County
revolving door while Springfield locks up the misdemeanor offenders. How many of my neighb'brs
understood that the closed 3rd floor of the Lane County Jail is empty and available for 100 additional
jail beds if we can only find a way to staff it. I believe it is past time for the city to provide its police
and court with decent facilities. I also believe that those activities could contribute to the vitality of
the downtown if sited with sensitivity to the requirements of the larger community and neighborhood.
If the Justice Center is to be built in the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it fit in and to
contribute to the greater function of the area while respecting the historical framework of its public
ways. If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a site better suited to the security and space
requirements which were imposed upon all of the alternatives considered in the project development
process.
Response: This is not relevantto the vacation criteria of approval.
38. The city inappropriately presumed in the development of the preliminary planning and cost
estimating that the street right of ways were available for incorporating into the new Justice Center
Facility. The fact that the possibility of street closures was mentioned in the ballot measure does not
4-8
have any meaning in the context of the land use approval for this project, or exempt the city from
adhering to their own land use policies and code requirements. The police chief has testified that
[the) plan to build across B Street was based upon the lower cost to build into the street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The city examined various
options for maximizing the use of public land to accommodate the Justice Center project, including
street rights-of-way. The site selection process is a matter of public record. The vacation action is
consistent with the State statutes, City land use policies and Code requirements.
39. Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of $875,000. The improvements to the
collector street were paid for with federal funds. If B Street is severed from the arterial at Pioneer
Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer function as a
collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for the federal investment
in the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of improvements and function has not
been considered in city decisions to pursue the street closure. The value of the investment the public
made in improving B Street in 2007 construction costs is over $1.2 million. It has been suggested
that the city could be obligated to repay the federal government if the street is indeed closed.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. It has been demonstrated in the
record that the statements regarding the B Street improvement project are incorrect. The total cost for
construction ofB Street in 1997 dollars was $759,676.1 I (City Capital Project #1-882). The
improvement project covered a linear distance of 4,400 feet. The proportionate cost of improvements
to the one-block segment of street right-of-way proposed for vacation (~300 linear feet) are
approximately 7% of the total cost, or about $52,000. The City completed a federal funding transfer
with the Oregon Department of Transportation prior to performing the street improvements, and there
are no strings attached to the project funding.
40. The city contractedfor a traffic study of the impacts of the proposed closure of B Street. The study is
appropriately focused on the capacity of the adjacent streets to absorb the diverted traffic. Street
capacity has never been the issue related to the closure of B Street. A local street and a collector can
and often do look the same. Two travel lanes with parking on both sides of the street. The ability of
A and or C Streets to handle the increased traffic should never have been questioned. The issue is
about the function of the street, and maintaining the effectiveness of the collector and arterial street
system which has been designed to accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting
property as local streets do. Further, the street grid is almost entirely intact in this area of
Springfield. No other neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectivity as exists in this
historical core of the Springfield community. The traditional street system has become increasingly
valued by urban planners as we struggle with how to reduce our impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions and global warming. Closure of B Street in a Nodal Development Overlay Zone which
emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility is clearly moving in the wrong direction and is
inconsistent with all of the adopted land use policy [sic) in the City of Springfield.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. It has been demonstrated in the
record that pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle connectivity and mobility will be maintained in the
downtown core.
41. The city approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Development to Public Land
and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUC/NDO District.
None of the staff reports reviewing the projects [sic) history have mentioned the fact that several
months prior to making the zone change application the city added Justice Centers as an allowed use
in the P LO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at the time the city asked voters
to fund the project.
