HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 7/16/2007
r" -~'
I~
.
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
July 16,2007
Regular Meetmg
Development ServIces
Andy LlffibIrd (}~,
x3784 ~
lO mmutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATT ACHMENTS:
DISCUSSION:
VACATION OF ONE BLOCK SEGMENT OF B STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST, CASE
NO. LRP2007-00019
Conduct DehberatlOns and Second Readmg for the followmg 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
On July 2, 2007, CIty CouncIl conducted a pubhc heanng on a request to vacate
pubhc nght-of-way for the segment ofB Street between 4th Street and PlOneer
Parkway East The vacatIOn IS mtended to facIlItate development of a secure polIce
parkmg lot and anCIllary bUlldmg servmg the Spnngfield JustIce Center. The wntten
record for publIc heanng wntten submIttals was held open to 5pm on July 9, 2007
Three submittals were receIved dunng the extended wntten record penod. two m
favor and one opposed
Attachment 1: Staff Report, Fmdmgs and Summary ofPubhc TestImony
Attachment 2. Maps showmg the proposed vacatlOn and B Street overvIew
Attachment 3 Memo from Pohce ChIef Jerry SmIth
Attachment 4' Testlffiony from Bob Foster (vanous dates)
Attachment 5 Testlffiony from Scott Olson dated March 28,2006
Attachment 6. Testlffiony from Scott Olson dated June 12,2007
Attachment 7: Testlffiony from Scott Olson dated July 9, 2007
Attachment 8. Testlffiony from Ralph DaVid Jacobson dated July 6, 2007
Attachment 9' Testlffiony from Steve Smgleton recelved July 9, 2007
Attachment 10: List ofPubhc Meetmgs held for Justlce Center 2005-2007
Attachment 11: Planmng CommlsslOn RecommendatIOn
Attachment 12: Ordmance
The subject nght-of-way lS a 66-foot wlde by 264-foot long segment ofpubhc street
running east-west along the northern edge ofthe eXlstmg pohce and courts parkmg
lot The CIty owns all abuttmg tax lots that have frontage on the pubhc nght-of-way
proposed for vacatIOn. The Plannmg CorllImsslOn held a Pubhc Heanng on June 5
and 19,2007, and adopted a recommendatIOn m support of the proposed vacatIOn at
the PublIc Heanng meetmg on June 19,2007. CIty CouncIl held a pubhc hearmg and
conducted fIrst readmg of the vacatlOn ordmance at the regular meetmg on July 2,
2007.
Date, F~eceived:
Planner: AL
7/;,./:;007
I{
~ 't' ~
'.
ATTACHMENT 1
VACATION REQUEST
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
Case No. LRP2007-00019
APPLICANT
The CIty of Spnngfield and Spnngfield PolIce Department
REQUEST
The vacatIOn ofa 66-foot wIde by 264-foot long segment of publIc street nght-of-way
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
The pubhc nght-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated IS a segment ofB Street located between 4th
Street and PIOneer Parkway East. The nght-of-way hes on the boundary between Tax Maps 17-03-35-24
and 17-03-35-31.
BACKGROUND '
The publIc nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn IS part of the downtown gnd street system, and was created
wIth plattmg of the Map of Spnngfield (later referred to as the "Extended Survey of Springfield") m
1872. There are eIght CIty-owned propertIes (Map 17-03-35-24, Tax Lots 13900-14100 & 14300, and
Map 17-03-35-31, Tax Lots 1500-1800) that are dIrectly adjacent to the subject nght-of-way. All of the
parcels wIth frontage on the subject nght-of-way are presently used as parkmg lots for the pubhc, CIty
employees and the Spnngfield PolIce Department Site Plan approval for the Spnngfield JustIce Center
was Issued July 25,2006 and offiCial groundbreakmg for constructIOn IS to be lrutIated on June 28, 2007
The approved plan for the JustIce Center bUlldmg IS not dependent upon the subject nght-of-way area.
Withm the downtown area, B Street extends from Mill Street east to 16th Street, a distance of about 16
City blocks or 6120 feet (1.16 mdes). The one-block segment ofnght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn IS
264 feet long and compnses approxunately 4% of the length ofB Street (Attachment 2).
On June 19, 2007, the Plannmg ComnnssIOn concluded a Pubhc Heanng for the proposed right-of-way
vacatIOn, and subsequently passed a recommendatIOn of approval of the vacatIOn to the CIty CounCIl
City Council conducted a pubhc heanng and gave first readmg to the vacatIOn ordmance at the regular
meetmg on July 2,2007. The publIc heanng wntten record was held open for one week followmg the
July 2, 2007 meeting Dunng the extended publIc heanng record, three wntten submIttals were receIved.
two m favor of the proposal and one opposed The testunony receIved dunng the extended public heanng
record is attached to the staff report (Attachments 7-9)
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 9 060(3) estabhshes cntena for vacatIOn of right-of-way that must
be met m order to approve thIS request. The followmg findmgs address each of the cntena
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
Fmdmg l' Oregon ReVIsed Statutes (ORS) SectIOn 271.130(1) reads as follows. "The city governmg
body may mltzate vacatIOn proceedmgs authorzzed by ORS 271 080 and 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 hearzng, nor if the owners of a maJorzty of the area
affected, computed on the basis prOVIded In ORS 271.080, object m wrltmg thereto, nor shall any street
area be vacated WIthout the consent of the owners of the abuttmg property if the vacation will
substantzally affect the market value of such property, unless the City governing body prOVides for paymg
damages, Provision for paymg such damages may be made by a local assessment, or in such other
ATTACHMENT
, 1-1
Date. Received:~~07
Planner: AL '
'I
I., ,
manner as the CIty charter may provzde."
Fmdmg 2 ORS 271.080(1) provIdes for vacatIOn of "...all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley,
plat, publzc square or other publzc place. " In accordance wIth ORS 271 080(1), the vacatIon actlon
reqUires "a descnptzon of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for which the ground IS
proposed to be used and the reason for such vacatzon."
Findmg 3' The Spnngfield CIty CouncIl mltlated the vacatIOn actIOn at the regular meetmg on May 7,
2007. The nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn IS generally depIcted and more speCIfically descnbed m
Exhibit A to thIs staff report. The purpose of the vacatIOn IS to retam the segment of vacated publIc
nght-of-way m publIc ownershIp, and to use the area for constructIOn of a secure polIce parkmg lot and
anCIllary buIlding servmg the Justlce Center
Fmdmg 4: In accordance With ORS 271 130(1), the declSlon on the vacatIOn actIOn will be made at a CIty
CouncIl meetmg, and after PublIc Hearings before the Planmng CommISSion and CounCIl.
Findmg 5 All properties that directly abut the segment of publIc nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn are
owned by the CIty of Spnngfield
ConclUSIOn The proposed right-of-way vacatIOn complIes WIth Cntenon (a),
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
Fmding 6. In accordance WIth ORS 271 110(1), public heanng notices were placed m the newspaper of
general cIrculatlon (The Register Guard) on June 15 and 22, 2007. Addltlonally, a publIc heanng for the
Planrung CommISSIOn recommendatIon to CIty CounCIl was held on June 5 and 19,2007.
Fmdmg 7. In accordance WIth 271.110(2), publIc notIce of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn actIon was
posted at two conspIcuous locatIOns unmedlately adjacent to nght-of-way proposed for vacatlon (at the
northeastern corner adjacent to 4th Street, and at the southwestern corner adjacent to PIOneer Parkway
East).
Fmdmg 8. In accordance With ORS 271.080, adjacent landowners and reSidents/tenants WIthIn a 400-foot
radIUS ofthe 66-foot by 264-foot Imear nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn were notl(1ed by mall. PublIc
heanng notIficatIOn was sent out for both the Planrung CommiSSIon and CIty CounCil meetings. People
that proVided testunony at the Planmng CommISSIOn publIc heanng also were notlfied by mall of the CIty
CouncIl publIc heanng
ConclUSIOn The notificatIOn proVided for the proposed nght-of-way vacatlon complIes WIth Cntenon
(b).
(c) Approval ofthe vacation would be consistent with provision ofsafe, convenient and reasonably
direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-0012-0045(3);
Fmding 9. As stated m Oregon AdmmistratIve Rules (OAR) 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), "safe and convenient"
means bicycle and pedestnan routes, facllztles and Improvements which.
(A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic whIch
would mterfere With or discourage pedestrzan or cycle travelfor short tripS,
(B) Provzde a reasonably direct route of travel between destmatlOns such as a transit stop
and a store; and
(C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestnans considering destmatlOn and length of trzp,
Date Received: 7/;'/b>d7
Planner: AL '/
1-2
~ 1
and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally 'l4 to Y2 mile
Fmdmg 10' In accordance wIth OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacatIOn of the subject nght-of-way and
closure to publIc travel would not mterfere 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 - partIcularly A Street, which IS
located less than 300 feet to the south.
Fmdmg 11 In accordance with OAR 660-0l2-0045(3)(d), vacatIOn of the subject nght-of-way would not
result m pedestnan, CyclISt or vehIcle tnps that are more than 1;'; mIle from bemg a dlIect route of travel
between destmatIOn pomts. ,FIgure 1 Illustrates approximate travel dIstances for all potential modes of
travel from one Side of the vacated nght-of-way to the other Should the segment ofB Street be vacated
and closed to publIc travel, the maximum out-of-dlrectIOn distance for passage from the eastern end of the
subject nght-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end ofthe nght-of-way (at PIOneer Parkway East) would
be about 600 feet (<1/8 mIle) for bIcycles and velucles usmg surface streets Velucles and bIcycles have
the optIon ofusmg either A Street or C Street for the east-west segment of the tnp The out-of-dlrectIOn
distance ~ould be even less for pedestnans usmg the publIc SIdewalk system, or bIcycles and vehIcles
passmg through tbe mId-block alley north ofB Street The use oftbe mld-Qlock alley for east-west
passage IS not a preferred route for velucles, but IS depIcted on FIgure 1 for illustratlve purposes.
Fmdmg 12. Pedestnan passage through the east-west mId-block alley north ofB Street can be
accommodated wltlun the eXlstmg 14-foot Wide paved surface. However, If It IS determmed that
additional pedestnan faCIlIties are requlIed for mamtammg safe passage through thiS alley, thIS
reqUIrement could be Implemented at the tune of SIte Plan ModIficatIOn for the JustIce Center A Type II
Major SIte Plan ModIficatIon Will be requlIed upon vacatIOn of the publIc ngbt-of-way m order to
mcorporate the former publIc ngbt-of-way mto the SIte plan area.
Fmdmg 13 ProvlSlon of travel routes for cychsts, pedestnans and velucles would be VIa the eXlstmg
publIc street, alley and SIdewalk system The approxunate travel dIstances shown on FIgure 1 assume
travel around the penmeter of each route, and short-cuttmg through parkmg lots or sunIlar open areas IS
not conSidered
Fmding 14 There are eXIstIng SItuatIons m downtown Spnngfield and elsewhere throughout the CIty
where portIOns of the gnd street system are not connected and out-of-drrectIOn travel is reqUIred for
cyclIsts, pedestnans and velucles Nearby examples mclude portIOns of A Street east of 12th Street, A, C,
D and F Street east of 14th Street, 8th and 9th Streets north of G Street, and G Street west of 4th Street.
.
Fmdmg 15' A Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (TlA) was prepared by an mdependent traffic engmeenng
consultant to evaluate the unpacts of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn (Sprzngfield Justice Center
ReVised Task 2 Report _ Traffic Impact Study, Access Engmeenng, July, 2006). The TIA exammed the
eXlstmg and post-vacatIOn street system m the vlclmty of the Justlce Center and evaluated the pOSSible
Impacts of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn to vehIcle movements and the performance of nearby
mtersectIOns. The TIA concluded there would be mmnnal unpact on the downtown transportatIOn system
WIth the proposed vacatIOn of publIc nght-of-way.
Findmg 16 The TIA prepared for the proposed nght-of-way vacatlon also concluded that no traffic
mltlgatIOn actIOns would be reqmred to ensure safe and effiCIent flow of traffic In the vlclmty of the
Justlce Center. Among the sunplest and most effectlve measures to structure traffic movements In the
area WIll be strategIC placement of dlIectIOnal sIgnage for the Justlce Center The TIA suggests pOSSIble
measures to dIscourage traffic from travelmg to and from the downtown core usmg nearby reSIdential
streets, Includmg placement of STOP SIgnS at key mtersectIOns and mstallmg curb extensIOns to prevent
undeSIrable turnmg movements.
1-3
Date Received: ~4/~1TJ
Planner: AL
., 1
Figure 1 - Approximate Travel Distances
V l
='
'==-
,....
.1
,.
"-
,.
\.
(I
j ~
..~
'\ :,.
... .
Ql:
Ql;
....
::;):
~:
,I'
r
...
ell
ell
....
o
10
j.... ~
1 . t
,~ I'
"" ""hm
...
ell
ell
.... i
o
o
M
1
-<(
(
...
If)
co
.1J,
>.
co
3:
~
L-
eu
D..
-;suu Teet
-300, feet
-"\Ofl1eet '
-300 feet
....
1'1'
'/d>1"
C
o
II n:~ I I I I II
1-4
Ij
~.
_ "': r
:....
: ell
:.!
:0
.10
:....
"I
~..
'"
....
: ell
: ell
.....
:0
,)1i
1 ~.
~ t ,.
.....
: ell ,
: ell
.....
. :0
:0
:M
: I
.
". :
~
:'
/
C Street
\
-'
'-
B Street
'\
]
A Street
-
'-
,C
__l ~ -
L-
..... . I .
CJ)
:5 I
-.;t
~ ( ~ l::
Main Street
I~ G -:\ ;;::::.
- Right-of-way proposed
tor vacatIon
Travel directions and
~ approximate distances
Out-at-direction travel
....... directions and distances
~J8tEi Rac13ived:, 7f;//U/J
planner. At
. 1
Fmdmg 17. SpecIal vehicles, such as transIt buses, can be accommodated on adjacent public streets
(pnmanly A Street). There IS one transIt stop for west-bound buses that IS located wIthm the segment of
B Street proposed for vacatIOn RelocatIOn of the bus stop can be done m consultatIOn wIth Lane TranSit
DIstnct.
Conclusion. Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn will have no adverse effect on
safety, connectIvity or mamtammg reasonably drrect travel routes for pedestnans, cychsts and vehIcles
As proposed, the publIc nght-of-way vacatIOn complIes wIth Cntenon (c)
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the
right-of-way in its present status; and
Fmdmg 18' The nght-of-way presently contams a two-lane collector street wIth sIdewalks on both sIdes
Upon vacatIOn of the nght-of-way, the subject area would be mcorporated mto the project area and used
for secure polIce parkmg and Justice Center ancillary facIlItIes The right-of-way would be closed to all
publIc travel. The Spnngfield Police Department advises that a secure parkmg lot - close to the JustIce
Center bUlldmg - protects publIc property (mcludmg polIce vehIcles and case eVIdence stored 10 the
anCIllary bUlldmg) and enhances emergency response tImes as respondmg Qfficers do not have to cross
publIc streets to reach theIr vehIcles
Fmdmg 19 Jerry SmIth, Spnngfield Chief of PolIce, submItted a memo m support of the proposed nght-
of-way vacatIon (Attachment 3) which reads as follows.
Imvortancf- of IJ Strt!fJt Closlnf! to the Justice Facilztv PrOlect
"The purpose of thIs memo IS to summarize for the Plannzng CommisSIOn the Importance of closmg B
Street as part of the Justice Center project As designed, the area currently occupied by B Street
would become part of a fenced and secured parking area r
. Closll1g B Street IS necessary for the securzty of portIOns of the facllzty The planned Justice
facility Includes an anCIllary buddll1g that Will be a reposltOlY for eVIdence m crlmmal cases,
storage jor police and court records, and storage for specialzzed polzce eqUipment and weaponry
Closll1g B Street Will allow the entire anCIllary buddll1g and parking lot to be fenced 111,
significantly Improving the security of these records and eVldentzary Items WIthout the securzty
fenCing m place, the ancillary buddmg as deSIgned does not prOVIde suffiCient securzty for these
Items
. Closll1g B Street WIll prOVide securejleet and employee parking To date, Department vehicles
and employee parkmg has not been secured by fencll1g While this does not cause Significant
Issues durzng normal workmg hours, the Department has experzenced damage to jleet vehIcles,
and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles, durmg late evenmg and early
mornll1g hours Damage has ranged from pamt scratches to slashed tIres and broken wmdows
. Closll1g B Street will Improve the safety of polzce officers and Citizens The street closure Will
allow officers respondmg to emergency calls from znslde the bUlldzng to access theIr vehicles
Without crossing a publzc right of way, thereby reducmg the risk of an aCCident dUring an
emergency response
. Closzng B Street Will prOVIde a secure area for evacuatIOn of munzcipal jazl przsoners The
fenced area Will serve as an outdoor holdmg area for munzclpal Jad pnsoners in the event that
the jail must be evacuated WIthout the street closure and fencmg, there Will not be an area
outSide the munzclpal Jad adequate and acceSSible for holding prisoners Instead, an evacuatIOn
Date Received: 7 /;6/~P7
Planner: AL ' I
1-5
" "
event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all mUnicipal jazl prisoners "
Fmdmg 20. As descnbed m the statement from the Pohce Chief, the vacated right-of-way WIll be used
for secure pohce parkIng and IS also desIgned to provIde a fenced-m area that is large enough for
evacuatiOn of Jail pnsoners m the event of an emergency ProvlSlon of a secure muster area for evacuated
pnsoners provIdes a drrect' benefit to the jaIl staff, pohce personnel, and the pubhc
Fmdmg 21 As noted m the Pohce Cluefs statement, ensunng respondmg police officers do not have to
cross a public street m order to reach their vehIcles enhances safety for both Police Department personnel
and publIc users of the street system.
Fmdmg 22. Passage of the PublIc Safety ballot measure m 2004 that secured public fundulg for the
JustIce Center project demonstrates Spnngfield residents' commitment to the project ComparatIvely few
people wlthm the City regularly use the segment of B Street proposed for vacatiOn. However, all
Spnngfield residents (and vlSltors) benefit from a strong police presence withm the commumty.