4-9
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City agrees there has been a
series ofland use approvals required to accommodate the Justice Center project at the selected
location. One of the land use actions was providing a specific definition for "Justice Centers" and
adding this to the list of uses in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District prior to initiating the
vacation action. The PLO District lists Justice Centers as a Discretionary Use, which requires a
public hearing and approval by the City's Planning Commission. The Discretionary Use was
approved on April IS, 2006. The key components of a "Justice Center", including courts,
administrative offices, and public offices (which includes detention facilities) were listed uses in the
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) and PLO Districts prior to the Code amendments implemented in
support of the Justice Center. '
42. The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful way throughout
the planning process. A citizen advisory committee (CAC) wasformed 'to provide input throughout
the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its relationship to downtown
Springfield'. I volunteeredfor the CAC and during my interview for the position I informed the city
council of my opinion with respect to the.street closure and indicated a desire to work on appropriate
alternatives. City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program prior to
formation of the CAe. The draft document was presented to the CAe. However the committee was
told it was for their information only and they would have no input on the contents of the space
program. The Functional and Space Program was adopted by the city council without public hearing
or any changes to the consultant's recommendations. The public was not provided any opportunity to
participate in what was being included in the project. Later in the process every alternative
considered incorporated all of the elements of the space program. Ultimately all of the alternatives
exceeded the project available funds but the closure of B Street was the lowest cost alternative
considered. That alternative was supported by a majority of the CAC and ultimately adopted by the
city council. No attempt was ever made to develop an alternative that was within the available funds
and respected the land use requirement for new development in this zone including the closure of
streets. City staff has orchestrated a planning process from the very beginning of this project in
which no meaningful consideration has been given to alternatives to closing B Street. This effort has
resulted in a failure to comply with Goal] requirements for the entire Justice Center Planning
process.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The public record demonstrates
that the City has met or surpassed Goal I requirements for public involvement throughout the entire
Justice Center project.
43. Staff has consistently refused to even discuss alternatives to closing B Street and steadfastly argues,
often in absurd ways why the street should be closed. In last weeks [sic) hearing the police chief
stated more than once that if officers responding to an emergency must cross the street to reach their
vehicles, ultimately one is going to be so distracted with responding that they will run in front of a car
and be hit. One must question the wisdom of such statements when we are trusting that same
individual to get in a police cruiser and drive 50 miles per hour down my residential street and
appropriately handle deadly weapons. Such arguments demonstrate the desperation with which
supporting arguments for the street closure have been constructed. Other absurd arguments have
been constructed throughout the planning process. On at least two separate occasions suggestions to
construct a pedestrian over-crossing of B Street have been rebuffed by police statements that such a
facility would be vulnerable to driving under it with a bomb. We also need secure parkingfor the
police to prevent keying of their personal vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem [sic) to justify
sacrificing the functionality of a million dollar collector street. Arguments about police response
times seem equally absurdfrom my perspective. Statements about the need to evacuate inmates to the
secure parking area in B Street are inconsistent with what the CAC was told about jail evacuations.
The secure parking area is adjacent to the Police Courts building not the jail on the opposite side of
the block from B Street. The needfor this function in B Street is not part of the Functional and Space
4-10
Program and is not the primary evacuation plan.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
44. The city has modified the code criteriafor a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the inconsistency
with this project and the adopted land use policy. The criteria tailored specifically to get this project
around the land use policy impediments to desired street closure are not grounded in any adopted
land use policy and are vague and misleading in the intent. Ensuring that the vacated property will
remain in public ownership inappropriately assumes that the public interest is better served by
maximizing public property ownership of opposed to protecting the publics legitimate interests the
function of the right of way [sic). Technically the public does not own the right of way, but has an
interest in the use for street purposes. The city can not ensure continues [sic) public ownership
because it does not own the property until it is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventing
future city councils from selling the property to a private party.
Response: The City has adopted several Code amendments to accommodate the Justice Center
project, including amendments to Article 9 - Vacations (adopted March 19,2007). The Justice
Center project is intended to be a long-term (50+ year) occupant of the selected site. To address
concerns about ownership of the right-of-way, a clause was inserted in the enabling ordinance that
causes the vacated area to revert to public right-of-way in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to
be used for Justice Center purposes.
45. Substituting pedestrian and bicycle connection criteriafrom the states [sic) OAR, the minimum
required anywhere in the entire state for the specifics of the local Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Refinement Plans, Zoning Requirements and other local code
requirements is an obvious attempt to avoid compiling [sic) with the local adopted policy and code
requirements. Additionally staff'sfindings that adding 46% to the length of the desirable Y4 mile
pedestrian trip length is not consistent with accepted pedestrian principles. Further "Whether a
greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right-ofway in its
present status" lacks any criteria or measures grounded in any adopted public policy and are
purposefully vague and amorphous. It is clearly a relatively crude attempt to avoid complying with
the land use policies of the city. .~
Response: The public record demonstrates that the vacation action will not have a significant adverse
effect on users of the street system. The greatest out-of-direction travel distances - which do not
exceed provisions of State statutes or City Codes - are limited to trips with an origin and destination
only on B Street. The citation listed in the respondent's.~tatement is part of the Springfield
Development Code, Article 9.030 and therefore is considered part ofthe City's land use policy.
46. The street vacation can not meet any of the three criteria previously established in the code. The
city's process has attempted to skirt or bypass addressing the street closure inconsistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation System Plan, the Zoning District, the Nodal Development
Overlay, and the Code Criteria. The criteria related to the street closure have not been addressed
during the zone change, the discretionary use approval, the site review, and now the street vacation.
Somewhere in the approval process the city must confront these issues. There is not variance that
makes these policies go away. The city staff has the hierarchy of the project planning criteria
reversed. The community has plannedfor the development desired in the downtown area. Those
plans are embodied in the adopted public policy documents. The approach to this project has been
how we can change the code to accommodate everything the p()lice are asking for instead of how we
can build consistent with our community plan and vision. We can have both ajail and a livable
community. This project must conform to block and connectivity standards. Particularly since this is
a Nodal Development Overlayzone which relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle
mobility.
4-11
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is consistent
with provisions of State statutes and adopted City land use policies as.described in the adopted
Findings. The vacation action is being reviewed under the current prevailing Code criteria, and not
under criteria that were in effect in the past before the vacation action was initiated. It is
indeterminate to what degree the vacation action would comply with previous criteria. However, the
City is not required to demonstrate compliance with obsolete criteria.
47. The city has recently amended their Development Code in an attempt to allow for the vacation of B
Street which was not allowed under the previous code provisions. In developing new criteria the city
failed to ground those rules in any adopted land use policy. The Developm.ent code is the
implementing instrument of the Metro Plan. The Justice Center Project must still be developed in a
manner consistent with all of the city's land use policy [sic) and rules not just the ones the [sic]
changed to fit their immediate objectives. The city has added these criteria to the code this year in an
attempt to avoid the established criteria for street vacations. The criteria for street vacations when
the use will not be public remain unchanged and require findings the vacation is compliant with the
following criteria:
(a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local
Street map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan
District map, or Conceptual Development Plan;
(b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 1997; and
this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and
(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection
or any other benefit derivedfrom the public right-ofway, publicly owned land or Partition or
Subdivision Plat.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City adopted amendments to
the Development Code prior to advancing the vacation action. However, there were provisions for
vacation of public right-of-way prior to the recent amendments being adopted. The City is not
required to demonstrate compliance with obsolete criteria. The Justice Center project is consistent
with the City's adopted Code and relevant land use policies.
48. The vacation of B Street is not consistent with any of the three criteria still applicable to any private
development. The city has not justified why a public building can be allowed to compromise the
street connectivity but privately owned buildings could not. What if the proposed street closure was
to accommodate a privately owned hospital? The city has implied a higher value to public ownership
of property, without any rationale for granting public construction exceptions to the rules. The new
criteria for public improvements were concocted to accommodate the proposed Justice Center
project. The amended code criteria were adopted without any comprehensive plan policy findings
and are not grounded in implementation of any land use planning policy. They are in fact,
constructed to avoid compliance with the Metro Plan, the Transportation System Plan, the Downtown
Refinement Plan, and the City Development Code.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The Code amendments were
adopted through the standard public hearing and notification process, and have been acknowledged
by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The criteria are in compliance
with the City's adopted land use policies - and the Code itself.
49. The previous land use approvals for this project have inappropriately avoided consideration of the
street closure/vacation issue and code compliance with a claim that the street closure question was
only relevant to the vacation process, not the zone change, discretionary use approval, or site review.
These decisions should have incorporatedfindings that the proposed project including the street
closure was consistent with the block length and street connectivity requirements of the code. Now
4-12
the city has amended the code in an attempt to avoid ever confronting the inconsistency of their
proposed street closure. The street vacation should address the original code criteriafor consistency
of the street closure with the city code at large and the other land use policy documents. If not then
the previous decisions are lacking from the failure of the city to appropriately incorporate the city
policy related to street connectivity and function into any of the previous approvals.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City has undertaken a
sequence of land use actions to accommodate the Justice Center project. Previous land use actions
were not dependent upon the current vacation action, although this possibility was acknowledged in
findings and conditions. The previous land use actions were reviewed in accordance with the relevant
criteria of approval in effect at that time. Similarly, the vacation action is now being reviewed in
accordance with the applicable criteria of approval. The vacation action is consistent with the block
length requirements of the Code listed in SDC 32.020(1).