ConclusIOn Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-wayvacatiOn serves a greater benefit to the
publIc than retam10g the one-block segment ofnght-of-way 10 its present status The proposed vacatIOn
also provides drrect benefits to the City's Police Department, wluch ultunately benefits Spnngfield
resIdents. As proposed, the nght-of-way vacation comphes wIth Cntenon (d)
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public
ownership.
F10drng 23 The vacated nght-of-way IS to be rncorporated mto the JustIce Center development, whIch is
a publIcly-funded project. Ownerslup of the Justice Center bUIld10g and the land on whICh it IS to reSIde
(which mcludes the portiOn ofnght-of-way proposed for vacatiOn), is to remam With the City of
Spnngfield.
Fmdmg 24. Upon vacatiOn of the nght-of-way, the land ownerslup automatically reverts to the City as It
owns the abuttmg property. Because the ownerslup of the vacated nght-of-.way does not pass through a
tlurd party (wluch could occur if there were pnvately-owned parcels frontmg onto the nght-of-way),
rema1010g m pubhc ownership IS assured.
Fmdmg 25 A clause has been added to the enactmg ordmance (Attachment 12) provldmg that rn the ,
event the vacated nght-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes It shall revert to publIc right-
of-way
ConclUSIOn: The proposed nght-of-way vacatiOn comphes With Cntenon (e)
CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed nght-of-way vacatiOn (a) allows construction of a publicly funded project
approved by a vote ofthe publIc, (b) mcreases law enforcement's public presence m the downtown core
through constructiOn of a Police, Courts and JaIl facility; and (c) provides constructiOn features that
10crease the secunty and safety to the City'S Police Department and the general pubhc dunng operatiOns
The loss of publIc good m teITIlS of velucle, pedestnan and bIcycle connectiVIty has been demonstrated to
be mm1Illal and wIthm State statutes for connectlVlty under Cntenon 9 060(3)(c) of this report and can be
reasonably mItigated.
Based upon the above findrngs and testImony contarned herem, Staff concludes that the proposed nght-
of-way vacatiOn for a Justice Center faCIlity (mcludmg jaIl, courts and police statIOn) serves a greater
benefit to the general public than retainmg the one-block segment of nght-of-way m its present status As
1-6
Date Received:~~01
Planner: AL
.j 1
proposed, the nght-of-way vacatlOn complIes wIth Cntenon 9 060(3)(a-e)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends support for the Planmng Commission's recommendatlOn because' (1) nothmg in the
record compels a concluSlOn contrary to that reached by the Planmng CommisSlOn on June 19,2007, and
(2) detailed findmgs of fact substantiate the vacatIon request based on the eVIdence submItted that IS
relevant and applIcable to the Spnngfield Development Code cntena for vacatlOns of nghts-of-way that
are to be maintamed for a publIc purpose.
ACTION REQUESTED
DIscuSSlOn and mformal pollmg of CouncIl to determme If It IS the CounCIl's mtent to support the
Planmng CommlsslOn's recommendatlOn and thereby approve the vacatlOn request.
If CouncIl favors approvmg the vacatlOn, then staff WIll return With detaIled findmgs of fact and
concluslOns of law for the CouncIl's conSIderatIon that would be appended to the adoptlOn ordinance
enactmg the vacatlOn ThIS WIll come before the CounCIl for formal actIOn pn September 17,2007
AlternatIvely, If CounCIl does not favor the vacatlOn, then staff WIll return WIth a draft order denymg the
proposed vacatlOn.
1-7
DatE) Heceivea:46/kt77
Planner: AL /'
~
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES
Nme people provided testmlOny at the Plannmg ComrlllsslOn publIc heanng for the proposed nght-of-way
vacatlOn, seven m favor and two opposed. Wntten testmlOny opposmg the vacation was received from
Bob Foster (Attachment 4) and Scott Olson (Attachments 5&6).
Mr. Olson provided statements m ills testImony dated June 12,2007 that staff wish to address here.
Statement 1 "1 am dlsappoznted that the City has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatIves dUring
the project development process whIch considered tradeoffs In thefunctLOnal and space program With the
assoczated site constraints"
Staff Response The SIte planmng for the JustIce Center project exammed a WIde vanety of deSIgn
optlOns mcludmg underground parkmg, onentatIOn of the jail and polIce/courts bUlldmg onto dIfferent
streets, expansIOn to adjacent (not city-owned) properties, and possIble alternate sites m the downtown
area (agam, not cIty-owned) About 15 possible site plan opt!Ons were IrutIally developed m consultatIOn
WIth publIc, stakeholders, staff and the JustIce Center project team. The optIOns were cntIcally evaluated
and four alternatIves were developed for City CouncIl to select for a preferred deSIgn optIOn Mr Olson
acknowledges that tradeoffs were made, but staff contend that the functIOnal and space program was only
one factor exammed dunng the prelImmary SIte planrung phase.
Statement 2 "Twelve years ago the cay 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 artenal at PIOneer
Parkway, Immedzately 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 elzgzble for the federal Investment 1Il
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 111 2007 constructIOn costs IS over $1.2 mIllIOn. It has'been suggested that the CIty
could be oblzgated to repay the federal government if the street IS Indeed closed"
Staff Response A portlOn ofB Street from 14th Street to PlOneer Parkway East (approxunately 4,400
lmeal feet) was rehabilItated m 1997 at a total cost of$759,676 11 (Project #1-882). The apportlOned
project cost for the subject one-block area (approx1lllately 300 feet or 7% of the 4,400-foot long project
area) would be about $52,000.00. A fundmg transfer was arranged WIth Oregon Department of
TransportatlOn (ODOT) that mvolved substltutlOn of elIgIble federal funds With state funds. The City
used a $400,000 federal allocatlOn to obtam more t1lllely state fundmg ($376,000) for the entlre project.
Based on the lmeal footage, the state-funded portlOn of the one-block segment proposed for vacatlOn IS
less than $26,000 As a result of the fundmg transfer WIth ODOT (and because the funds were provided
to the City Without "stnngs attached"), there IS no dIrect federal mvolvement With the B Street upgrade
project and the city would not be reqUIred to repay any government agency - state or federal- If the one-
block segment ofthe street IS closed to publIc traffic AddItIonally, the remammg 13 blocks ofB Street
from the mtersectlOn of 4th Street to 14th Street are not affected by the proposed vacatlOn and Will remam
open to publIc travel
Statement 3' "The City approved a zone change from Mixed Use CommerCial/Nodal Development to
Publzc Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a JustIce Center IS not lzsted In the MUC/NDO
Dlstrzct None of the staff reports revlewzng the project['s} history have mentLOned the fact that several
months przor to making the zone change applzcatlOn the CIty added JustIce Centers as an allowed use In
the PLOINDO zone The project was not an allowed use at the slie at the time the CIty asked voters to
fund the proJect"
Staff Response: Tills statement IS not entIrely true or false The specific use of "Justice Center" was not
listed m the Pubhc Land and Open Space (PLO) Distnct at the t1llle voters approved the concept of
Date Received:~/~tJ7
Planner: Al I
1-8
,
havmg a large-scale facIlIty combmmg polIce, law courts and muruclpal jail constructed m Spnngfield.
However, key components of the JustIce Center, mcludmg courts, ammrustratlve offices and publIc
offices (mc1udmg detentIOn facIlItIes) are mdlVldually lIsted m the PLO and Mixed Use Commercial
(MUC) Dlstncts, and were already present on the sIte. It IS notable that pubhc offices are lIsted as a
PermItted Use m the MUC Dlstnct.
Although there IS prOVISIon m the Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) for mterpretmg new or
undefined uses that are slIDIlar to already-defmed uses (or that could be reasonably grouped mto a
famIlIar category) the CIty logically deemed It desrrable to have the JustIce Center specIfically defined
and hsted m the apphcable Development Code dlstnct. To tlus end, the City faCIlItated reVIew and
approval of the JustIce Center development by adoptmg necessary Development Code amendments once
the project fundmg was secured, and pnor to selectmg a preferred sIte optIOn The Code amendments
were adopted through standard, state-mandated publIc procedures that mvolve pubhc notIficatIOn, pubhc
heanngs and acceptance by the state Department of Land ConservatIOn and Development (Case
LRP2005-00031) It also should be noted that a Justlce Center IS not an "allowed" use, but IS lIsted as a
DIscretIonary Use whIch reqUIres an addltlonal pubhc reVIew and land use approval step Approval of the
DIscretIOnary Use - allowmg for further consideratIon of a JustIce Center at the selected locatIOn - was
granted by the Plannmg CommISSIon on Apn118, 2006 (Case DRC2006-00013) after a publIc heanng
When the JustIce Center site optIon was selected by City CounCil, the 14 City-owned tax lots wltlun the
footpnnt of the JustIce Center were zoned a combinatIOn of Mixed Use CommerCial (eight lots) and
PublIc Land and Open Space (six lots). A rezorung of the eIght MUC lots to PLO was completed to
create a uruform zorung for the entrre project Site (Case ZON2006-00007). The rezorung was approved
by the Plannmg CommISSIOn on April 18, 2006 after a publIc heanng.
Statement 4 "The City has failed to appropriately provldefor publzc mvolvement in a meanmgful way
throughout the planmng process A citizen advIsory committee (CAC) was formed 'to prOVide lI1put
throughout the design process m regard to outward design of the facilzty and ItS relatlOnshlP to downtown
Spnngfield' 1 volunteered for the CA C and durmg my mtervlew for the pOSltlOn 1 Informed the City
council of my apiman With respect to the street closure and mdlcated a deSire to work on appropnate
alternatives "
Staff Response: Mr Olson IS cntIcal of the CIty'S "failure to appropnately proVIde for publIc
mvolvement". Mr Olson has served as a member of the CItIzen AdvIsory CommIttee for the Justlce
Center The CAC has met over a dozen tImes smce the project mceptlOn to dISCUSS the vanous sIte
planrung Issues affectmg the Justice Center Tlus does not necessanly mean, however, that all
recommendations of the CAC or ItS mdlvIdual members have been adopted by the Justice Center Project
Team, the Plannmg CommISSIOn or CIty CounCIl. In lus testlIDony, Mr. Olson acknowledges that the
majonty ofCAC members voted m favor of the sIte deSIgn optIon eventually selected by City CounCil
I
In addItIon to the regular CAC meetmgs, there have been numerous publIc open house meetmgs,
mformatIon sessIOns, newspaper advertIsements, media announcements, CIty websIte postmgs, and
neIghborhood mail-outs over the 18+ month penod smce the Justlce Center project was formally IrutIated.
A lIst of publIc meetmgs for the JustIce Center project (from preluninary dIscussions through to final site
selectIOn and bUlldmg deSIgn) IS attached to tills staff report as mformatIOn (Attachment 6).
The publIc meetmgs dIscussed above do not mclude at least seven formal land use actIOns undertaken to
facIlitate the JustIce Center project, all of whIch requrred pubhc notIficatIOn (see Table 1 below)
AddItionally, at hIS request, Mr Olson has been personally notIfied of public hearings pertaming to the
JustIce Center, partIcularly the B Street vacatlOn DespIte the numerous maIlouts, advertIsed publIc
heanngs and multIple land use actIOns that have occurred up to tlus pomt - all of whIch have made
overtures for publIc and stakeholder mvolvement - Mr Olson IS among the few mdIvlduals that have
submitted any testImony m OppOSItIOn to the Justice Center project. None of the land use actIOns
1-9
Date Received' 7/lr..z.."1
Planner: AL
,
approved to tills pomt have been appealed
Table 1
Public Involvement for Justice Center (Planning and Land Use Actions)
Plannlno Action I Case Number I Public Involvement Opportunities
Development Code Amendment to LRP2005-00031 Pubhc Heanngs November 1,2005, November 28,
add "JustJ.ce Center" to Article 23 2005, January 4,2006 & January 17,2006
Zone Change ZON2006-00012 Pubhc Heanngs March 21 & Apn118, 2006
. 300-foot maIlout notIficatIOn to neIghborhood
DRC2006-00013 Pubhc Heanngs March 21 & Apnl18, 2006
300-foot mal10ut notIficatIOn to neighborhood
PublIc Heanngs June 20, 2006, July 5, 2006;
July 17, 2006 & September 18, 2006
400-foot maIlout notIficatIOn to neighborhood
DRC2006-00033 300-foot maIlout notIficatIOn to neIghborhood
LRP2007-00002 PublIc Heanngs March 13 & 19,2007
DiscretIOnary Use
VacatIOn of rind-block alley
LRP2006-000 19
I Site Plan ReView
Development Code Amendment to
modlfv Article 9 VacatIOn cntena
VacatIon of one-blo'ck"segment of
B Street,
LRP2007-00019
Pubhc Heanngs June 5 & 19,2007
Pubhc Heanng July 2, 2007
! 400-foot mallout notIficatIon to neighborhood
Statement 5 "The City cannot ensure contlnue[d) public ownershlP [of the vacated portIOn ofpubllc
nght-olway) because It does not own the property untlllt lS vacated Once vacated there lS no way of
preventing future Clty councils from selling the property to a przvate party "
Staff Response' Agam, thIs statement is not entIrely true or false The City has latltude m Its use of
pubhc nght-of-way and could close the street to publIc travel temporanly or permanently WIthout
vacating the nght-of-way. The JustIce Center project IS Intended to be a long-term (50+ year) occupant of
the selected SIte. However, to address thIS Issue, a clause has been Inserted In the enablIng ordInance that
causes the vacated area to revert to pubhc nght-of-way m the event the vacated nght-of-way ceases to be
used for Justice Center purposes (Attachment 9)
Statement 6' "The street vacatIOn cannot meet any of the three cnterza preVIOusly established In the
code. "
Staff Response' The "prevIOUS" cntena referred to by Mr Olson have been superseded by Development
Code amendments to ArtIcle 9 (VacatIOns) cnteria adopted Apnl2, 2007. The subject vacatIOn request
was submitted after the cntena came Into effect. Therefore, thIs statement IS rrrelevant to the subject
vacatIon request
I
TestImonv Received Dunn!! Extended Pubhc Hearmg Record.
The CIty CounCil conducted a pubhc heanng for the vacatIOn request at the regular meetIng on July 2,
2007, and the publIc heanng wntten record was extended for one week to 500 pm on July 9,2007
Durmg the extended publIc heanng record, wntten testunony m favor of the vacatIOn was receIved from
Ralph DaVid Jacobson (Attachment 8) and Steve SIngleton,(Attachment 9) Wntten testImony OppOSIng
the vacatIOn was receIved from Scott Olson (Attachment 7).
Mr. Olson proVIded statements In ills July 9,2007 testimony that staff wIsh to address here
Statement 1 "The Clty has recently amended their Development Code In an attempt to allow for the
vacatIOn of B Street whlch was not allowed under the prevIOus code proviSIOns In develOPing new
cnterza the City failed to ground those rules In any adopted land use policy"
1-10
Date Received: ~//~~7
Planner: AL 'I -
Staff Response Staff agree wIth the fIrst sentence m this statement. The City has recently amended the
Development Cqde to add vacatIon cntena specIfIcally created to balance 'pubhc good versus greater
publIc good' when consIdenng the vacatIOn ofpubhc nght-of-way (Plannmg ActIon LRP2007-00002)
Pnor to the amendment, the Code was structured to consider a balance of 'public good versus pnvate
good' when vacatIOn of publIc nghts-of-way were requested. Hlstoncally, nght-of-way vacation requests
were pnmanly to accommodate pnvate mterests through vacatIOn and dIsposal of surplus mumcIpalland
However, the JustIce Center IS a specIal cIrcumstance where pubhc nght-of-way IS requested for vacatIOn
and converSIOn to another type of publIc use Because the pubhc nght-of-way IS mtended to remam m
publIc use and ownership, specific language for balancmg pubhc mterests was developed and added to the
Code. The state Department of Land ConservatIon and Development (DLCD) was appnsed of the Code
amendments and dId not object. Staff suggest that the City's land use actIOns taken m support of the
JustIce Center to thIS pomt have been transparent and publIc, and none have been appealed.
Staff contend that vacatIOn of publIc nght-of-way and retentIOn in publIc ownershIp ~ allowed under
the prevIOUS cntena because the Code prOVides latItude for the approval authonty to approve, approve
WIth condItIons, or deny a vacatIOn request (see staff response to Statement 2 below).
Statement 2 "The City has added these crzterza [ArtIcle 9 VacatIOn cnteria,9 060(3)] In an attempt to
aVOid the establzshed Crlterza for publzc vacatIOns The vacation of B Street IS not consistent with any of
the three crzterza still applzcable to any przvate development The City has not Justified why a publzc
building can be allowed to compromise the street connectivity but przva tely owned buildings could not"
Staff Response: Staff agree With Mr Olson's statement that a publIc bUIldmg affectmg a street nght-of-
way may be gIven greater conSideratIOn than a pnvate bUIldmg However, there are examples ofpubhc
nghts-of-way m the downtown core and elsewhere m the City that have peen vacated for private
development mterests Staff contend that notlung m the Article 9 language, before or after recent Code
amendments, precludes the vacatIOn request The only defmItIve statement m the Code (unaffected by
recent amendments) IS that "the applIcatIon shall be aooroved If the VacatIOn IS found to be conSIstent
With the [hsted] approval cntena" (ref. SDC 9.060(2)) PrOVISIOn eXIsts for the vacatIOn to be approved
or condItIons to be attached If the proposal does not meet the vacatIOn critena (SDC 9.070) Fauure to
fully address any of the cntena of approval does not necessanly result 10 automatIc derual
Statement 3: "The publiC does not own the rzght of way, they have a perpetual rzght of use Ifvacated the
rzght IS terminated and the ownership IS unencumbered. Once vacated the property could be transferred
to private ownership In thefuture Once [the) street has been vacated the city can not assure the
retentIOn of the property In publzc ownership"
Staff Response' Staff agree that vacatIOn of the nght-of-way would termmate the "nght of use" for the
affected segment of B Street However, the ownerslup stIll could be encumbered to prevent transfer of
the vacated nght-of-way to a pnvate mterest. This pomt was addressed m the preVIOUS testImony dated
June 12,2007, and there IS language m the vacatIOn ordmance addressmg thIS concern (Attachment 12)
Statement 4. "Crlterza (b) does not address requirements of the Sprzngfield Development Code The
CitatIOn to SDC 271 080 In Flndzng 8 does not exiSt Again, complzance With state statute minimum
requirements for street vacatIOns does not address the City'S oblzgatlOn to comply With their own land use
rules and reqUirements They can not grant themselves a waiver With un supported code amendments,"
Staff Response, Staff agree that the reference to SDC 271.080 does not eXist Tlus is a typographIC error
that has been corrected m the staff report, The correct reference IS ORS 271080 However, comphance
WIth CIty pohcIes and state statutes, mcludmg ORS 271.080, has been demonstrated
The Code amendments CIted m thIS statement have been reViewed by Oregon DLCD (WIthout ObjectIOn),
are part ofthe Development Code that Mr. Olson Identifies as the mecharusm for unplementmg land use
1-11
Date Received:-4!f.1e?47
Planner: AL '
polIcy, and therefore must be considered supported.