50. The city is attempting to default to the statutory minimum procedures to vacate a public street. The
ORS Chapter 27 J requirements do not address the land use approval process necessary to consider
closure of a public way. Being consistent with the ORS 27 J requirements does not in any way assure
consistency with local land use requirements.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City must meet the statutory
requirements for the vacation action, but does not have to surpass them. The vacation action is
consistent with State statutes and adopted City land use policies.
51. It can be argued that we value private ownership of property in this country. Nowhere does the city
land use policy say the public buildings do not need to comply with the community '05 land use policy
or that we wish to maximize public ownership of property. By vacating the public right of way the
city is not retaining anything in public ownership. The public.does not own the right of way, they
have a perpetual right of use. If vacated the right is terminated and the ownership is unencumbered.
Once vacated the property could be transferred to private ownership in the future. Once he [sic)
street has been vacated the city can not assure the retention of the property in public ownership. This
finding and the associated criteria are irrelevant and unsupported by any identified land use policy.
Response: The Justice Center, a public building, complies with the adopted land use policy of the
city. The adopting ordinance for the vacation action includes a clause that would cause the vacation
area to revert to right-of-way when and if it ceases'to be used for the purpose of a Justice Center.
52. Criteria [9.030) (b) does not address requirements of the Springfield Development Code. The
citation to SDC 271.080 in Finding 8 does not exist. Again, compliance with state statute minimum
requirements for street vacations does not address the city '05 obligation to comply with their own land
use rules and requirements. They can not grant themselves a waiver with un supported [sic) code
amendments.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The staff report was corrected to
change the SDC 271.080 reference to ORS 271.080; this typographic error did not change the intent
or validity of the finding. In addition to meeting the requirements ofORS 271.080, the City has met
all requirements of the Development Code for notice of the vacation action.
53. This new criteria [9.030) (c) substitutes the generic definition of the statewide goal for pedestrian
and cyclist facilities for the specificity of the Springfield standards embodied within the city '05
Development Code. Meeting the minimum requirementsfor anywhere in the state of Oregon for the
special and unique requirements of Downtown Springfield a Nodal Development zone is
inappropriate and not consistent with the adopted zoning and Transportation System Plan policy or
the specifics of the block length standards which apply to all zones within the city of Springfield.
4-13
Response: In accordance with SDC 32.020(1 )(a) l.b, the vacation action will not result in
uninterrupted block lengths that exceed the Code requirements. The block length from the northern
edge of the A Street right-of-way to the southern edge of the C Street right-of-way is about 575 feet
long. Public passage within the mid-block alley between the vacation area and C Street is to be
maintained. The block length from the northern edge of the A Street right-of-way to the mid-block
alley between the vacation area and C Street is approximately 450 feet long.
54. The basis of optimum pedestrian trip lengths is commonly based upon the 10 minute walking circle
which is typically assigned a 14 mile radius. Adding a one block detour adds approximately 700 feet
or 1/8 mile to the trip, effectively requiring 5 minutes walking out of direction during the ideal 1 0
minute trip and cutting the effective ten minute trip to 1/8 mile. This is not insignificant in the
downtown, Nodal Development zone and the only neighborhood in the city where the streets already
conform to the city connectivity and block length standards. The closure of B Street is clearly
inconsistent with adopted city policy regardless of the street vacation process or criteria. The city
has failed to even discuss the street function as a collector street and has instead focused the
discussion on traffic carrying capacities of the adjacent streets where the traffic will be diverted.
One should note that collector and local streets often look identical. The difference is in the
effectiveness of the street system and where public investment in the traffic carrying pavement has
been made. A two lane street is capable of handling the same traffic whether it is a collector or a
local street. The pavements on A Street and C Street have not been reconstructed to carry the
collector street traffic that has previously utilized B Street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is consistent
with State statutes and the relevant adopted City policies. It has been demonstrated in the public
record that the vacation action will not result in unreasonable out-of-direction travel for street users.
The maximum out-of-direction travel distance does not exceed acceptable standards, and is limited to
trips originating from or destined for B Street and that would otherwise cross the vacation area. 'A'
Street is designated as a collector street, and the pavement can handle the increased traffic resulting
from the vacation action.
55. Thefact that the downtown and Washburn [sic] Historic District are the only portions of Springfield
with the street grid essentially intact is not a rational reason to start closing streets so it is more like
the less desirable and less compliant auto dependent neighborhoods throughout the city. The
walkable character of the neighborhood is highly valued by many that live and work in the area. If
the city needs a multi-block compound ther [sic] are plenty of locations in the city that will not
necessitate the elimination of public ways.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
56. The traffic impact analysis addressed the streets [sic] physical capabilities of carrying the diverted
traffic. Since the collector and local streets in the area are the same widths, it did not require a
traffic engineer to come to that kind of conclusion. The staff report and traffic study fail to address
the impact of the one block closure on the function of B Street as a collector street or the functional
impact to the adjacent streets. The Street Functional Classification map is an element of the Metro
Plan and a plan amendment is required to change the street's function.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. If necessary, upon vacation of the
right-of-way the City can prepare a post-acknowledgement plan amendment for TransPlan revising
the street classification for the affected portion of B Street.
57. The best way to avoid diverting traffic into undesirable streets is to keep the collector street open to
traffic instead of storing paper records, stolen bicycles and police vehicles in the street. Once
vehicles have left the arterials at either end, their trips will continue in the straight line path
4-14
regardless of how many signs the city erects. If B Street is closed at Pioneer Parkway, it will no
longer function as a collector no matter what the signs say.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City is not proposing to store
any items or vehicles in the street. Upon vacation of the right-of-way area, it will cease to be part of
the public street system. The remainder ofB Street will continue to function as an east-west public
street.
58. The major bus route between Thurston and Downtown Eugene travels along B Street. Why should
the bus stop be relocated? It is on the collector street now which is where it belongs.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The major bus route between
Thurston and Downtown Eugene travels along Franklin Boulevard, Main Street and South A Street
via the Springfield Station. There are local bus routes that pass across the vacation area, and
relocation of the bus stop has been done to accommodate construction of the Justice Center. Because
of construction staging, B Street has been closed to through traffic from 4th Street to Pioneer Parkway
East - the same one-block segment that is proposed for vacation. Lane Transit District, in
consultation with the City, has revised the bus routes to use A Street (which is a collector street) for
the east-west component of the trip between 5th Street and Mill Street.' The bus routes would continue
to use A Street upon vacation of the one-block segment of right-of-way.
59. This conclusion seems preposterous and demonstrates city staff's inability to take an impartial view
of the Police Department's insistence upon closing the street. The city has failed to even begin
making a rational case for the closure of the street even if the land use policy and code could
accommodate it, which they do not.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The adopted State and City land
use policies and codes can accommodate closure and vacation of a public street, including the subject
area.
60. Officers are not typically waiting at the station to respond to emergencies. Emergency response is
from officers on patrol. No meaningful change in response times can legitimately be made based
upon the street closure. If the time to cross the street is of such concern, the city could designate the
on street parking adjacent to the facility for police parking and on duty officers responding from the
justice center would have less delay than if they needed to get their vehicle out of a secured
compound
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. This is the opinion of the writer
and is not indicative of actual police operations.
61. The memorandum from the Police Chiefin support of the closure of B Street does not provide
compelling rationale for the closure of a collector street, severing it from the adjac?nt arterial street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
62. This is a $30 million improvement and the records storage could have been designed in other
locations than in the street. The fact that the city insisted on placing the ancillary building in the
street even after being informed that their code would not allow that, is not ajustificationfor closing
the street. In the day of electronic records, putting a building in the street to store court records
does not make sense. The city has been inflexible in developing alternative designs that avoid street
closure and still build within the available funding. It was the city's choice to design weapons and
evidence storage in the street. That does not justify the street closure are [sic) provide a supporting
argument. The Police Chief has testified at the Planning Commission that the street closure was
4-15
pursuedfrom the beginning because it was the lowest cost means to construct the desiredfacility.