Statement 5" "The basIs ofoptlmumpedestrlan trzp lengths IS commonly based upon the}O mmute
walkmg Circle which IS typically assigned a 0 mzle radIus Adding a one block detour adds
approximately 700 feet or 1/8 mzle to the trip, effectively requiring 5 minutes walkzng out of directIon
durzng the Ideal} 0 minute trzp and cutting the effective ten minute trzp to 1/8 mzle ThiS IS not
inSignificant In the downtown, Nodal I)evelopment zone and the only neIghborhood In the CIty where the
streets already conform to the CIty connectlvzty and block length standards The closure of B Street IS
clearly inconsIstent WIth adopted City policy regardless of the street vacatzon process or criteria"
Staff Response Staff agree that a one-block detour w1ll add some extra tlIDe and dIstance to east-west
vehicle and pedestnan tnps w1th an origm and destmatIOn confmed to B Street The staff report and
F1gure 1 demonstrates that the out-of-dlrectIOn distance for travel from B Street at 4th Street to B Street at
PIOneer Parkway East (or vice versa) would result m approximately 600 feet of extra travel for vehIcles
and cyclIsts ThIs dIstance 1S less than 600 feet for pedestnans usmg the pubhc sldewalk system.
Because there are mtersectlOns on PlOneer Parkway at every block between Mam Street and F Street, and
on 4th Street between Mam Street and G Street, the extra travel distance calculatIOns are lImIted to east-
west tnps on B Street that mclude the segment proposed for vacatlon. Tnp~ WIth an ongm and/or
destmatlOn not on B Street can use alternate routes for completmg one block of east-west travel w1thout
addmg extra travel distance
Statement 6 "The City has fazled 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 traffic carryzng capacIty 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 prevzously utllzzed B Street"
Staff Response The street classlficatlon does not change the type of process requITed to vacate a portIOn
of the nght-of-way B Street 1S claSSified as a collector from Mill Street to 14th Street, and upon vacatlOn
of the one-block segment of nght-of-way the segment from 4th Street to 14th Street w1ll probably remam a
collector street. The portIOn of B Street from Mill Street to PIOneer Parkway East could remam a
collector because 1t stIll serves a purpose of connecting a collector street (MIll Street) and a minor artenal
street (PIOneer Parkway) Alternatlvely, the segment ofB Street from Mill Street to PIOneer Parkway :
could be reclass1fied as a local street at the d1scretlOn of the C1ty.
The functIOn of the collector system 1S to move traffic to artenal streets and/or to a pnmary "attractor"
(destmatIOn). Downtown IS the pnmary destmatIOn served by B Street, and vacating one block of the
collector street adjacent to downtown and the artenal system should not affect the functIOn of the
remalrung segment(s) of the collector street
One of the pnmary reasons for upgradmg B Street m 1997 was to accommodate bus traffic to the former
Spnngfield termmal at B Street and 5th Street. However, constructIOn of the new Spnngfield StatIOn at
South A and PIOneer Parkway East has resulted m substantIally less bus traffic on B Street.
The segment of A Street from MIll Street to 10th Street IS claSSIfied as a collector street m TransPlan and
the CIty'S street classIficatton system Pavement core samplmg of A Street between 5th Street and Mlll
Street was conducted m 2007 for a street pavement overlay project (C1ty Project P20512) The core
testing confirms the pavement structure 1S suffiCIent to accommodate the eX1stmg and anttcipated vehIcle
and bus traffic upon vacatton of a one-block segment of B Street
The Traffic Impact Study for the Justice Center (July, 2006) concluded that, upon vacatIOn of the one-
Date Received: 7/li/)'o1lJ7
, I
Planner: Al
1-12
-~
block segment of B Street, traffic on portIOns of C Street wIll mcrease However, the projected traffic IS
wIthm the normal capacIty for a local street (typlcally fewer than 1000 tnps per day)
Statement 7' "The traffic Impact analysIs addressed the streets phYSical capabIlities of carrymg the
diverted traffic Smce the collector and local streets m the area are the same widths, II did not requIre a
traffic engmeer to come to that J..:md of conclusIOn The staff report and traffic study fad 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 a street's functIOn"
Staff Response Upon vacatIOn of the one-block segment ofnght-of-way and closure to publIc travel, the
CIty can complete a post-acknowledgment plan amendment for reclassIfymg the street TIlls IS common
practlce used by Eugene, Spnngfield and Lane County for changes to the street system depicted m
TransPlan
Statement 8. "The major bus route between Thurston and Downtown Eugene travels along B Street"
Staff Response ThIS IS mcorrect Accordmg to the bus servIce routes publIshed by Lane TransIt Dlstnct
(LTD), the pnncIpal bus service between downtown Eugene and Spnngfield StatIOn IS the EmX Ime
WIthm Spnngfield, EmX runs eastbound along Franklm Boulevard and South A Street to Spnngfield
StatIOn. It returns westbound toward downtown Eugene VIa PIOneer Parkway East, Mam Street and
Franklin Boulevard. PublIshed L TD route schedulmg mformatlon advIses that ErnX servIce runs every
10 mmutes dunng pnmary operatmg hours, and every 15-20 mmutes dunng evenmgs and weekends
,
The pnncIpal bus route servmg Thurston (LTD Route #11) travels along South A Street and Mam Street
from Spnngfield StatIOn to 58th Street where It loops northward onto Thurston Road and returns to Mam
Street via 69th Street. The westbound segment runs along Mam Street to 5th Street where It turns south to
reach Spnngfield Statlon PublIshed LID route schedulmg mformatIOn advIses that Route # 11 servIce
runs every 15-20 mmutes dunng most ofthe pnmary operatmg hours, and about every 20 mmutes dunng
early mormngs, evenmgs and weekends
There IS scheduled LID bus servIce that runs along portIOns ofB Street between Mill Street and 14th
Street, mcludmg the segment proposed for vacatIOn (Route # 18 - Mohawk/Fmrvlew and Route # 19 -
Fmrvlew/Mohawk) Accordmg to the L TD publIshed schedules for these routes, during operatmg hours
approxImately one bus per hour would travel westbound and one bus per hour would travel eastbound
along B Street
Statement 9 "Officers are not typically waEtmg at the [Pohce) statIOn to respond to emergencies
Emergency response IS from officers on patrol No meanmgful change m response times can legztlmately
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 pm-fang adjacent to the faclhty for pohce parkzng and on duty officers respondzng
from the Justice center would have less delay than if they needed to get their vehicles out of a secured
compound"
Staff Response' The Importance of the secured parkmg lot and anCIllary bmldmg has been dIscussed at
length by proponents ofth1s vacatIOn acllon, and IS descnbed m ChIef SmIth's memo (Attachment 3).
Chief Smith has stated m preVIOUS testImony that emergency response requmng dIspatch of officers from
InSIde the Pollee StatIOn IS a rare event, but has happened m the past and could occur agam m the future
Statement 10. "Thefulllength of the B Street Improvement all the way to 14th Street Will be lost WIth the
loss of (Its) function as a collector roadway The City does not make pavement reconstructIOn efforts on
local streets"
1-13
Date Received: ~/;I>~o07
Planner: Al 7 ~
Staff Response ThIs IS mcorrect There will be no change to the B Street Improvements from 4th Street
to 14th Street and the street WIll remam open to publIc travel (mcludmg LID buses) The city mamtams
all publIc streets and - especIally for local streets - preservatlOn of the pavement structure IS a standard
approach for long-term mamtenance Local streets typIcally receIve a top seal-coat or pavement overlay
when necessary as opposed to "reconstructIOn" There are few examples where full reconstructIOn of the
pavement structure has been requITed on a local street. However, thIS does not mean the CIty can't (or
'Won't) undertake reconstructIve work on a local street If It were deemed necessary and wlthm the
available budget
Statement 11 "The city has never yet addressed how closure of B Street zs consistent wzth the adopted
land use pohcy or the Development Code Dunng the zone change, the DzscretlOnary Use Approval, and
the Site Revzew, findings with respect to block lengths, street connectiVity, and numerous other code and
plan Issues razsed during that process, claiming that those Issues were to be considered during the street
vacatIOn"
Staff Response Staff have demonstrated that the proposed vacatlOn IS consistent wIth adopted VacatIon
cntena of approval SDC 9.060(3) The Zone Change for the JustIce Center (ZON2006-00007) dId not
specIfically IdentIfy the subject vacation area because parcel zonmg IS usually extended to the centerlme
of the adjacent publIc street In thiS case, the zonmg for the parcels on both sIdes of the street IS the same
_ PublIc Land and Open Space (PLO). Therefore, the area requested for vacatIOn IS zoned PLO The
DiscretIOnary Use approval granted Apn118, 2006 IS condItIonal upon vacatIOn of the mId-block alley
(completed pursuant to Planrung ActIOn LRP2006-000 19) and the one-block segment of B Street pnor to
any constructIOn occumng m these areas The approved Site Plan for the JustIce Center does not mclude
the segment of publIc nght-of-way requested for vacatIon
.
1-14
Date ReGeived:~._~V~~l--. h
P~ani1e.r: Al
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJECT AREA
Spl1llgfield, OR
f',.)
I
--"
~
-iI
)>
o
:I:
~
1m
Z
-II
~/ , ' 1 ' ~
~ ~ "; j' i ; !j I
l~ ~~ <'''J~!
.c:.';;;J11'~\;
,< ' 'd ; fiT f 1.. -' CJ
"'",- j: ~ fJ! -/'..,
~ ?- " r ..., <f .. ~_~J;'tjt~,,'\.Ti"'" ~ -'l...
~ . ~ ' ~ ! QET.t~~g.....t:"i-' (J, \
",' ,c}",-t.: F~~}:11 ~ " : " , ; I '
,'_' i,; t - , - . -'" " : , j ,
! : ~ 7t ~ - 1 i ~ l.l:;' '-;-, I ; ~ l~ I ~.;:~__~~.~:~}~-=,-1
'-.Vv~'~; I ~,~'4~:;t <<- l;,,_>> f ,,~; ;/Cf'J/o. "!-~~f ~-~ ~''l ','~'_~_,,~_ 'j! f',
I _",. , _ ).'1"', ' 1.l,~ ' " ",,," " I , ,"
:< ~~~~R!",-? z ~,/~ U' \ _.I, . r_~ ;AMll:ll0~ ".:\:r~..:T \)..' jl, 1 " t <
""Y;Cj' /,.,; ,r~~r'.-"',,::'~r"''''::'''~ /,:fr-j -;l)'> 1"" :.""{;,\0 ~" ,- , :" .'" I;' ::, t,5. f:
? I 'I. , ~ ~-... -3; ':< ...... _...!i::.....l"y , , l t"}':? > n r > ~ ..........~.... "" I ' r' ~ ~~ j
,',:i~:. ,.,~:>1;f:-f", '~~;):s;;~:~~J".'::,~~.;~;"<., t:~" 1 1-\t~I,~" :;I~':IJ;-3Jl:<,.~.:.I,..
~.,T-'!r;~~...,,1~.[_'""""10.(~!..~ ;t~)/'~{~--<"~~.r'.ll!.i~.n}..,/"t ~,,(< ""--, 1 ", J l~r>.J. "'
,,\"f} ,j~-~f<,;_~~l:r~. r~; __~~::;;'?,'-' ~~',:~\-r ';:". j<~,- .' _.n ; ::1, I \. " ~~:. \- "1
A ,j z' 1 1'.,< "'6 it1" ;Y' )c '<\' ','.' ff", ']1 r il,: __ 1- \ I '-..' I - -.1 ~ - I \l-:i.>>~
.\ ".._.',l/,' ", \~ ) ", ,I~~",',' I ~ -""I :. ,'"~ . I . - I ~~~...;'-
\"j,~ v .,:t 6 q ~~/'\ 'J < ~ ~ '" i ~ - ". .... ~ I ~ ' ~
I..:::. __~' r* ill.....F'~i'L,~~! A} 1 . /*. " I _,',"./ A t~. II 1- ~",!:-' 'l " t (.. i {-..... !
_ _, .. _. _' ~ ',:.l; (f q. 1.... .l'~l. . - ...' l '~- I~, ,
-r\~ L.;*r..~-::? "1.(.,, -" "'~, . ~,"/ ~ ~ "lilR6ruJAn' -S < . \....~'"' ~ 1 I ", J
i .~ "'dr....,r .' j''l't'-^ ( ~,~ \' f' ~<;'.-'~ ~~ -.. A;;. ~,.. ", X ~,' " A",\ Y A '~T",,-;-\,~r-'-~ ,,~,i. - ,
I ',1\ '\'~'"i/1:,'~:~::,,~~"c:,~:::':;,{>.J'1 ~. '1,'1'" ':"-f"i" ' -. L_._i. "1:,
_ rr : 2}v 1 '..,< yw.Hs(I OA, _ ,::/,,~ " ~^~ t lj
^ .. '1 . - , , > ,', "b ~,' '~=;;.,.;-':', I : ;'i
- J:;,~>~ ~~:.; I . I '> 1_ : I / ' f" > ", '{; t . ;:~~. , '\'. . 'i > ~ ,>! " , . "I ' I
_."".+..~_ .'. ,. ," I"., , ~. 'I" I' :11
\,{.' ;"; ""ft-" .. ; 1;,_ , ",.,' ';, "', ~',! :" -'!( " ,"'-':, ; I!' II Ii'
'~i} '''",,;1 , ~-l'- 1 ~"",,~-"'<';:'h;< ,~LlI " 'J · '-"" ~~t~ v'.{I 1 ')~"" lr-I Y
" ,;,q 1 . I, \Vr,,~..:.....~ \';if' ,-~'i' ~~, ,:<.--....;Y1 ~J.~I""~",:l' (,' . ,; 'l.:ll' . I ,
.., \ V0 ~~'i ~ ' I 1-\ I ;.) l~ ' ~ rj;"..J:~ ....~\.. t_f-LJ'"1 ~r~~r'\' r-:l_1 ~l) .; .' : ri I
f.. ~ i ! I ~~ "",";"'" L, i)"'~.~L '---P I I ,~, t J) L___.. I It-..-_-oL..t:..---~ ~ !
l ( ), ' \. ,1\:"10<':':_ -:.JJ 1 ~ _,7-" i 1 \ ' ~\ > ~t ~ "t L..__ ' ,
!.. ....', ~~'l",;' i ill; \' " :,). ~/ i .:. I
.. .,-~. ,~,-,., ..1 , :~, :,: ,i V-
' ~. '"'" .,.' f j '1'.1 - ~ " L-JL.,,\
, ,',- ~~-' ,"", I,l! "\ .;
. : . , ..... .....-- - ( ..' ~.,; . : I , I ' ',' ~ ' / .
\I,.\\,~~ ~ 1 ..j I"~ "'~~' i .....~", \ I ,
~l ~ "-1,'. ......\. l I b...................~l ~
A~ -........... '! ;, '" ,'- II · 1
': I' '_"',,)<1 ' :_- ,,\,:. i I ,~: I !' "
1 ili i !"I : I II'~ ':' ~ Ii' I '--" J I ( ,
lip ,I. I 1 ' ' ~,I - : j , ,
[,'11 .,_1," ~ ~~_J:'''' P /S'
I , , K , f" (, .(~.
~ ' .. ._ 'w - Urban Growth Bomdary
~ I ; "I '",,", t:~ r ....~.. SfJ"ln:r~eld Crty um':lle
-.- ~.
I 1.
'"j I
II
q'
I,
I
,/
"
"
, I
I,
1 '
"00
-I:\)
1>>-
::::ltD
::l
m:::f3
;;0>
o
)> ~.
,<
CD
0..
;~
~ '~ -:
(, i :
I
'''l I
~:l r
l!
'I
-1..-'
,
I 1-
, I'; j
{ .~ ~! '-f' : II j i1 '.
). 'l J, I I !.
\ ~ 1,.j ~ ~ \ v{ 1 j ~
f ,j l > f i}.., ~ ~ I
, , i j t i ' , ~ j I '("
, l! 1 1):1; -' i; . _'f
.I
i
I{ I
t 1 !
,
,
,
"
,--..J
--~
~
~
-...1
~~
11rae ,"","0 It'an'dllt,a ,hallla::01l'J''lllJ rhuproJwcl
(her;, a.UImt. a/l ~t:.tpo"SlbUIl') for a,I)' 10&:1' t1r doma~e <lrm",
/rt>M_Y CllTDr .",UDI'O" a p1JIIID"m III4CCWOlC)I ofdau proJI1u:J
..
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJECT SITE
Spnngfield, OR
~ ....._..l_
~(=~~----
1-
1-
I ,
f---
- ~ -----
--- -~~-
"'
.-.-- -..::::::.::- ..,.::..:..-:~::::
---::.::;;:-~=.
--'
,
ll--~
f'--,- ---,.~ ~
--~ ----'---
,__, .__ v__
,
i---
I
,.H:=::~,:::::,___ _-'
-- ._~. -
- ......-,.-- ._~
.---~ -----
~---~- ---- -
1':.- "-::.. - :.. =;:;;..--=
____ ___ ~__J.
EST
i
m L____
..- -- ~--- '---
I I
"
, ,
, I
I
I
---- -
,
I
- - - ------~
,~--- -.- .....