The fact that it is cheaper to build out into the street and not have to pay for street improvements is
probably always true but is not a legitimate rationale for closing the street. The Police Department
needs to accept the wisdom and authority of the land use code the same way they accept the criminal
code they are more familiar with.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is being
advanced in accordance with the requirements of State statutes and adopted City policies - including
the Development Code.
63. The cost analysis did not consider the investment of$875, 000 the city made to upgrade B Street in
1995. Such reconstruction efforts are typically made to local streets. If B Street is severed from
Pioneer Parkway, it will de-facto function as a local street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The public record demonstrates
that these statements are incorrect. The total cost for construction of 4,400 linear feet of B Street in
1997 dollars was $759,676.11 (City Capital Project #1-882). Reconstruction efforts are seldom made
to local streets, unless pavement failure has occurred.
64. The current value of the B Street investment of$1.2 million would pay for a lot of tires and paint
scratches. Additionally, the closure of the street is not necessary to create secure parking. If the
street remains the staffwill need to cross a street to reach their vehicles. The city has not in the past
provided secure parkingfor employees and is not obligated to do so. The bond measure did not
describe the project as providing secure employee parking. If the city can do so within the land use
constraints at the site and within the available funding it is likely a worthy objective, but does not
warrant compromise to the greater public good and community envisioned in the land use policy of.
the city.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. . The public record demonstrates
that the first statement is incorrect. The city agrees that providing secure employee parking within the
available funding is a worthy objective. The Justice Center site is being planned and developed in
accordance with the City's adopted land use policies and will not compromise "the greater public
good and community".
65. During the Planning Commission hearing the Police Chiefspoke of the eminent [sic] danger of an
officer respondingfrom the building to an emergency being in a state of mind where eventually it was
nearly inevitable that someone would get hit while crossing this street to reach there [sic] police
vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to argue that a responding officer is in a state of mind where he
is not capable of safely crossing a neighborhood street but is still capable of responding through the
neighborhood at 50 mph in a police cruiser and potentially use deadly force. The police street
crossing capabilities are not a meaningful argument for closing B Street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
66. The city has strongly opposed any suggested alternatives to street closure throughout the planning
process. More than once, suggestions to construct an enclosed walkway over the street was met with
the response that it could not work since it would be vulnerable to bombingfrom a vehicle. During
the design development when the use of the proposed secure parking areafor the evacuation of
inmates was suggested, the project architects pointed out that there is not a secure corridor leading
from the proposedjail on the south half of the block to the secure parking to the north of the police
and courts building. Additionally the primary evacuation would be to the exercise area within the
jail compound Secondary evacuation routes would most likely be out the corridor between the two
buildings onto Pioneer Parkway or to 4th Street. Thisfacility will incarcerate misdemeanor
4-16
offenders. Is it reasonable to close a collector street in a nodal development zone to have a
secondary or tertiary evacuation compoundfor misdemeanor offenders that are currently being
matrixed [sic) out on a daily basis? The functional space program developed by the city for this
project does not identify the need for the additional secure area for the evacuation of jail prisoners.
In the unlikelihood that there ever is an evacuation, an "uncontrolled release of all municipal jail
prisoners" would not be necessary, as the city should be able to identify which inmates should be
held as opposed to a general release of all prisoners. Even in the rare event (which is difficult to
imagine) when all prisoners would be released, it would not be any different than what is happening
every day at this time in Lane County.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
67. The city has failed to demonstrate how the public would benefit in any meaningful way from the
closure of B Street yet [sic) how it is in the "greater public benefit". The city has recently adopted
the evacuation of the jail as a desperate rationale for the closure of B Street. This need is not
supported in the city adopted Functional Space Progra'!l for the new Justice Center.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
68. How does closing the street enhance public users of the street system? This statement is completely
unsupported One should question the fitness of police that are incapable of crossing B Street safely.
There could be an over crossing then it might get bombed
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
69. The narrow passage of both of these funding measures was about a community pretty evenly split on
making offenders accountable addressing [sic) serious deficenies [sic) in the county's criminal
justice system. It had nothing to do with employee parking, storing stolen bikes in the street or
anything to do with street closure. The fact that the potential for street closure was included in the
bond measure put before the voters does not satisfy the requirement of the city to build in accordance
with the rules applicable to this area. It does raise the question of multiple issues if the city chooses
to claim the voters approved the street closure.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The bond measure was structured
to provide an option for use of public street right-of-way in the site planning, if this was the preferred
design. The passing of the bond measure did not result in approval of the street closure, hence the
present vacation action which is separate and distinct from the issue previously decided by voters.
70. The statement "Comparatively few people within the City regularly use the segment of B Street
proposedfor vacation" Is [sic) completely unsupported Few people compared to what? The city
has failed to support the conclusion that closing B Street will make a meaningful difference to any of
the Springfield residents let alone "all Springfield residents (and visitors)". In this instance strong
police presence seems to mean having things their way whether it is allowed or not or if anyone else
objects. This staff finding in particular is offensive to those who wish to take a more balanced view of
how to more appropriately accommodate a jail and police facility in the core of our community and
not be bullied by those with a narrower perspective.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. It is up to the Approving
Authority - the City Council- to determine if the greater public good is being served by the vacation
action.
71. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence and is completely unsupported by the record Staff has
concluded that the use of the public street to store records, stolen property, and to convenience [sic)
4-17
public employees is justification to ignore their own code and comprehensive plan along with
significant testimony pointing out the inconsistencies. Staff has failed to provide a critical evaluation
of the application with respect the [sicJ proposed closure of B Street.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is consistent
with provisions of the City's adopted land use policies and Development Code.
72. There is no way of this being done in perpetuity [ensuring that the vacated property will remain in
public ownership], the public interestin the right-ofway will be eliminated one [sicJ the property
changes hands. There is no assurance that the city will always have a JustIce Center at this location.
Further there is no policy foundation or support for preferential tr~atment due to public ownership.
The community that has been envisioned in the land use policy and rules is blind to ownership. The
same rules apply to private and public projects. We are considering whether the building belongs in
the street, not who should own it.
Response: The adopting ordinance for the vacation action includes a clause that would cause the
vacation area to revert to right-of-way when and if it ceases to be used for the purpose of a Justice
Center. The City agrees that there is no assurance there will be a Justice Center at this location in
perpetuity. However, the decision to construct a public Justice Center facility at this location was not
entered into lightly. Upon completion, the Justice Center is expected to be in operation for the long-
term planning horizon (up to 50 years or more). If the project is abandoned or transferred to private
interests in the distant future, disposition of the vacation area would be determined through a public
process in accordance with the vacation ordinance and consistent with the City's regulatory
provisions in effect at that time.
73. But is criteria [9. 03 OJ (e) legitimate in the larger planning context? It appears to be a construct in
an attempt to avoid addressing the legitimate criteria that implement the city's adopted land use
policy. The city has not made any attempt to make a balanced evaluation of the vacation and/or
closure of B Street. The staff reports are all defensive, argumentative and reach unsupported
conclusions. All of the land use approval applications related to the Justice Center were incomplete
and failed to provide supporting evidence addressing the approval criteria. In fact they do not even
identify the criteria. Similar applications from the private sector would not normally be accepted as
complete. For this city sponsored project the review staff has consequently developed the arguments
in support of the applications and defended the applications against all of the concerns with code and
comprehensive plan compliance raised throughout the land use approval process. There has not
been even a pretense at impartiality. The city should have relied upon a third party hearings officer
if they could not refrain from a one sided commitment.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The land use actions undertaken
in support of the Justice Center have been subject to public notification and scrutiny, and most
required public hearings prior to approval. The issue of application completeness is a matter for the
approving authority to determine. The land use approvals issued for the Justice Center are consistent
with adopted State and City requirements (including relevant provisions of the City's Development
Code) and none were appealed.
74. The city has never considered a project to keep the street open and the improvements within the
approved budget. The public was precludedfrom any influence over the alternatives considered and
the Functional Space Program that drove budget alternatives outside the budget limits. Staff has
chosen to develop arguments countering my previous testimony rather than impartially weighing the
merits of my concerns. The following staff response to my Planning Commission testimony further
demonstrates the city's commitment to closing B Street without regard to what is or is not consistent
with their overall plans for the area.