- ---~- -~-
DST
;:
~t
---"CJl=--__h_
...;
1 -- -
----I
~H___ ~~ _
__A ~_ __
~--- --
----.-.---
,- -
--- ...... ___A
- ~-- ._--- -
,
---~--~ - ~--<
-~-----
_~~:T=
-
f- -,
I
1-1
BST [3---
---.----3:
, ' I >-
~--7- <(
3:
.- 1'i -:--.:-.:---=--- tii
<(' ,<(
-~-__________> I ~< 1 ,~
-----.-, ------- tt- ------ <(
AST w 3:
--- - - i5 - - -- - ~ ----------
- <(
a., a.
j___' \' .::::.:- ~:"':-____-. ,w.:...-;..--::::--:___..:-. ~
is'
_, I
__~____"'--_..a.._,'___:....:...._ _~
I
!_- -----... --~
,
-- -- ----. _ ~~L___
r -- --r- ----...... -7
~f-~""- - .-- --
I
I- '
en ----.
, J: - -.-:.::-:.:....=:-::;
l-
v
j
I-
en
J:-=':'
I-
It)
, I
I I
I
____.2..-___
I
1--
,I
-. -~------
I I
-1-----
, '
i~---~~7 ~
'. I
,I,
'I \
,I-
___~~~_____ CI) ~
----r- - ,..~ - :r: -~
1-,
, <tJ
I
---~---
.
--- r--~----.
MAIN ST
.....-----
,
, ,
i--I--~-:-...-7~ :~ -i --.-:; ---..
1
-~..--
-- ~~~-_.._----
--- --~- ~--
-- -~ - ,~-----
I j II
,i I
'I ~,
i::-'=-~ --'-~
I~=~- ~ ~___!
-----
-~--....
/
-- ---
-':'z --=- -_ __
,-----~ -,
--.......
~-<O.~___ ..~-...~_
, - ,
_~__ ..N-------
'"
y...... --
---
- ..----'
"'---
... -~-_J
-"'--
----- -- -
.. _-b---~-- - --...... ~
l_
--- --,...-~ ---- ------
/'
--"'~---"'-
..... -~~-~-~...- -...
---.-. ----...._-
.-
~--",
-..
... --~-
-----~-----~-----
"
~/
... "''''y
~~
Thtre are no warran~ ,hat acronpanl' thu product
(ken lWume aD respoflSlhdJ. lI'jor am' loss or dQmDge ansmg
from am' wror omU,Slon cr fXJS1tJOfUlJ UlQCOIracvofliw product
o 100 200 Feel
/.Gy, 2CXJ7
2-2
~Jrn:e; RaC;eiVed:_+~V~()"'1
p1aW'S( AL
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJ ECT SITE
Spnngfield, OR
17 -03-35-24
13900
14000
14100
14300
264'00'
N
CD
U'l
CD
SITE
en
co
CD
CD
B STREET
_. -_ _.A_~j
I-
C/)
<(
w
>-
<(
~
~
a::
<(
n.
a::
w
w
Z
o
n.
264.00'
1800
~-- -- -----1
1700
1600
1500
1900
17 -03-35-31
I-
C/)
I
l-
v
,
__.~_h___
,
-- - ---~ --.----- -
A STREET
r-
~- ---- --- --
I
*---;----- -
'T'
~~
Thtye art tlO waTTOnDeS' lhaJ occotrpan\l tillS product
!ken assume all rtspollSlbl/l n'for ani' loss or dmn&lge QrLSI fig
from an> error amlSSlan (T r:rmtJOtltJ/ macCUTTlC)' ofJh15 product
o
50
100 Feet
/.fay, 21XJ1
2-3
~_;c;tt~''1 f~a(8iVec\:,~0fdtJ7 .__
~'JlcL"r :.:;(" At_
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-Of-WAY VACATION
PORTION Of B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJ ECT SITE
Spnngfield, OR
'---~-- ~-- -~~_. ~____' _R__ ~ _~ __A
_w______
-~.~--_.
----~--
----.
17 -03~35-24
13900
14000
14100
14300
I
264 00'
,
- -- ---- ~..
I ~ ------,...---.. .-. -'------'J--;;.;;;;,9..---'...- un uu...__..___._._____ en
: ~ __u_______m___..______.l~~~~m____.._~.~~.~~re ;
-~~*--*.--_._-.._-- .-
B STREET
I-
C/)
if)
>-
<{
~
::.:::
0:::
<{
0..
0:::
ill
ill
Z
o
0..
264 00'
1800
1700
1600
1500
--.{
I
I
_~_I- -
i
.--'-
I-
C/)
:r
l-
V
L___
1900
17 -03-35-31
A STRE ET
------"'1
------.
------
, '
I I '
, I '
, I
~~
'lherr! are no WDPTOnnes thaJ acronpam' litIS product
lken: c:usumeaU rapoT1SWl!Jn'for anl' wss or dmnage arwng
from am error omLmon (T JDsltJolUJllnlUUlroCl of/Ius producl
o
50
100 Feet
May 2007
j
2-4
U(ltf'l ~~a(.6ived:," "1/;t/,p,~7
pk ''''PI Al / 7 .,. ,
d~ ~ '-" G _
)
,.J
u
J
v;
It
II I
~
en
-'
n.
J: J:
I- I-
o '<t or
a::--~
cry [ :PLI : ST
J:
~
'"
'...,
~
UJ
I
t
I
-,
~
UJ
I
~
to
en'
I-
UJ
J:
~
<D
=0
~;; J/
1
II
, -------'-
~
en
~JI
~ W ~ :11
I I U 1'+
,oJ
"U'. rl -'
~~ =
I-
en
J:
I-
~
I-
UJ
F RT r-: ~ I,' ,rr, ,IL' 1/ r-- r - -
\\ ~ ~ ~ u::-Il I _ L --- -
(~-iWES~~'~~ ~:j~ Hl 11 l~ 1., J If 1: --='il . I
, r- a:: ~I ==:II II 1 I Y- r ,,]
1 ':!'. S _ ~ I ~I UJII q, U L:ii' ~ Iii r
~L ~J ~Jl 1;11 JRr-::J' I I ~- 1 - I J
~ M\ 1 ~ 1/ ~ II ~ ) i1 ~ ~I ~J 11 I
~,~ ~u \l." _: -,::ID~C -""."f.~,~.J,,-,-~ L" ~~I r.7 ~ r n <:: · lii
% ~ \ ,p. L;'J..::...JI ' II" ,- 9', ."- ~ I I ~ ';.~ ~'_.~~ .,,~~. ~"".r_" ...j. w ~."W ~~-- ,
~):' l\ ~l-lr If.l. I I ')1 j-_u.",~ "d"~"'~
~,~>~ \ _ ,I 1/ II ! I I I' J Lit _ lL - -- 1 !e
%H>~\.,@'. - Q' "Ir I J I }
\{fJ/, , ) !1,>>II~ULILl 1._- I~ ']" -
~<'~~~,~.>,__y,:__' ~ I ~ L ~ Iii/I ~
~~&~ ~ i!: to
"<~~*' ~ (J ~
~ '4:.,..~ :d, ('--Y -~, UJ en
~~'~ ., <::^"~ ~
V~ ">~
\~~'i~ I I 'r "~m '- -
*"...../. -t-' " % '"".,,-- r----:1
,~.;\ \ _.. I ',/",,:~%, ":::::--J
~~H ") '> ~;-...{~~ .-
:; ~~~:. ..~\r '~~
, ,~~ L' '~' ~ rr{" ~i//' ~><< '
, rWS0. ~~ [=:1--- ~ '~>>;'~/%::>~ft ';!:;.\!iw7~,?/,
, \U~~ ~~" 'f:':*f/;~'m~irp'~{j3'~'",.
~a :;.;.~ ,::~:,%,~~ %'w ~~e?)'~""'~'<
e:2 ~~ ..,~~ '.$ Y V' V *i?',~ ' '/;>O~,
_ ~ ~, ~ .~ "// ~, ~":i{>. :r/ ~..f" "'" %",*" ,a .
J:
~
~
I
I
~
-J?l./ .. J
~/ '~ 1
Total Length of B Street
From Mill Street to 16th Street: 6117.83 Feet (1.16 miles)
Date Received: ~</ ...U1d7,_
Planner: AL
~
~ ~
t-I UJ
lJ)! en
I I- ~
bl en "
N N "
\\
_I
u
>{
,
s.
I
/
,
/.
---
/,--
o 250 500 Feet
-
"
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
May 16, 2007
TO: Andy LImbird
FROM Jerry SmIth, PolIce ChIef
SUBJECT: Importance ofB Street Closmg to the JustIce FaCIlIty Project
The purpose of thIS memo IS to summanze for the Plannmg CommIssIOn the importance closmg
B Street as part of the JustIce Center project. As designed, the area currently occupIed'by B
Street would become part of a fenced and secured parkmg area.
. Closuig B Street is necessary for the secunty of portions of the facilIty: The planned
JustIce faCIlity mcludes an anCIllary building that WIll be a repOSItory for eVIdence m
cnminal 'cases; storage for polIce and court records; and storage for speCIalized police
eqUIpment and weaponry Closmg B Street WIll allow the entIre ancIllary bUIldmg and
parkmg lot to be fenced m, signIficantly improvmg the secunty of these records and
eVIdentIary items. WIthout the secunty fencing in place, the anCIllary bUIldmg as
deSIgned does not prOVIde suffiCIent secunty for these Items.
. Closing B Street WIll provide secure fleet and employee parkmg: To date, Department
vehIcles and employee parkmg has not been secured by fencmg. WhIle this does not
cause SIgruficant issues dunng normal working hours, the Department has experienced
damage to fleet vehIcles, and employees have suffered damage to theIr personal vehIcles,
during late evening and early mornmg hours. Damage has ranged from pamt scratches to
slashed tIres and broken wmdows.
{
. Closing B Street WIll improve the safety of police officers and CItizens: The street
closure WIll allow officers responding to emergency calls from inside the buildmg to
access theIr vehIcles without crossmg a publIc nght of way, thereby reducmg the risk of
an accident dunng an emergency response.
. Closing B Street will provide a secure area for evacuatIOn of mumcIpal Jail pnsoners:
The fenced area WIll serve as an outdoor holding area for municipal jail pnsoners m the
event that the jail must be evacuated. WIthout the street closure and fencmg, there WIll
not be an area outside the mumcipal Jail adequate and accessible for holdmg prisoners.
Instead, an evacuation event would neceSSItate the uncontrolled release of all mumcIpal
JaIl prisoners.
ATTACHMENT
3-1
Date R.eceived:__! (;Y-~#7..__-
Plunner. AL t~.
'\'l
-
cCJ')QC-cf:7 SfJ({f\7L,,-(;,e//1J /(~ /7/ ' V:L{t~le5:'()c-
~. / Ie{ l I l / I ~/q1111 PrS,- _.,-- -- - /.._- --~
.J- 'fr. ;111< r A C"( c/t? a prc'6 fF ('''0 - -------
61iJ cl:-)J11o. .o-f-f 13 s+ 0-5'a-. Q0 AC?rf-€//"J~~/'
. ~l?~c-r7 ~t{/~~/ r I
-1-0 ~l(;(d ~ rr)5lTr--t//JO/t'c..e ~k"7S';a-u /5
t)c,f CJrJDCi4 ;~ qf q// F6r J'&(;
, ..,t Cj /of MDr-C . '/"'e
-t~ ~s~//]/r~ -p chL/
~~/! claw/{ ;f 57: 67 /Vt?k C' ,574 (q
I
r€S/~ s~ C( j~.;-;~r 0' /r~ 1;1
4 ~~
c -J- ao~ u:~cfler5/~~ ~.~ ~~
~ ,6/</(,/ ?vr ?NScn""tI .f2<::e ,//, c(/1~ El,;;'
~f ~ SprJI11f<",:,/'" /70T- -Okck q 1VJC(/P7 /
..5f~d Iu do (12/5/ A"ud k:;: <<.r~ ~
to L;d?:e --{::r, ---R< 11 dd1 . -;-~ / s ~~;""-1 px; 0'U~.ft-,
I~ ('S' flU' ;OCJ..15!hll:~ ;f- ~ ~"n '.
6u/lf/ad ~ Ilk /~ 60/1/ UoIf ~
_-(- ~ r tv/II lJtd12cmr Il-f~
;iCn<kf21 ~/;-f~ fCJ szZ '1/ r a'~<4 01~''-'?f .
~~ U;;lit1j 11~ -C1/ ~/~ Ifh<.-R-p-et'
c:r.90V1IfJ 5~ jJn5c>if..4/ tr-fMOJ ~ ~~...""
T/;" A ..~..p7" "'{eu..JOt' ()-P -t~ cb(r/~..e//"( '/-
v {tV. ~ 1/1
COI1s-{/JG<d;'u"---rl /dfte<. .hU'5''1 C-(cxf'9~ 10 (~
H~I pCb/ o-f0O' -t1<--e 1:01"11-19;; W~ :f J~
r lUCrle&", by(. IAA~/-e ~ ~ -
o..l)C!L<r 1'1i) 5 AV-tCHMENT ?I110- ~ -
~ \ (~~ ~ --~ .J d;:d'~
~
\\
}
~
i .
{0t~ 0&-6./( '-ftevt1-
~ -(1vv.J/:; --(-id c7 /?f CU~M~2<1 d! 41{ if
(?JJ15i:b--r ~ ~ II R !:u.R ul5GRU
()ppR 11v0 (~. .
-J (' -t~ ~ C{ ~ -b~/
;f UJ~ wk&;?' . 1
. -r ~Cf;g ~ l;.es~frY1-5P ~~/~ .
~1r t~ ~&fTtlMPd-so(Jt1 //
COre? ~~. "'('/
.-r Jzrfr4 ~ ~
p5'1~~~ nd. Alfrl-fdjfr~
V~{;)cVJ U{ll~lve~' ciff2--6l/
~.~ . I cJ1?J Crf/ ~ ~~
II tJ?, It ~ 0 ,5/v/1. y-fr e!01/)!<. !
-, ~O.' /a ~~/~ Q7V7
+tP~"'- ~,~. . .
/) ./. r:Ii ~1,0. D tS (7!f{;- 3"1 0 if)
~ ;:. elLX Cl),j,r - -
" C'KI ,=.; ,
'~jJj(l~^1 'J~ ~
___ I
~
, '
Date Received: 1 !;,j;()tJ7
Planner: AL -+7
RF:CFTVED
JUN 0 5 2006
4-2 BY: ac.;[
1 .
.. J9~ S)Y)J
fJ /ea::e 0( (/ 1101 //a cctle
B 5/ ~ q;4 if g) , IRF.fCP'VF;D
.~ wtJfild -f;f1~ r4/s i1r~07 .
IV 1/tJr ;It c'{;)1l tJe'tiI/eflC(? - drlul/t 1
-/zJ tM cl if Aql/- eLJ31 .- tdal/ff1J '-h
M '1 ~
7 IlL I/o rifY, \1
P/C;4:X re{(}J15l~ parl'lfzl r . t.
c I{ r5 _ d 5" mtif I ()ca-----ez~;/1 C fa) f(W ) ~
7 liS! ~ f( /V-vfJJ;~A)'P 1lSf- or1 .,. crJ ~ ~
t/-.o..X. d ~.2N::f -,'-.M:v-"^- :pt- ~ :-/;7'
-fM sure ~ '/ ~
ru 5# {A~J (jSe B d&AJl -- &&1-
W fv1t2 kl1ljU) rW < -,' ~~
~~ ~ cuJCPslt71l sI- ~
per;j df1~f J _ L-jZ1Hg ~f?{(Jd-i7 - . . .~
J r 11 of dlo ff? I (j ~1 c; ~ 11(J:2/'y1-u;:d /a..e.; ~
_ -f!t~ 5;('.-vAt!/h (~J-1.<J) / I
~f\ c!J5/Hf! _ _ .Qgcj::tF:~ ~
43 rv '{1~]p~d:F1 ~
& 1- /7~ ~)ddl 01. '77777 .
-, '
fS :;; tui/l ,be cK"+ 1f /tK ,;( ctiJ
~ ~ 13 t4 f/VIfC?;fry I + 7// ~
~ SA :;; CA;d It ~ · -fZ MU'" V
" r~' '7 ~ ('70-1.-<:::6
/11 V e,/'/;cdi;'
.J ' rec?(~ jfcr1 or06d!hly w/!! C:/~
d€:5jJ# F
1151 ~?!JVq tvt:/ ~1,~_
::r: ~ Mer/(<< -I fU .5;pr;~-f)d'if
!-;);rc0V/?(J << 5'Ae!o-Of' :)~/~GU
~ ' () qo -/0 -f1-s2 !,jJ rc;J../V'j o-f-le.n..,
a W(u.I/rre€f'1 """'V\P1 ()' y.iJI.
f jr'f!C((iU -/tee cdl1 ~~ lJrt- C jX.~' k
_. /it ^~)..-, J,((( IP ~ ~ Sc y (( tJ r:l (f:
IAJ I II (Y"uv Lrn~ - / ...j (7
-ftu1 Wco/ !AJ:t.e~ E 75 ~ cJ ~-
!kif ~~/f;'j 5fA 4- (jJ c,:if tGJ;! (. bz ~~~ ~I~
(+ ~<-tljl-, r to if! ;JZPeP -jzJ ~ q ~
Y-~ u'-J1 51f1J v: eft ;' 01 I-^~ C ji--<-..r:J-<<2 f!Y
wtll ~(};t;; FlaK? ~ 7 ~J ccr
o-11-8sX
Date Received: 7/1t4t1i:17
Planner: AL I / .
4-4
~
I
c.n
uC
,,~ ".
IW ~...
2 3~
,,'
m 4Y
:- ~
p ~;
r- -.
~
1-
.~
"'-l
- -- ~ ---- --- -- -- ~ -.... -.. _....--~---
"'.-4 " A /'Ir?Iy! .::r. l~ ;vtl:J~ t/~ ~ ~~~ .... ~~ fI ~ ~-:-~ ~ Q; ~
,'" ',',-,bj,e ':<lC~; hss'-::;J. ~ /'~ ~ ~ ~rfr/=~ fS'r:;;:7I
[,f; Ihl/ , s a ng~1 <:1/= 7'0 .-.IT/VetS ~ +vo-W' ~,,7" JJ.::JI.
, '. LIt. . ,] ...,... C!cJrVtflAo1 -J@\V e
'{ ppe -t'i IS cCOl 6c::- C??/e,.-iOd( I 'Sdq-/;dl"l'
Preva/I IV/d.>-<- -to ~/~
UNIVERSITY -OF OREG.ON
C Chen'iic~l PhysICS Institute
-. 240 WJ!!i!melle Hall
~iP97403
Et?h ~&J5fe/ ..
Yb '7 0f:?5.TjUp't/
_J I r) IYr-l elf2;d7 7f17
...
D 1 Fet:~.2 Oft :~ p~"~ ::! l
(t-~&?~ : ~r!i)~~ ~;4~bl/&
f /aJ1)1111i {_CjtVlM~55it:7J1
:2;25 F;-f7'1t SY.
--7 -7
5fr)I'I6<'k~oR '17<(/1
.""'..,.....,..;:.
=1" _I _..-
~ .-
1 ..- .- -
II .1 "I, , , f I I, I /I.. ,II, I , 1,1.. \, JI..1. .. I. "III. I, ", I,. II, "I
. .
.j)~ 147 r Le/l:e/1 / d/ll.v1 '?/Iy ~dl H~,6;
.-l~~'Wce04.~ :
j/JfqxJ5CR-f (0 JJ/ocL . c;!i ; % ~
414 l/ 5fj j)I ~f'tt{q/1@'l/-!7._~
-:{ tJ-trW II q 4~ CO? ~
i ct catt/8!lmce to he Yo ~
~ kj7 C Y :+0 ~ ~ ~ ~
Ii d; !-ffJrU</j1 ~ 'c II ~'JZ .~ . ~
jJL~~(~ sl ~ Ju~/ .~~
v f0(f1 cG5 d . 11 a.
J--f ~?S- . ~~
.~ -ft-L ~ of --(0 ~ 7/1 ~
;U~/~~,~~/
I1d /:J ~ -f&-z;tf ~ ~ . /~.
~ r, ~W14~~
r!ollaz ~ 'I- -, - , ,~ dIM VePy
~ ~ 'h ~~ 13 S74 ~k4d
006 ~. fi' ~
~ U~ cd 5)}1?fj:i;-/d;f ~!/~~
J ~"A d/'7/A~ ~.-f' ~ f1~ J ~
4-6
I .
~~-
. vv~ be~ -fir c<< ~tdl/1
(;r~ Io'~~ ~/-~ "I
~~ to ~ ~sr d~~. ~-
, ' AftJ5 t'
..~ 5?r1M5":f//,PjJ1i?~/ ." 67W- \j
~ J ~ ~
~ ~~,~~~il( .I~
~ 11 c/oS'i0~ !3Jf3~S3fl- /f; ~ ~~
'/r~ (Led -- 4 wy ~
.- / r?f:;~~~
6 I/~P --tU 1){;C:c/'7U~ ~ k~
~'-"-- t, '- - ~ Go --
!Ji rULr . !1P?!/0 ~ ~
I1d ,;0 ~ .t; ud4 ;J:J-fto)
.tAK - . ~ ~~~ ~'
fJ~ H U/f ~v:J7^
~L; ,-4S1e~
~ Ov~ 0Aj~ryl ~t::J(l;$~
J}/ ~. _ UJ/ f.d ~ ___1!nf1/l/eJ'C:t ~
r ~ ~' r:r-lt-e- tI(;;v~7 -
~ W0V! o/J).ur';tg.~ ~ ~ 8Y1'1f~
~~~ 11k'~Je7b~e~~'. ..~
6-11 Its ~:!::y ~ ){cJij07 rg- ~ iUO;;a~:r 1;itM
~ Yf\i-::r-nn '7 /{;t:~:..rl!:/y .j.~ o!i~h fd~~'t41 G
_ 1_ _n-r' !-L{yuif~~;';<'l ~ r?/~.lfl1J ~~ ~;;;.~))J::"v.
DCIi) r ~ ~"'-6 ~ '"-il.
I . -1:-(7Lfb-3Q:j1 It "t xcr w€:(5~ 4Sf-+:c-( 9)177
Q //./.'1 J A 0 [" I L,v'~"') 10/ '~zAVlf1~)iL4\!)R i"
~~ . P1.C{C/' /0{}::Yc; + y /l.cti//{~;l UJfcl;t{fSJI01./
-J req[;;70 -t/J. cJo5.0& --/:r7 13 Sheel-
a) 1-& en ~ ; S /1 f:e(1 --jc; h~)de?]
~ r ~ ~ /VlDfc5rlSls &;)oqld~
s~ ~arrqrtl,pf1.~~~ _~_.
decided. ~-fl/r:6/,l~;;J ~ '1-0 ~
yV\ eo I'll 0.... '<f~~1rrcf:i - <'--/ 'j ~ -f)nfr/-rz
j/V1o'Itt::/2' ~ct ~~~ ~
HJ~' ~ ~ fk--R. ~ 7oU:; ~ &-ry
~{}N\ u.fl~ '~~
~~ ~ -<2A~/~ t~ ~Q'-_'-'~ ~
tJ f~~ B S'--j-reQ:/ b ~ ~ ~~ 7'J ~i
~ (I deS) ~S* CTJ j):S-;~ ~ ~\
C\ ,~_-L --L ~ f\"
, , 'D0~/r",,~~ 0Io-yJv~~
-f L[tk, 0'--f-;.; - 17--' ~ .a; ~
- _..... - 1.- _ r ~ __ ~ ~ ~
+~r'I~<---~- IT; ~:...; fil"""": _ -.-. _.;" .-#:'-. ~_t ----=-~ ~ i..:
....-- I ., / - ~_' !7V'- <:2-~ 0 ,- -~-;.-v 0 0:: ~
r~~&YV; Jr~~:Z ~~
~ ~~<g~-6~ ,. J,
/Yl-if ~ -tV ~_ ---jCJ ~~/~' /&~~ .. ,
~J!3fld- pdsfCrtti:e ,B 500dt- 5'~,
'fc> ~ ~ (07 Ve5'1 ~ 2 ( /J<. l/L.02 ~
CZo-e (Hi wes-t psi. , .1 I ~ ,
-J.-- UJziZ...& 0<J a... vQ!u~ 0-{ 51 rZf~dJ"
fi.kJv<UV0J 50 z;1A--OtiZ t~/~. Sd :;rAt
~ ~ ~l SS!- t./'~ l~
h+.~}J!~ fa 'P ~ 131-
J'~' ~~l-v-Y).y'~ Cd('
-/;51. ~ ~ :;.frPo';( off -KO~ G-
.' 5t1c- ?t- ~~;~ jJqyf::(.o-/~C'''' ~ 'r'
'd(f1M~4/J- &~-p~ S! f~
/fl], t-cozb:ff. 7l'tfZ<J. :r{( ~~ ~.cm {) Yd
V(fif#r~{~J!lieJ2~ ~^' ~
i1J2 plaM1;~ ~'i 7~ ,)~ ~,,;y-
IfM... LA- - T~ 4J-e~ ~ ~:
~i TSCVj~;:f da-;;:(~ SQ. ~
~~~2kq~~ ~\.
07 ~ ~./:;~ ft-Z ~4-d C>V( 8;iiL~-,
~ /'. ~ 10 CJ5:f;- .1/. 1'/0 ~<(
LO I (---7 (~ . Q) i..:
/"' :;rl 7 5~ fZ~~ aC0/{U~-€.01CZ * ~
,,~) !{k-.e. ~ ~-r"-<1O l<A.A~ '~k DD-
(C( ~~) ---~- / L/ ~
j'V _ n. ~ v([y.~;,:+{ ,~---
Ig...e W~_ fJ~ 0 . c 'f'CJ~
~ I~"t/"p ttu~-u<!. yI /f-~ cc - .
f1cU2P C0 .JJ{fi.A) It- ;So/UAA -fc; q .:::~~
TT .~ $::r?M:) (I t.-e. ;t.1 o'for'i-s6 ~ ~
, I _ _ ;~~J?~ J
hlo-cR-/~~- - ';;:" v "\1~ ~
.jg-,v o,~ f 0 ~ · - - ~ /6-dc. 7' t-LtO~
'fVclo~s ~ v
~ r"2Jrd ~( -rht's I r':5 ~ ~
--b(yt,7ctJ/I-<; ;--'1 ~ pr~ is 'R-t2 8~V~),
a::r fP+- vB %:" .5o-tM.~ Ilk< !t-o cJ~~ ,_..6-,9.~
D/1CJZ ~L '-/-- ~~~ To ~ - /<t'l?r~
~ ~ f3 S;f-- ~.J /tu':rsp-sY,!(/ .
-r:JL~ ))o)~~!V1 ~ ~ I~ 5t~~ C /o:.,qJ
L . _" -J.Gr-L-\i"ctf;-!~ 1Pl~dp;_r,a-;/~ _.")jz~~j'M ~~~
__ "n _ ,-/? fIe. -rl 0. rvr-r::;;, -8.. c.:S J .-1-L-....
....L c~~)e. / ~( ~ ~/AS-I ( -
lit;.e2 /J..9- ~~ ~H~) ~/'t'<
re- .~vD~ 0'>'1 ~ ~ sf~ ~ k.R. S~Jl
f ~ CLd ~1-. . :::;cr;y..rs (I k q To-r();k '-<J~ ~
I - ~--+-r7 -;- () L \ 9-1-. Jb ~ :;.o-fJ hVLt~ -io~ ~
6e~ i:J 1/ {t~5. ~~ Ll_____. L/J IL 5/~1;'foJ(J ~~
I fJ€f?-..tf-e (~/Tlt "[\- 0 77\LV II -
Submittal to the record of the city of Springfield
Planning Commission
Discretionary Us~ and Zone Change Request (Justice Center)
Case N urn bers
DRC2006-00013 (Discretional)' Use Application)
ZON2006-00007 (Zone Change Request)
March 28, 2006
Submitted by:
Scott E. Olson, P,E.
1127 B Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Comments and assertions of error In the staff rep'ort findings and conclusion are
presented below. Portions of the staff report are rephcated wIth my comments In anal
font following The staff report Identifies the cntena for approval wIth summary
concluslonary findings with little or no diSCUSSion of how the application supports the
findings. No Indication that the applicant has addressed any of the approval cntena In
the application IS presented In the staff report
The staff report includes;
Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval
Criterion (1): The proposed use conforms with the appltcable:
(a) PrOVISIOns of the Metro Plan;
Finding. The Metro Plan speaks In broad tenus about development In the greater
Eugene/Springfield urban area, and there are no policies specifically related to Justice
Center or correction factlity projects However, the proposal is consistent with the Metro
Plan objectives for siting public/government bUIldings and services in nodal development
areas such that population and employment are concentrated in well-defined areas with
good transit service and a mixture of compatible land uses (Metro Plan Chapter II-E( 4 )).
Finding: The Metro Plan's Public and Semi Public plan designation provides for the
accommodation of major government facilities and office complexes. Springfield's
Public Land and Open Space zoning district implements thiS plan deSignation In the City.
~he Justice Center, a large public facility, IS proposed to be located wlthm thiS plan
designation and, therefore, IS consistent with the Metro Plan Chapter II.
Comments
The staff report fads to Identify that the TransPlan Goals, ObJectives, and Policies have
been adopted mto the Metro Plan The followmg IS extracted from TransPlan,
Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan is the
official long-range general plan (public policy document) for the region comprised of the
1 Of 16
ATTACHMENT
'-"-l"., J ' ~\jlv,"",iV\;;;U.
7It~(/7
/ /
Planner: AL
5-1
citIes of Eugene and Spnngfield and metropolitan Lane County The Metro Plan
establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make
coordinated land use decISions, As a functional plan, TransPlan must be consistent with
the Metro Plan. Metro Plan amendments reqUIred for consistency will be adopted by the
elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan.
TransPlan strategies include _nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns,
new and expanded TDM programs, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), in addition to roadway
projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists All of these strategies can
increase the attractIveness of transportation modes other than the smgle-occupant vehicle
(SOY). The mtegratIOn of transportation and land use planning IS especially important to
support compact urban growth. which provides for more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and translt-
fnendly environments, rather than urban sprawl that supports auto dependency.
The TransPlan policy framework (Chapter Two) and implementation actions (Chapter
Three) are structured around three fundamental components of transportation planning:
1. Land use,
2. Transportation demand management, and
3. Transportation system improvements.
The land use component of transportation planning is addressed by TransPlan policies
and Implementation actIOns that encourage meeting the need for transportatIOn-efficient
development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive land use
patterns These development patterns reduce trip lengths and auto dependency and
support tranSit, bicycling, and walking.
Clearly, The first cntena of "The proposed use conforms with the applicable:
(a) PrOVISIOns of the Metro Plan," Includes consistency With the applicable elements of
TransPlan Agarn from TransPlan
Goal #1: Integrated Transportation and Land Use System,
Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in
modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the auto and
enhance livability, economIC opportUnity, and the quality of life.
Definition/Intent: This goal recognizes the need to mtegrate transportation and land use
plannmg to enhance hvabdity, economic opportunity, and quality of life. Integration
supports transportatIOn-efficIent development patterns and choices in transportation
modes that reduce reliance on the auto
C/osmg off a collector street at It's mtersectlon With an artenal street, dIVertmg collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shuttmg off pedestnan and blcylce publiC ways,
seekmg vanances to street connectIVity and block length standards m a nodal
development overlay zone IS not consistent With thiS goal
2 Of 16
Date Received:
Planner: AL
7f/'/~(}7 \
1/-
5-2
Goal #2: Transportation System Characteristics
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providmg a transportatIOn system that is.
a) Ba)anced,
b) Accessible,
c) Efficient,
d) Safe,
e) Interconnected,
f) Environmentally responsible,
g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
h) Responsive to community needs and neighborhood Impacts, and
i) Economically viable and financially stable.
Definition/Intent: The goal is to provide an overall transportation system that provides
for all of these needs. Transportation decisions on specific facil1ties and services will
reqUire balancmg some characteristics With others.
a) A balanced transportatIOn system is one that provides a range of transportation
optIOns and takes advantage of the inherent efficiencies of each mode.
b) An accessible transportatIOn system is one that serves all areas of the community and
offers both residents and visitors convenient and rehable transportation options.
c) An efficient transportation system is one that is fast and economic for the user,
maXimizes the mobility available through eXlstmg facil1ties, and leverages as much
benefit as possible from new transportatIOn facilities.
d) A safe transportation system IS one that IS designed. bUilt, and operated to minimize
risk of harm to people and property and allows people to feel confident and secure in
and around all modes of travel.
e) An interconnected transportatIOn system IS one that provides for ease of transfer
between different modes of travel, such as auto to bus or bicycle to ra1l.
f) An environmentally responsible transportatIOn system is one that reduces
transportation-related environmental Impact and energy consumptIOn,
g) A transportation system that IS supportive of responsible and sustainable
development mtegrates transportatIOn and land use planning in support of
transportatIOn-efficient development.
h) A transportatIOn system that IS responsive to community needs and neighborhood
impacts IS flexible and adaptable, and addresses transportation-related impacts in
residential areas
i) An economically viable and financially stable transportation system IS one that is
cost efficient, finanCially feasible. and has suffiCIent, ongomg financIal support to
ensure transportatIOn system investments can be operated and mamtamed as desired
Closmg off a collector street at It's mtersectlOn WIth an artenal street, dIVertmg collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shuttmg off pedestnan and blcylce publIC ways,
seekmg vanances to street connectIvIty and block length standards m a nodal
development overlay zone IS not consIstent WIth thiS goal
3 Of 16
Date Received' 7~6~'7
Planner: Al " I I .
5-3
TransPlan Objectives
Consistent with the Metro Plan, the following definition is used for TransPlan
objectives:
An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving
to meet a goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that
will help fulfill the overall goal.
Objective #1: Accessibility and Mobility
Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of
people, goods, and services within the region.
Definition/Intent: Accessibility refers to physical proximity and ease of reaching
destmatlOns throughout the urban metropolitan area This objective supports the need for
multlmodal accessibility to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care,
housing, and leisure, including adequate public transit access for people who are
transportation disadvantaged. ThIS objective also supports the need for improved access
for tOUrists to destinations Mobilityis the ease with which a person is able to travel
from place to place. It can be measured in terms of travel time. Access and mobility are
provided at different levels on different classes of transportatIOn facilities For example, a
local street has a high level of accessibility for adjacent residences and bus messes, With a
low level of mobility for non-local traffic An arterial street has a lower level of
accessibility, with a higher level of mobility for through movement of travelers Local
jUrisdictIOns will determine what constitutes adequate levels of accessibility and mobility
and what IS effiCient movement of people, goods, and services within the region Provide
adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficIent movement of people, goods,
and services within the region.' .
C/osmg off streets, reroutmg a collector street at It's mtersectlOn WIth an artenal street,
dlvertmg collector street traffIC to adjacent local street, shuttmg off pedestnan and
blcylce publIC ways, seekmg vanances to street connectIvIty and block length standards
m a nodal development overlay zone IS not consIstent with thIS objectIVe
.
Objective #2: Safety
Improve transportation system safety through design, operations and maintenance,
system improvements, support facilities, public information, and law enforcement
efforts.
Definition/Intent: TransPlan Goal 2 sets forth safety as a key characteristic of the
desired transportatIOn system, ThiS objective supports the need for taking a
comprehensive approach to buildmg. operating, and regulatlOg the transportatIOn system
so that travelers feel safe and secure.
ThIS objectIVe dId not mtend to result m street closure because It IS unsafe for the police
to need to cross a publIC street to get to the secured vehIcle parkmg area The
objectIVe IS aImed at makmg the street a safe place for all of us
Objective #3: Environment
4 Of 16
Date Received: ""74~P7
Planner: Al -f7 I
5-4
Provide transportation systems that are environmentally responsible.