4-18
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City considered many options
for the Justice Center design, but is acting to facilitate the preferred site design selected by the City
Council on February 28,2006. Public involvement in the selection of the preferred site option and
the subsequent land use actions is well-documented. The respondent acknowledges in earlier
statements that the majority of the Citizen Advisory Committee members voted for the site design
option selected by the City Council. .
75. Staff have failed to acknowledge that all of the alternatives developed were each required to include
all of the elements incorporated by staff and their consultant (without public involvement) that were
incorporated into the Functional Space Program. There were never any consideration of trade o./fs
in the building program for keeping the street open. Building in the street is the cheapest and all of
the alternatives were beyond the available funds identified at that time. The street closure alternative
was selected as the lowest cost approach. It did not consider the lost value of the streetfunction.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. Cost is not the only consideration;
however, it is an important factor when considering how best to use public money in ways to
maximize the project efficiencies and benefits.
76. The full length of the B Street improvement all the way to 14th Street ~ill be lost with the loss of it
[sicJ function as a collector roadway. The city does not make pavement reconstruction efforts on
local streets. The diverted traffic will undoubtedly impact C Street where the pavement is already
beginning to fail. The fact that the city exchanged funds with ODOT does not justify a public
investment in a street improvement that will no longer serve the function the investment was made
for. The recent investment in the B Street infrastructure is worth over $1,000,000 today. We should
not abandon this investment. Claiming the impact does not go beyond the one block closure is
absurd This is a clear violation of the public trust and the intent of the funding the city received to
make the imrpvement [sic].
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The vacation action is for a one-
block section ofB Street, not the full length to 14th Street. The remainder will remain open to public
users, including transit buses - the original reason for making the pavement reconstruction
improvements. Since the relocation ofthe Springfield bus station in 2005, the amount of bus traffic
on B Street has diminished considerably.
77. My comments related to the addition of Justice Centers to the allowed use in the Development Code
were intended to point out that the presumption that this could be done in a manner consistent with
the district standards and compatible with other uses had not been established when the city asked
voters to approve funding the construction of the facility at that location. I was not objecting to the
process, but that by adding the use to those allowed it is implicit that the facility can be constructed in
a manner that respects the constraints and city building requirements at that location.
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval. The City agrees that Justice
Centers were not defined or listed in the Development Code when the ballot measure was presented
to voters. Upon passage of the ballot measure and confirmation that the funding for the Justice
Center facility was secured, the City has proceeded with the required land use actions to advance the
project.
78. Public involvement is more than counting heads and number of meetings. I have participatedfrom
the beginning with the objective of keeping the street open. The city has never appropriately provided
any opportunity to even discuss the options. Instead the process has been orchestrated and
controlled to move the original concept forward Every alternative considered was more expensive
than the street closure option and no tradeoffs from the Functional Space Program were ever offered
or considered in public.
4-19
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
79. The street will be gone and the traffic patterns reestablished, the land use pattern will have
responded to the diverted and redirected traffic. The damage will be done. Further the point was
that who owns the abutting property is not suppose [sicJ to matter with respect to how buildings
relate to the public ways. There is not a separate Development Code or dispensation for public
buildings. They are all the same. Again would the desire to close B Street be different if it was a
regional hospital being proposed Public ownership should not change the overall character of what
is planned and desiredfor this neighborhood. .
Response: This is not relevant to the vacation criteria of approval.
80. The city has never yet addressed how closure of B Street is consistent with the adopted land use
policy or the Development Code. During the zone change, the Discretionary Use Approval, and the
Site Review, findings with respect to block lengths, strec:t connectivity and numerous other code and
plan issues raised during that process, claiming [sicJ that those issues were to be considered during
the street vaca~i011, At some point there needs to be a land use decision that considers all of the code
requirements related to the impacts of closing B Street. Inserting new street vacation criteria to
avoid the issues may allow the vacation of the street but raise considerable questions about the
validity of the earlier land use approvals.
Response: The City has addressed the closure ofB Street and demonstrated consistency with the
adopted land use policies and the relevant Development Code criteria in the above Findings
document. Previous land use actions have acknowledged the requirement for a future street vacation
or alteration of use, which is now being presented as a separate and distinct vacation action.
Prepared by:
Andy Limbird
Planner II
4-20