DefinitionlIntent: This objective places a priority on fulfilling the need to protect the
region's natural environment and conserving energy in all aspects of transportation
planning processes. The primary intent of this objective can be met through compliance
with all federal and state regulations relevant to environmental impact and, consideration
of applicable environmental Impact analyses and practicable mitigation measures m
transportatIOn decision-making processes. Significant benefits can be achieved from
coordinatmg the environmental process with the transportation plannmg process, such as
early identification of issues and resources, development of alternatives that avoid or
minimize impacts early in the project development process, and more rapi,d project
delivery. The region's need to reduce transportatIOn-related energy consumptIOn can be
met through increased use of transit, telecommuting, zero-emissIOns vehicles,
ndesharing, bicycles and walkmg, and through increased efficiency of the transportation
network to diminish delay and corresponding fuel consumption. '
This proposals street closures do not support thIS objectIVe because it /tmlts access to
the transit station, inhibIts walking, bIcycling, and created out of dIrectIon auto travel
Objective #5: Public Involvement
Provide citizens with information to increase their awareness of transportation
issues, encourage their involvement in resolving the issues, and assist them in
making informed transportation choices.
The applIcant created a CitIzen adVISOry commIttee to assIst wIth sIting Issues but has
refused to consider project alternatIVes that are wIthin the financIal limItatIOns 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 Counct! voted to
proceed wIth street closures The applicants testImony at heanng was Inaccurate with
repect to the consltency with the committee's recommendatIon and the subsequent City ~
CouncIl action and dIrection to staff ThiS applicatIon also mappropnately tIes the street
vacatIon to the discretionary use approval through the proposed conditIons of approval
yet has not addressed the vacation approval cntena or done the necessary publIc notice
for a street vacatIon
!
Objective #7: Policy Implementation
Implement a range of actions as determined by local goveniments, including land
use, demand management, and system improvement strategies, to carry out
transportation policies.
The land use policies In thiS area were denved from thIS objectIVe of TransPlan and /t's
dependance upon Nodal Development and creatIOn of attractIVe modal chOices The
proposed use IS mconslstent with the follOWing poliCies of TransPlan
Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that
have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
5 Of 16
. Date Received: ~/b/k707
Planner: AL I -
5-5
The nodes will be pedestrian-fnendly environments with a mix of
land uses, including public open spaces that are pedestrian-, translt-, and bicycle-oriented
\..0
Land Use Policy #2: Supportfor Nodal Development
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical assistance, or incentives.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage nodal development
through public support and mcentives, recognizing that there is public benefit to the
transportation and land use efficienCies of nodal development.
Land Use Policy #3: Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns
Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transIt corridors and near transit
stations; medium- and high-densIty residentIal development within ~ mile of transit
stations, major transIt corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
eXlstmg or planned transit.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage more concentrated
development and higher density ,housing in locations that are or could be served by high
levels of transit service By doing so, transit wIll be more convenient for a greater
number of businesses and people and. in turn, the higher levels of transit will be
supported by more riders
Land Use Policy #4: Multi-Modal Improvements in New Development
Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports efforts to improve the convenience of
using transit, biking, or walking to travel to, from, and withm newly developed and
redeveloped areas ThIS policy recognizes the Importance of providing pedestrian and
bikeway connections within the confines of individual developments to provide direct,
safe, and convenient internal pedestrian and bicycle CIrculation.
Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development
Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to
protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for
completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: ThIS policy was added at the request of the Department of
Land Conservation and Development The nodal development strategy anticipates a
sigmficant change 10 development patterns WIthin proposed nodes Development of.
theseareas under eXIsting plan deSIgnatIOns and zonmg provisions could result m
development patterns Inconsistent with nodal development. This polIcy documents a
commitment by the elected offiCials to apply the newlND nodal development Metro Plan
designation and new zoning regulations to priority nodal development areas Within three
years of TransPlan adoption, subject to available funding ,
6 Of 16
Date Received:, 7/J"/2t7P7
Planner: AL I I
5-6
TDM Policy #2: Parking Management
Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Policy Definitionllntent: Parking management strategies address both the supply and
demand for vehicle parking. They contribute to balancing travel demand within the
region among the various modes of transportation available. To promote parking equity
in the region, consideratIOn should be given to applying parking management strategies at
a region-wide level, in addition to downtown centers.
The proposed use will sprawl surface parkmg thoughout a Significant portion of the
property withm the Nodal Development zone, ellmmatmg potential for development
more consistent With the objectives of the zone
('
TSI System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation lnfrastrur;ture Protection and
Management
Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy calls for the protection and management of
transportation facilities for all modes, within the limits of available funding, In a way that
sustainS their long-term capacity and function Given the lImited funding for future
transportation projects and operatIOns, maintenance and preservation activities, the ne~d
~o protect and manage eXisting and future transportation investments and facilIties is
crucial. Strategies related to access management, TDM, and land use can be
implemented to reduce trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as
freeway interchanges, thereby postponing the need for Investments in capacity-increasing
projects.
Closmg B Street, a collector street of recent reconstructIOn with federal fundmg
aSSistance, and dlrvertmg traffic to local streets not constructed to the same standard IS I
mconslten,t With thiS policy
TSI System- Wide Policy #2: lntermodal Connectivity
Develop or promote intermodallmkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among
all transportation ,modes.
Policy Definitionllntent: An intermodal transportatIOn system is one that Includes all
forms of transportation In a unified, connected manner. An mtermodal tnp is one that
involves two or more modes between the tnp origin and destinatIOn Intermodallinkages
are the transfer points along the way, such as Park-and-Ride lots. In tranSit, intermodal
transfers allow providers to serve a greater segment of the population. For freight,
Intermodal transfers allow shippers to take advantage of the economies of each mode,
such as truck and rail, to achieve the most cost-effective and timely deltvenes of goods
,
.
TSI System-Wide Policy #3: Corridor Preservation
Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of
regional significance, that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
7 Of 16
Date Received: 7/1/6/:k?tJ.7
Planner:' AL /-
5-7
-,
ElIminatIon of eXlstmg Improved publIc comdors to avoId walkmg across the street IS not
consistent with thIs poltcy
TSI System- Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
Definition/Intent: Transportation-related impacts on neighborhood livability include
excessive intrusion of regional vehicle movement on local residential streets, excessive
vehicle speeds. and excessive traffic noise. Strategies aimed at improving flow on
arterials, such as access management measures, may draw traffic from neighborhood
streets that, based on travel characteristics, should be properly using the arterial.
The proposed use IS not constent wIth thIS policy -
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports the design and construction of systems
and facilIties that accommodate multiple modes It also supports consideration of the
needs of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system Improvements.
The proposed use IS not consterit wIth thIS poltcy
TSI Roadway Policy #3: Coordinated Roadway Network
In conjunction with the overall transportation system, recognizing the needs of
other transportation modes, promote or develop a regional roadway system that
meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region.
Policy Definition/Intent: The regional roadway system must meet the travel needs of
motonsts, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and commercial vehicles. Characteristics
of such a roadway system include adequate capacity and connectIOns to roads entenng
the region. TransPlan roadways will be coord mated with the Lane County Transportation
System Plan (TSP) roadways and ODOT corridor studies. All roadway system
improvem~nts will also be consistent with other adopted policies in TransPlan.
The proposed use IS not constent wIth thIS poliCY
TSI Transit Policy #1: Transit Improvements
Improve transit service and facilIties to increase the system's accessibility,
attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population. .
Policy Definition/Inten t: Continued Improvements to the transit system, including
enhancements to the existing transit serVice, exploration of transit fare alternatives that
increase ridership and new and improved transit facilIties for passengers, wlll make
transit a more attractive transportation alternative and encourage increased use of transit
8 Of 16 -
Date Received: ., h/U1J7
Planner. Al / J
5-8
..
This polIcy also supports mamtaming existmg facdities in good condition
By restnctIng pedestnan accesslb1lity the proposed use IS not constent wIth thIs polIcy
TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit
Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service
and with activity centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along
BRT corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the
system is feasible.
BRT, when combined with other system Improvement, land use, and demand
management strategies, is expected to mcrease the share of riders who use public
transportation BR T is also expected to help the region maintain conformity with federal
air quality standards. BRT, combined with nodal development, is a key strategy in the
regIOn's compliance With alternative performance measures for the TPR.
Closure of streets wlthm the neIghborhood of the transit stat/on IS not constent WIth thIs
policy or the very Slgmfcant Investment the publIC IS makIng the BRT system
TSI Bicycle Policy #2: Bikeways on Arterials and Collectors
Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
Closmg collector streets IS not consIst WIth thIs polley
TSI Bicycle Policy #3: Bikeway Connections to New Development
Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity
centers and major destinations.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy recognizes the importance of providing bicycle
connectivity between new development, neighborhood actiVity centers, and major
destmatlOns When new development occurs, connectivity to the regional bikeway
system must be provided In cases where the existmg or planned street network does not
adequately provide bicycle connectivity, paved bikeways should be provided Within
residential developments and should extend to neighborhood actiVity centers or to an
existing bikeway system withm one-half mde of reSidential developments. Major
destinations may include, but are not limited to, nodal development centers, schools,
shoppmg centers, employment centers, transit stations, and parks, ThiS policy does not
Imply that a developer would be required to proVide bikeways through undeveloped
adjoinmg properties.
I
The proposed use IS not constent WIth thIS polley
TSI Pedestrian Policy #1: Pedestrian Environment
Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well mtegrated With adjacent land uses and IS
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walkmg
9 Of 16
Date ~eceived: 7/0':1/~7
Planner: AL
5-9
i
\
Policy Definition/Intent: ThIs policy supports the provIsiOn of pedestrian connections
between adjacent land uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, safe
and convenient pedestnan street crossings, and pedestrian amenIties, including lighting.
In more developed areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian design features improve the
accessibility of destinations.
The proposed use IS not constent wIth thIs polICY
TSI Pedestrian Policy #2: Continuous imd Direct Routes
Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes
between destination points.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports an active program to develop pedestrian
pathways (e,g . Sidewalks), especially in proximity to major activity centers A '
continuous pedestrian network is free of gaps and deadends and overcomes physical
barners that inhibit walking Olrec~ routes between destination pomts are important
because out-of-direction travel discourages walking "Reasombly direct" means either a
route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight lme or a route that does not
involve a significant amount of out-of-dIrectlOn travel for likely users.
The proposed use IS not constent wIth thIS polICY
Finance Policy #2: Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation
Operate and mamtain transportation facdltIes in a way that reduces the need for more
expenSIve future repair
Removal of a street In excellent condItIon IS not consIstent with thIS polICY
Finance Policy #5: Short-Term Project Priorities
Consider and include among short-term project prioritIes, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and
increased use of alternative modes.
Policy DefiDItion/lntent: This polIcy supports consideration and programming of
facilities and Improvements that support nodal development and the increased use of
alternative modes. Examples of such investments include fundmg mcentives for
implementatIOn of nodal development, funding of TOM programs, and improvements
made to the transit and bIke systems. _
.
.
.
The proposed use IS not constent WIth thIS polICY The cIty's approval cntena and staff
report contmue below
(b) Refinement plans;
Finding' The proposal is consistent With proviSIOns of the Downtown Refinement
Plan, mcluding recent amendments made to allow consideration of Justice Center
proposals wlthm the Plan area. The Downtown Refinement Plan - Land Use
Element. General Policy #2 contams the following enabling policy in support of the
proposed Justice Center development. "Civic and governmental uses servmg the
1 0 Of 16
Date Received: ~t6 ~/7
Planner: Al 7 -
5-10
~
Springfield community shall be encouraged to locate in the downtown area. Within
the downtown, governmental uses, includmg City Hall, the Justice Center and Jail,
the library, Willamalane and SUB offices, shall be encouraged to locate and expand
along A Street."
Along the street not In It
(c) Plan DistrIct standards;
Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Public Land and Open
Space District (PLO), as Justice Centers are listed as a Discretionary Use in the
district.
What are the standards? How can It be determined If It IS consltent without diSCUSSIon
about what they are? What does the NDO desIgnation mean? ThiS cntena has not
_ been addressed by the applIcant or staff
(d) Conceptual Development Plans, or
Finding. There are no con<:;eptual development plans for the subject development
area.
( e) Speczal use standards m thiS Code; -
Finding' In accordance with SDC 23. I OO(a-b), the applicant would be required to
address special use standards applicable to this proposal at the time of Site Plan
Review application.
ThiS cntena applies to thiS app/Jcatlon of discretIonary use approval There need to be
findmgs that thIS application IS consIstent wIth the Speczal use standards m thiS Code.
The staff report continues,
Criterion (2): The Site under consideratIOn IS sUitable for the proposed use, considering'
(a) The locatIOn, Size, deSign and operatmg characterzstlcs of the use (operatmg
characterzstlcs znclude but are not lzmlted to parkmg, traffic, nOIse, vlbratlOn,
emlSSlOns, lzght, glare, odor, dust, vlslbzllty, safety, and aesthetlc consideratIOns, I.
where applzcable),
Finding. The proposed Justice Center will be oriented to streets that already serve
the downtown commercial area. and will occupy City-owned land already used for
muniCipal police and court functions within Springfield Conceptual site design has
provIded for separation from residential uses to the north, and the operational
characteristlcs of the JustIce Center will be compatible with eXlstmg office,
commercial and instItutIOnal uses in the Immediate vicinity.
The publiC street IS not sUitable for the proposed use as a secured police compound and
IS not campa table With the neighborhood or the eXlstmg publIC use of the street The
applicant nor staff have addressed the locatIon sIze or operating characteristIcs of a lad
In addreSSing thiS criteria The relatIOnshIp of the la1l and the church entrances should
be addressed. A lallls not an offIce.
11 Of 16
Date Received:
Planner: AL
'7/16!2007
/ /
5-11
..
(b) Adequate and safe CirculatIOn eXists for vehicular access to andfrom the proposed
site, and on-site circulatIOn and emergency response as well as pedestrzan, bicycle
and transit czrculatzon,
Finding' The proposed Justice Center will be served by the existing grid street
system of downtown Springfield, including Pioneer Parkway East which is
classified as a minor arterial. Sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes already exist
to provide non-motorized access to the site The site will be designed such that
access pomts and on-site circulation patterns are safe, effective, and recognize the
operatIOnal characteristics of the surrounding street system.
Finding: The secure parking lot located on the north side of the facility will
provide a secure area for jail mmates in the event that the faciIzty IS evacuated
providing for public safety in the event of an emergency response.
Bicycle, pedestnan, and traslt clrcualtlon will be Impeded by the proposed use A traffic
Impact analYSIS typically reqUired by the city for this type of appllqatlon was not
submitted WIth the applIcation The project archItects have stated that the secure
parkmg area IS not reqUired for emergency evacuatIOn and IS not Ilkey the pnmary
evacuatIon route
(c) The natural and physical features of the sIte, mcludmg but not lzmzted to, rlparzan
areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/dramage areas and
wooded areas shall be adequately considered m the project deSign,
Finding. There are no existing natural and/or physical features that will be affected
by the proposed Justice Center
(d) Adequate publzc fac;!ztles and services are available, meludmg but not lzmlted to,
utzlztzes, streets, storm dramage faczlztzes, sanitary sewer and other publzc
mfrastructure.
Finding: The Development Review Committee I held a meeting to review the
proposed conceptual site plan, DIscretIOnary Use, and Zone Change requests. Staff
and Spnngfield Utility Board representatives have determined that sufficient
capacity eXists In the adjacent street and uttlity system to allow consideration of
DiscretIOnary Use and Zone Change requests Specific details on utility servicmg
and other potential effects on public facilitIes would be finalized With a Site Plan
Review application
The traffic analYSIS had not yet been reVIewed by cIty staff at the tIme thIS finding was
prepared The testimony at the heanng whIch mdlcated 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
Critenon (3). Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and ~n the
publzc can be mitigated through the
(a) ApplzcatlOn of other Code standards, for example bufferingfrom less mtenslve uses,
12 Of 16
Date Received:. 7j;t/~
Planner: AL I /
5-12
~
Increased setbacks, etc ,
Finding. The proposed Justice Center has been intentionally sited on the block between
A Street and B Street to increase separation from existmg residential uses on C Street.
Site design strategies also will mclude building entrance orientation. landscaping,
screening and other mechanisms to minimize the impact to nearby residential and
institutIOnal uses.
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
dlscnbed as akward) landscaping, (which there may not be any room for) screening or
other mechamsms are being proposed to address thiS cntena.
(b) Site Plan RevIew conditIOnS of approval, where applIcable,
Finding: Conditions of approval may be applied to the Site Plan Review for the proposed
Justice Center to address specific Site development issues if the Discretionary Use and
Zone Change requests are approved.
What does where applicable mean? If It means dunng site plan review then that IS
where this cntena would be located not under discretionary use approval cntena There
should be eVidence and findings that IS seems likely or at least pOSSible that thiS
proposal can comply With the code reqUirements
(c) Other condItIOns of approval that may be reqUIred by the Approval Authorzty,
Finding' The use of public right-of-way is necessary to Implement the site design, as
proposed, and additional conditIOns may be part of the deciSIOn if deemed appropriate by
the Approval Authonty.
(d) A proposal by the applzcant that meets or exceeds the CIted Code standards and/or
condItIOns of approval
Finding: The Justice Center proposal will meet or exceed all relevant Code standards
reqUIred for approval of the DiscretIOnary Use and Zone Change
!
How can the adverse affects be mitigated through future conditions or code standards?
The staff finding fails to address how the proposed street vactlon can meet the
standards for a street vacation or any of the PLO/NDO zone standards
Conclusion' The staff has reviewed the application and supportmg evidence submItted
for the Justice Center Discretionary Use approval. The staff recommends support for the
request as the proposal meets the stated cnteria for Discretionary Use approval as listed
above. In the event that new or contradictory representation that could lead to a different
conclUSIOn IS introduced at the public hearing for the Discretionary Use request, staff will
undertake additional analYSIS and prepare findings to address this testimony.
As proposed, the Discretionary Use application will require the vacation of B Street so
that the right-of-way can be developed with a secure parking lot. A secure parklOg area is
integral to the normal functions of the jail and police station, and also serves an important
13 Of 16
5-13
Date Received: 7/;6/;lP07
Planner: AL I /
i"
role as emergency evacuatIOn space for jail detamees in accordance with standards ofth~
NatIOnal Fire ProtectIOn Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code.
The segment of 4 th Street between A Street and B Street also will require vacation as it is
part of the dedicated parking area for the complex To allow this to occur, staff
recommends that the following conditions of approval are endorsed by the Commission:
?
Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval:
I. Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the B
Street nght-of-way between 4 th Street and Pioneer Parkway East shall be vacated.
2, Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the 4 th
Street right-of-way between A Street and B Street shall be vacated. The Planning
CommiSSIon may choose to apply additional conditIOns of approval as necessary to
comply With the Discretionary Use and/or Zone Change cnteria
Additional Approvals
The subject applications are the first steps in a series of development applications for
Planning Commission and Council consideration in order to allow development of a
Justice Center at the proposed location. If the Planning Commission approves the
Discretionary Use and Zoning Change requests, an application would be taken to Council
for a Type II TransPlan amendment to remove the affected portion ofB Street from the
collector street network. ApplicatIOn also would be required to have the affected portions
of B Street, 4 th Street. and the alley between A and B Streets vacated. If a TransPlan
amendment applicatIOn IS submitted, the Planmng CommissIOn would be reqUIred to
provide a recommendation to City Council on that matter and proposed street and alley
vacations. A vanance to the block length requirement also would be reqUIred upon
vacatIOn of B Street between PIOneer Parkway East and 4 th Street, as the penmeter travel
distance would exceed the parameters established by the SOC.
The followmg IS taken from the city's Site Plan ReVIew Package Submittal ReqUirements
and the Spnngfield Development Code
4 Copy of the deed and a preltmlnary title report Issued Within the past 60 days documenting ownership
and listing all encumbrances If the applicant IS not the property owner, written perrOlsslOn from the
property owner IS reqUired
5 RJght-of- W ay Approach PerInlt applicatIOn must be prOVided where the property has frontage on an
Oregon Department of TransportatIOn (ODOT) facility
6 Traffic)mpact Study must prOVide four (4) copies of the study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the
proposed development Will produce more than 250 vehicle tripS per day 111 accordance WIth the current
versIOn of the TransportatIOn Engineers Trip GeneratIOn Information Report
Before the PlannIng CommisSion or Hearings Official can approve a DIscretionary Use request,
there must be InformatIOn submitted by the applicant WhICh adequately supports the request In
reviewIng a request, the CIty must consider both the posItIve and negative elements of a
Discretionary Use request All of the Discretionary Use <:;:ritena must be addressed by the
applIcant. If InsuffiCient or unclear data is submitted by the applIcant, there is a good chance the
14 Of 16
5-14
Datel Received: 7 h6/nP/
Planner: AL -7-/ I
request w1l1 be denied or delayed It IS recommended you hire a professIOnal planner or land use
attorney to prepare your findings
Discretionary Use Criteria Checklist (SDC 10.030)
I Except for pnvate/publ1c elementary and middle schools and certain wireless
telecommunicatIOns systems facll1ties, a DiscretIOnary Use may only be allowed If the Planning
Commission finds that the proposal conforms wIth the following criteria.
a. The proposed use shall conform wIth existIng uses In terms of scale, lot coverage, desIgn,
mtensIty of use and operatmg charactenstlcs
b The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand for publ1c
facllltles than would permitted uses In the same zomng dIStriCt
c. The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan pohcles and applicable descriptIOns
of Land Use DesignatIOns shown on the Metro Plan Diagram, ExpansIOn of an eXistIng
DiscretIOnary Use shall be exempt from conformance with Metro Plan land use designatIOns.
3.050 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL.
(3) An application shall consist of Items required by this Code and the following:
(a) An explanation stating the nature of the proposal and information that may have a
bearIng in determining the actIOn to be taken, including findings demonstrating
compliance With applicable approval critena.
(b) EVidence that the property affected by the application is 10 the exclUSIve ownership or
control of the applicant, or that the applicant has the consent of all owners of the affected
property to act on their behalf.
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 parkmg fac1l1tles north of
Fourth Street which are not cIty owned The cIty also need to complete street vacatIons
pnor to havmg a buddmg nght to the street ThIS proposal can not comply With the
street vacatIon cntena which mclude no loss of any beneflcal use UntIl the cIty can
demonstrate theIr ab1l1ty to effect the street vacatIon they do not have control of the
street for theIr facIlity
(c) The legal descriptIOn and assessor map and tax lot number of the property affected by .
the apphcatlOn.
(d) Additional informatton Including maps, site plans, sketches and calculations as
requIred
by applicable SectIOns of thIS Code or in mformatlOn packets provided by the
Development ServIces Department
(e) The reqUired number of copIes of the application. -
(1) Payment of the applicable apphcatlon fee at the time of applicatIon submittal No
applicatIOn will be accepted WIthout payment of the appropriate fee m full, unless the
applicant qualifies for a fee waIver.
10.020 REVIEW.
(3)A complete applicatIOn together WIth all reqUired matenals shall be submitted to the
15 Of 16
Date Received: "i~'7
Planner: AL
5-15
Director pnorto the review of the request as specified in SectIOn 3.050, Application
SubmIttal.
ARTICLE 9, VACATIONS
9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
(2) Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, 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 is found to be consistent with the following approval cnteria.
(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 Distnct map, or Conceptual Development Plan;
(b) The VacatIOn shall not conflict With the provisions of Springfield MUnicipal Code
1997, and thiS Code, includmg 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 derived from the public nght-of-way, publicly owned
land or PartitIOn or Subdivision Plat.
ARTICLE 11, VARIANCES
11.013 APPLICABILITY.
The Variance provisions apply:
(1)To buildings, structures and lots/parcels;
The vanance provIsions of the city code do not apply to the vacation of streets The
vacatIon cntena refer speCIfically to the street conectivlty and block length standards
Respectfully submitted to the City,
Scott E. Olson, P E
1127 B Street
t.
16 Of 16
5-16
Date Received: _ 7 ///J/ UJP7
Planner: AL 7 7-
Submittal to the Record
City of Springfield
Street Vacation Request
Case No. LRP 2007-00019
Testimony in opposition
June 12, 2007
pc? --::- i-
\ 'II~" i 2 2007
I '" I;
1
- ;-- ~--;- -;
r
i ~", tJ tV<
I LJ .1... __ __ __' -::=-----'
Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
Springfield Oregon
I have been Involved with the planning and development of the urban form for more than 30 years I
feel pnvlleged to live and work Within SIX blocks of Spnngfield's City Hall I am attracted here In part
by the potential we ~ave to make Spnngfield even better than It already IS The fact that our street
gnd IS stili largely intact IS essential to my feelings about thiS area and Its Mure
We are consldenng development of a Justice Center In a highly sensrtJve location at the Interface
between our pnzed hlstoncal neighborhood, the town's commercial center and the Willamette River
We can not create new hlstoncal town centers The ones we have are special places and deserve
careful consideration of any plans to Significantly change their character The street gnd and open
public ways are the underlYing fabnc from which we create the sense of place and vitality we seek,
AchieVing the kind of place we deSire requires that we carefully consider both what actlvrtJes we place
there and how those actlvrtJes are located and Interrelated wIth each other Success demands both
the nght mix of functions and the nght faCIlities In fact It IS our Insistence upon developing a
compatible mix of activities and their Interrelationships that ~ust gUide the deciSion making process
We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element If a
function 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, and finally 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
.
.
It seems to me that the Justice Center planning has somehow become reversed and IS asking us hON
we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate the project Instead of how can the project
be developed to tit the area's plans
I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives dunng 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 nght of way IS
an example I do not see how thlS project can be made feaSible at the selected site unless the
elements t1iat have been lumped Into the building program can be open to diSCUSSion and
reconsideration
ATTACHMENT
6-1
Date Received:
Planner: AL
7/;"k7
. I
VVhen consldenng the srtJng of a Justice center In downtown Spnngfield we should ask two questions,
1) How does Including thiS actIvity contnbute to the deSired Vltalrty 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 lookJng In the wrong place I am totally conVinced that we are far better
off dOing nothing In thiS situation then we are to proceed with the wrong project
If the functional demands of a Justice center can not fit harmoniOusly within the reqUIrements for a
healthy town center and preserve the Integnty of our public ways and spaces, then it simply needs to
be located elsewhere If concessions need to be made they should to be In the functional
requirements of the new faCility, not the function of the neighbortJood and greater community
This area IS evolVing and the nght things Will happen If we are patient and responsive when
opportunity presents ItS self We may have an opportunrty before us now We must not be short sited
and sacnfice the Integnty of the greater communrty to accommodate the Inflexible requirements of City
staff The pubhc has very narrowly supported the project In both bond and Jail operations elections
The projects approval can hardly be conSidered a mandate to Ignore our land use policy and gIVe the
police anything they ask for 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
I along wrth many others worry that our local efforts to solve what has become a cnsls in the Lane
County cnmlnal 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 wrth the felony offenders accounting for
85% of Spnngfield's 2004 charges The felony cnmlnals WIll continue through the Lane County
revolving door while Spnngfield locks up the misdemeanor offenders How many of my neighbors
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 wrth decent facilIties I also believe
that those actlVrtJes could contnbute to the vrtallty of the downtown If sited with sensrtMty to the
requirements of the larger communrty and nerghborhood.
If the Justice Center IS to be bUilt In the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it tit In and to
contnbute to the greater function of the area while respecbng the hlstoncal framework of its public
ways If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a site better suited to the secunty and space
requirements whICh were Imposed upon all of the attematJves conSidered In the prOject development
process
I
The City Inappropnately presumed In the development of the preliminary plannrng and cost
estlmatmg that the street right of ways were available for Incorporatmg Into the new Justice
Center FaCility The fact that the pOSSibility of street closures was mentioned In the ballot
measure does not have any meaning m the context of the land use approval for thiS proJect, or
~xempt the City from adhenng to theIr own land use poliCies and code reqUIrements The
police chief has testified that plan to build across B Street was based upon the lower cost to
build Into the street
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
B Street Vacation. Testimony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
6-2
2
Date Received: 7f(~b7
Planner: Al
Pioneer Parkway, Immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street WIlt 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
The City contracted for 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 streets, and maintaining
the effectiveness of the collector and artenal street system which has been deSigned to
accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting property as local streets do
Further, the street gnd IS almost entirely Intact In thiS area of Spnngfield No other
neighborhood has developed the degree of street cOnr;lectlvlty as eXists In thIS hlstoncal core
of the Spnngfield 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 In the City of Spnngfield.
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 Dlstnct None of the staff reports reviewing the projects history have mentioned
the fact that several months pnor to making the zone change application the City added
Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO/NDO zone The project was not an allowed use
at the site at the time the city asked voters to fund the project
The City has failed to appropnately prOVide for public Involvement In a meaningful way
throughout the planning process A CItizen adVISOry committee, (CAC) was formed "to prOVide
Input throughout the deSign process In regard to outward deSign of the faCility and ItS
relationshIp to downtown Spnngfield" I volunteered for the CAC and dUring my interview for
the pOSItion I Informed the CIty counCil of my opinIon With respect to the street closure and
mdlcated a deSire to work on appropnate alternatives
City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program pnor to formation of
the CAC The draft document was presented to the CAC 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
heanng 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
,B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
3
Date Received:~//1.:ze,1J7
Planner: AL
6-3
,.
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 beginnings 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 Goa11 reqUIrements for the entire Justice Center
Planning process.
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 heanng 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 appropnately 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 pedestnan over-crossing of 8 Street have
been rebuffed by police statements that such a faCIlity would be vulnerable to dnvlng under It
with a bomb We also need secure parking for the police to prevent keYing of their personal
vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem to Justify sacnficlng the functionality of a million
dollar collector street Arguments about police response times seem equally absurd from 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 Pollee Courts bUilding not the Jail on the opposite side of the block from B
Street The need for thiS function In B Street IS not part of the Functional and Space Program
and IS not the pnmary evacuation plan
The City has modified the code cntena for a street vacatIon In an attempt to aVOid the
inconsistency With thiS project and the adopted land use polley The cntena tailored
speCifically to get thiS project around the land use policy Impediments to deSired street closure
are not grounded In any adopted land use polley and are vague and misleading In the mtent
Ensunng that the vacated property will remain m public ownership mappropnately 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 nght of way Technically the
public does not own the nght of way, but has an mterest In the use for street purposes The
City can not ensure continues 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 pnvate party
I
Substituting pedestnan and bicycle connection cntena from the states 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 With the local adopted policy and code
reqUIrements Additionally staffs findings that adding 46% to the length of the deSirable %
mile pedestnan tnp length IS not consistent With accepted pedestnan planning pnnclples
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposmg
Scott E Olson, P E
4
6-4
Date Received: 7f(.2.w7
Planner. AL ~ '
..
Further "Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from
retaining me nght-ot-way In Its present status" lacks any cntena 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 ot the City.
The street vacation can not meet any of the three cntena 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
Dlstnct, the Nodal Development Overlay, and the Code Critena The cntena related to the
street closure have not been addressed dunng 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 no vanance that makes these poliCies go away
The City staff has the hierarchy of the project planning cntena reversed The community has
planned for 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 police are asking for Instead of how we can bUild
consistent With our community plan and VISion
\,
We can have both a JaIl and a livable community ThiS project must conform to block and
connectivity standards Particularly since thiS IS a Nodal Development Overlay zone which
relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle mobility
,
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E Olson, P E
5
6-5
Date Received:
Planner: Al
7;'l t /2Pd7
, /
T; -:-: ,~--- . -~::':-- /- ~-:- ~~) "i
"-
Submittal to the Record
City of Springfield
Street Vacation Request
Case No. LRP 2007-00019
Testimony in opposition
July 9, 2007
.f \ JI :; ~ I. U U I
BY:
Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
Springfield Oregon
My comments throughout the following testimony are In Aenal font The excerpts form
the staff reports are In Times New Roman
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 cntena the city failed to ground those rules In an,y adopted land use
policy The Development Code IS the Implementing Instrument of the Metro Plan The
Justice Center Project must stili be developed In a manner consistent With all of the city's
land use polley and rules not just the ones the changed to fit their Immediate objectives
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA
Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 9060(3) establishes cntena for vacatIOn ofnght-of-way
where the pr~perty will remam m publIc ownershIp and will continue to be used for a public
purpose. The following findings address each of the cntena
The city has added these critena to the code this year In an attempt to avoid the
established critena for street vacations The cntena for street vacations when the use
will not be public remain unchanged and reqUire findings the vacation IS compliant WIth
the following cntena
(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 Distnct map, or Conceptual Development Plan;
(b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code
1997; and this Code, includmg 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 derived from the public tight-of-way, publicly owned
land or Partition or SubdivIsion Plat.
The vacation of 8 'Street IS not consIstent With any of the three cntena still applicable to
any prrvate development The cIty has not justIfied why a public building can,be allowed
,to compromise the street connectIVIty but prrvately 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 crrtena for public
improvements were concocted to accommodate the proposed Justice Center project
The amended code crrterra were adopted Without any comprehensive plan polley
findings and are not grounded In Implementation of any land use planning policy. They
7-1
Date Received'
Planner: AL
7~~t77
I /
ATTACHMENT
Page 1 of 14
..
are In fact, constructed to avoid compliance with the Metro Plan, the Transportation
System Plan, the Downtown Refinement Plan, and the City Development Code
The prevIous land use approvals for this project have inappropriately avoided
consideration of the street c1osuretvacatlon 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
Incorporated findings that the proposed project Including the street closure was
consistent with the block length and street connectivity requirements of the code
(
Now 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
onginal code criteria for- 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 polley related to street
connectivity and function Into any of the prevIous approvals
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
Fmdmg 1 Oregon ReVised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.130(1) reads as follows: "The City
governmg body may mItIate vacatIOn proceedings authonzed by ORS 271 080 and 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 hearmg, nor if the
owners of a majonty of the area affected, computed on the basis provided m ORS 271 080, object
m wntmg thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated Without the consent of the owners of the
abuttmg property if the vacatIOn will substantza/ly affect the market value of such property,
unless the City governmg body prOVides for paymg damages ProvIsIOn for paymg such damages
may be made by a local assessment, or m such other manner as the City charter may prOVide."
Fmdmg 2. ORS 271 080(1) provIdes for vacation of".. all or part of any street, avenue,
boulevard, alley, plat, puMc square or other publzc place "In accordance WIth ORS
271 080(1), the vacation action requires "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." ,
The city IS attempting to default to the statutory minimum procedures to vacate a public
street The ORS Chapter 271 requirements do not address the land use approval
process necessary to conSider the closure of a public way Being consistent WIth the
ORS 271 requirements does not in any way assure consistency With local land use
requirements
Fmdmg 3 The Springfield City CouncIl mltIated the vacatIOn action at the regular meetmg on
May 7. 2007. The nght-of-way proposed for vacation is generally depIcted and more speCIfically
described m Exhibit A to thIS staff report. The purpose of the vacation IS to retam the segment of
vacated public right-of-way in public ownership, and to use the area for construction of a secure
police parking lot and ancillary budding servmg the JustIce Center
It can be argued that we value the 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's land use polley 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
7-2
Date Received: 7 j;,j:l#(J7
Planner: AL I I
Page 2 of 14
",
ownership The public does not own the nght of way, they have a perpetual nght of use.
If vacated the nght is terminated and the ownershIp is unencumbered Once vacated
the property could be transferred to private ownership In the future, Once he street has
been vacated the city can not assure the retention of the property In public ownership
Findmg 4 In accordance with ORS 271 130(1), the decIsion on the vacatIOn action will be made
at a future CIty CouncIl meeting, and after Public Heanngs before the Planning CommIssion and
Council
FIndmg 5 All properties that dIrectly abut the segment of publIc nght-of-way proposed for
vacatIOn are owned by the City of Spnngfield
This finding and the associated cnteria are Irrelevant and unsupported by any Identified
land use policy
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
FindIng 6 In accordance wIth ORS 271.110(1), publIc heanp.g notIces ~ere placed In the
newspaper of general cIrculatIOn (The Register Guard) on May 18 and 25, 2007.
FIndmg 7 In accordance wIth 271.110(2), public notIce of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn
action was posted at two conspIcuous locatIOns immedIately adjacent to flght-of-way proposed
for vacatIon (at the northeastern comer adjacent to 4th Street. and at the southwestern corner
adjacent to PIOneer Parkway East)
Fmdmg 8 In accordance with SDC 271.080, adjacent landowners and residents/tenants wIthin a
400-foot radIUS of the 66-foot by 264-foot linear flght-of-way proposed for vacation were notified
by mail
Conclusion. The notIfication proVIded for the proposed flght-of-way vacatIOn complIes wIth
Critenon (b).
Cntena (b) does not address requirements of the Spnngfield 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's obligation to
comply With their own land use rules and requirements They can not grant themselves
a waiver With un supported code amendments
(c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision ofsafe, convenient and
reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-0012-
0045(3);
Fmding 9 As stated in Oregon AdminIstrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d), "safe and
convement' means bicycle and pedestnan routes, faCIlitIes and Improvements which
(A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic which
would mterfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trIpS,
(B) PrOVide a reasonably direct route of travel between destmatlons such as a transit stop and a
store, and (C) Meet travel needs of cychsts and pedestrians consldermg destmatlOn and length of
trip, and consIdermg that the optimum trIp length of pedestrians IS generally 0 to 12 mile
ThIS new cntena (c) substitutes the genenc definition of the stateWide goal for pedestnan
and cyclist faCIlities for the speCifiCity of the Springfield standards embodied Within the
city's Development Code Meeting the minimum requirements for anywhere in the state
7-3
Date Received:
Planner: Al
716~'7
I I
Page 3 of ,14
.. ..
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
Finding 10 In accordance with OAR 660-0 12-0045(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 - partIcularly
A Street. which IS located less than 300 feet to the south
Finding 11' In accordance With OAR 660-0 I 2-0045(3)( d), vacatIOn of the subject right-of-way
would not result m pedestnan, cyclist or vehicle trIpS that are more than 14 mile from bemg a
direct route of travel between destination points FIgure 1 Illustrates approximate travel distances
for all potentIal modes oftravel from one Side ofthe vacated nght-of-way to the other. Should the
segment ofB Street be vacated and closed to pub he travel, the maximum out-of-dlrectlOn
distance for passage from the eastern end of the subject right-of-way (a~ 4th Street) to the western
end ofthe nght-of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) would be 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 tnp The out-of-dIrectlOn 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 The use of the mid-block alley for east-west
passage IS not a preferred route for vehicles, but is depicted on Figure 1 for IllustratIve purposes
The baSIS of optimum pedestrian trip lengths is commonly based upon the 10 minute
walking Circle which IS tYPically aSSigned a X 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 10 mmute 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 o! 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 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
FIndmg 12 PrOVision of travel routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles would be via the
existing public street, alley and Sidewalk system The approximate travel dIstances shown on
Figure 1 assume travel around the perimeter of each route, and short-cuttIng through parkmg lots
or Similar open areas is not conSidered
FmdIng 13' There are existing situatIons In downtown Springfield and elsewhere throughout the
City where portions of the gridded street system are not connected and out-of-directlOn travel is
required for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Nearby examples include portions of A Street east
7-4
Date Received: 7ft jUd 7
Planner: AL /
Page 4 of 14
"- II .
of 12th Street, A, C, D and F Street east of 14th Street, 8th and 9th Streets north of G Street, and G
Street west of 4th Street
The fact that the downtown and Washburn Histone Dlstnct are the only portions of
Spnngfleld with the street gnd essentially Intact IS a not a rational reason to start closing
streets so ,t 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 are plenty of locatIons In the city that will not necessitate the elimination
of public ways
Fmdmg 14' A Traffic Impact AnalysIs (TIA) was prepared by an mdependent traffic engmeermg
consultant m support of the proposed right-of-way vacatIOn (Sprmgfield JustIce Center RevIsed
Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engmeermg, July. 2006) The TIA examined the
existmg and post-vacation street system in the VICInity of the Justice Center and evaluated the
possible Impacts of the proposed nght-of-way vacation to vehicle m~vements and the
performance of nearby intersections The TIA concluded there would b_e mimmallmpact on the
downtown transportatIOn system With the proposed vacation of public right-of-way
The traffic Impact analYSIS addressed the streets 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 fall 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 a street's function
Findmg 15' The TIA prepared for the proposed nght-of-way vacation also concluded that no
traffic mitigatIOn actions would be reqUIred to ensure safe and effiCient flow of traffic in the
vicmlty of the Justice Center Among the simplest and most effective measures to structure traffic
movements in the area will be strategic placement of drrectional slgnage for the Justice Center
The TIA suggests possible measures to discourage traffic from traveling to and from the
downtown core usmg nearby reSidential streets, including placement of STOP SignS at key
mtersections and mstallmg curb extensIOns to prevent undesirable turning movements. .0
The best way to avoid diverting traffic Into undeSirable streets IS to keep the collector
street open to traffic Instead of stormg paper records, stolen bicycles and police vehicles
In the street Once vehicles have left the arterials at either end, their tnps will contmue in
the straight line path 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 matt~r what the sIgns say
Findmg 16 Special vehicles, such as transit buses, can be accommodated on adjacent public
streets (primarily A Street) There is one transit stop for west-bound buses that IS located wlthm
the segment of B Street proposed for vacation. Relocation of the bus stop can be done in
consultation With Lane TranSit Distnct.
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
7-5
Date Received:
Planner: AL
7/;t~DJ'
'j
Page 5 of 14
to- I!.
ConcluslOn Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation will have no adverse
effect on safety, connectivity or maintaInIng reasonably direct travel routes for pedestrIans,
cyclIsts and vehIcles As proposed, the publIc nght-of-way vacation complies with Cnterion (c).
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
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from
retaining the right-of-way in its present status; and
Fmdmg 17 The rIght-of-way presently contams a two-lane collector street with sidewalks on
both sides Upon vacatlOn ofthe nght-of-way, the subject area would be Incorporated mto the
Sprmgfield Justice Center and used for secure polIce parkIng The nght-of-way would be closed
to all public travel. The Spnngfield PolIce Department advIses that a secure parkmg lot - close to
the Justice Center bUIldIng - protects publIc property (mcludmg police vehicles and case
eVidence stored In the anCillary building) and enhances emergency resppnse times as respondmg
officers do not have to cross publIc streets to reach their vehicles
Officers are not typically waiting at the station to respond to emergencies Emergency
response IS from officers on patrol No meanrngful 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
polrce 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
FIndIng 18. Jerry Smith, Sprmgfield ChIef of Police, submItted a memo m support of the
proposed nght-of-way vacatlOn which reads as follows:
The memorandum from the Polrce Chief in support of the closure of B Street does not
proVide compelling rationale for the closure of a collector street, sevenng It from the
adjacent artenal street '
r
Importance of B Street Closmg to the JustIce FaCIlity Project
"The purpose of thIS memo IS to summarIze for the Plannmg CommlsslOn the Importance of
clOSing B Street as part of the JustIce Center prOject As deSIgned, the area currently occup,ed by
B Street would become part of a fenced and secured parking area
. ClOSing B Street IS necessary for the secunty of portIOns of the faCIlity The planned JustIce
faCIlity mcludes an ancillary building that WIll be a reposItory for eVIdence m crlmznal cases,
storage for police and court records, and storage for speclallzed polIce equIpment and weaponry
Closmg B Street WIll allow the entIre anCIllary buzlding and parkmg lot to be fenced In,
significantly Improvmg the securIty of these records and eVIdentIary Items WIthout the securzty
fencmg m place, the anczllary bUlldmg as deSIgned does not prOVIde suffiCIent securIty for these
Items
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
a justification for 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
7-6
Date Received: 7}tboo7
Planner: AL / I
Page 6 of 14
0-1 I l '
developing alternative designs that avoid street closure and stili 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 provide a supporting argument
s
The Police Chief has testIfied at the Planning Commission that the street closure was
pursued from the beginning because it was the lowest cost means to construct the
desired facIlity 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
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
. ClOSIng B Street Will prOVide secure fleet and employee parkIng To d~te, Department vehicles
and
employee parkIng has not been secured by fencIng Whde thiS does not cause slgmficant Issues
durmg
normal workmg hours, the Department has expenenced damage to fleet vehicles, and employees
have
suffered damage to their personal vehicles, durmg late evenmg and early mornmg hours
Damage has
rangedfrom pamt scratches to slashed tires and broken wmdows
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 staff Will need to cross a street to reach their
vehicles The city has not In the past provided secure parking for 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
. ClOSing B Street will Improve the safety of polzce officers and Citizens The street closure Will
allow officers respondmg to emergency calls from mSlde the buddmg to access their vehicles
without crossmg a publzc rzght of way. thereby reducmg the rzsk of an aCCident durzng an
emergency response
During the P,lannlng Commission hearing the Police Chief spoke of the eminent danger
of an officer responding from 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 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 stili capable of responding through the neighborhood at 50
mph In a pollee crUiser and potentially use deadly force The police street crossing
capabilities are not a meaningful argument for closmg B Street
7-7
Datel Received: iL#~~7
Planner: AL
Page 7 of 14
-, . I '
The city has strongly opposed any suggested alternatives to street closure throughout
the planmng proc-ess 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 bombing from a vehIcle
"
. Closing B Street will provide a secure area for evacuatIOn of mUnicipal Jail przsoners The
fenced area will serve as an outdoor holding areafor mumclpaljazl przsoners In the event that
the jml must be evacuated WIthout the street closure and fencmg, there wzll not be an area
outside the mUnicipal jml adequate and accessible for holding pnsoners Instead, an evacuatIOn
event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all mUnicipal Jail prisoners ,.
Dunng the design development when the use of the proposed secure parking area for
the evacuation of Inmates was suggested, the project architects pOinted out that there IS
not a secure cOrridor leadIng from the proposed jail on the south half of the block to the
secure parking to the north of the police and courts.bUlldlng. Additionally the pnmary
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 4lt1 Street This faCIlity WIll Incarcerate misdemeanor offenders
Is It reasonable to close a collector street In a nodal development zone to have a
secondary or tertiary evacuation compound for misdemeanor offenders that are currently
being matnxed out on a dally 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 pnsoners In the unlikelihood that there ever IS an evacuation, an
"uncontrolled release of all mumclpaljazl pnsoners" would not be necessary, as the city
should be able to IdentIfy which Inmates should be held on to as opposed to a general
release of all prisoners Even In the rare event (which IS difficult to'lmaglne) when all
pnsoners would be released, it would not be any different than what IS happening every
day at this time In Lane County.
The city has failed to demonstrate how the public would benefit in any meaningful way
from the closure of B Street yet how It IS In the "greater public benefit"
FIndIng 19: As described In the statement from the Police ChIef, the vacated right-of-way wIll be
used for secure polIce parking and IS also designed to proVide a fenced-Ill area that is large
enough for evacuatIOn of Jail pnsoners III the event of an emergency PrOVlSlon of a secure muster
area for evacuated prisoners prOVIdes a direct benefit to the jaIl staff, police personnel, and the
public.
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
Program for the new Justice Center
FIndIng 20. As noted III the Police Chief's statement, ensuring respondmg polIce officers do not
have to cross a publIc street In order to reach their vehIcles enhances safety for both PolIce
Department personnel and publIc users of the street system.
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 but then it might get
bombed
7-8
Date ReceIved' 7// 6 ~Q.7
Planner: AL' 7.... r
Page 8 of 14
I I I ·
Fmdmg 21 Passage of the Publtc Safety ballot measure m 2005 that secured public fundmg for
the Justice Center project demonstrates Sprmgfield residents' commitment to the proJect.
Comparatively few people wlthm the City regularly use the segment of B Street proposed for
vacatIOn However, all Spnngfield residents (and visitors) benefit from a strong police presence
wlthm the commumty
The narrow passage of both of these funding measures was about a community pretty
evenly split on making offenders accountable addressing serious deflcenles 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
The statement "Comparatively few people within the City regularly u~e the segment ofB Street
proposed for vacation" Is 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 Spnngfield 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 appropnately accommodate a Jail and police faCIlity In the core of
our community and not be bullied by those With a narrower perspective
ConclUSIOn Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-way vacation serves a greater benefit
to the public than retaining the one-block segment of nght-of-way in Its present status The
proposed vacation also provides dIrect benefits to the CIty'S Police Department, whIch ultimately
benefits Spnngfield residents As proposed, the right-of-way vacatIOn complies WIth Criterion
(d).
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 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 cntlcal evaluation of the application With respect the
proposed closure of B Street
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in
public ownership.
Fmding 22. The vacated nght-of-way is to be mcorporated mto the Justice Center development,
which IS a publicly-funded project. Ownership ofthe Justice Center building and the land on
which It IS to reSide (which includes the portIOn of nght-of-way proposed for vacation), is to
remain WIth the City of Springfield.
There IS no way of thiS being done In perpetuIty, the public interest In the nght-of-way will
be eliminated one 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 treatment due to public ownership The community that has
7-9
Date Received: .., f'/;U;I17
'/ '
Planner: AL
Page 9 of 14
been envIsioned In the land use policy and rules IS blind to ownership The same rules
apply to private and public projects
Findmg 23 Upon vacatIon of the nght-of-way. the land ownershIp automatIcally reverts to the
City as It owns the abuttmg property Because the ownership of the vacated right-of-way does not
pass through a third party (which could occur ifthere were prIvately-owned parcels fronting onto
the rIght-of-way), remainmg in public ownership IS assured
We are conSidering whether the bUilding belongs In the street, not who should own It
ConclusIOn The proposed nght-of-way vacatIon complIes wIth CnterIon (e)
But IS cntena (e) legitimate In the larger planning context? It appears to be a construct In
an attempt to aVOid addressing the legitimate cntena 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 cntena In fact they
do not even Identify the cnterla 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
,
The city has never conSidered a project to keep the street open and the improvements
within the approved budget The public was precluded from any Influence over the
alternatives conSidered and the Functional Space Program that drove project
alternatives outSide the budget limits
Staff has chosen to develop arguments countering my prevIous testimony rather than
Impartially weighing the ments 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
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES
Nine people provided testImony at the Plannmg CommiSSIOn public heanng for the proposed
right-of-way vacatIOn, seven In favor and two opposed. Written testImony OppOSIng the vacatIOn
was received from Bob Foster (Attachment 4) and Scott Olson (Attachments 5 and 6). Mr Olson
has provided statements In hiS testimony dated June 12,2007 that staff wish to address here
7-10
Date Received:...?f~{) 7
Planner: AL
Page 10 of 14
. t. .
Statement 1 "I am dlsappomted that the City has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives
during the project development process which considered tradeoff m the functIOnal and space
program with the associated site constramts "
Staff Response' The site planning for the Justice Center project exammed a Wide varIety of
design options mcludmg underground parkmg. OrIentatIOn of the jail and police/courts buildmg
onto different streets, expansion to adjacent (not city-owned) properties, and posslple alternate
sites m the downtown area (agam. not city-owned) About 15 possible sIte plan optIOns were
imtlally developed m consultation with publIc, stakeholders, staff and the Justice Center project
team The optIOns were Critically evaluated and four alternatives were developed for CIty Council
to select for a preferred design option Mr Olson acknowledges that tradeoffs were made, but
staff contend that the functIOnal and space program was only one factor exammed dUring the
preliminary sIte planning phase
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 offs 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 street function
(
Statement 2 "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 unprovements would not have been
ehglble for the federal mvestment 10 the street Improvements The value of B Street both m terms
of improvements and functIOn has not been conSidered in City decisions to pursue the street
closure The value of the lhvestment the pubhc made ill unprovmg B Street m 2007 constructIOn
costs IS over $1.2 mllhon. It has been suggested that the CIty could be obligated to repay the
federal government If the street IS indeed closed
Staff Response. A portIOn ofB Street from 14th Street to Pioneer Parkway East (approXImately
4,400 lineal feet) was rehabilitated m 1997 at a total cost 05759,676 I I (Project #1-882) The :
apportioned project cost for the subject one-block area (approximately 300 feet or 7% of the
4,400-foot long project area) would be about $52,000 00 A fundmg transfer was arranged With
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that involved substitutIOn of elIgible federal funds
With state funds. The City used a $400,000 federal allocatIOn to obtam more timely state funding
($376,000) for the entIre project Based on the hneal footage, the state-funded portion ofthe one-
block segment proposed for vacatIOn IS less than $26.000. As a result of the funding transfer With
ODOT (and because the funds were proVided to the City Without "strIngs attached"), there is no
drrect federal mvolvement With the B Street upgrade project and the City would not be required to
repay any government agency - state or federal- if the one block segment of the street IS closed to
public traffic ~AddltlOnalIy, the remain 109 13 blocks of B Street from the mtersectlOn of 4th
Street to 14th Street are not affected by the proposed vacation and WIll remam open to public
travel
The full length of the B Street Improvement all the way to 14th Street Will be lost With the
loss of It 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
7-11
Date Received: 7 t6/~
Planner: AL I I
Page 11 of 14
J . ~ .
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
Statement 3 "The City approved a zone change from Mixed Use Comrnerclal/Nodal
Development to PublIc Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center IS not
listed In the MUC/NDO Dlstnct None of the staff reports reviewmg the proJect's history have
mentIOned the fact that several months pnor to makmg the zone change application the City added
Justice Centers as an allowed use III the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at
the site at the tune the City asked voters to fund the proJect"
Staff Response ThiS statement IS not entirely true or false The speCific use of "Justice Center"
was not listed m the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Dlstnct at the time voters approved the
concept of haVing a large-scale faCility combimng police, law courts and muniCipal Jail
constructed m Sprmgfield However, key components of the Justice Center, Includmg courts,
admmlstrative offices and public offices (mcludmg detention faCilities) are mdivldually listed in
the PLO and Mixed Use CommerCial (MUC) Dlstncts, and were already present on the site It IS
notable that public offices are listed as a PermItted Use in the MUC District
Although there IS provISIon m the Springfield Development Code (SDC) for mterpreting new or
undefined uses that are similar to already-defined uses (or that could be reasonably grouped into a
familiar category) the City logically deemed It deslfable to have the Justice Center specifically
defmed and listed In the applicable Development Code district To thiS end, the City faCIlitated
reVIew and approval of the Justice Center development by adoptrng necessary Development Code
amendments once the project funding was secured, and prior to selectmg a preferred site option
The Code amendments were adopted through standard, state-mandated public procedures that
Involve public notIficatIOn, public hearrngs and acceptance by the state Department of Land
Conservation and Development (Case LRP2005-00031). It also should be noted that a JustIce
Center IS not an "allowed" use, but IS listed as a DiscretIOnary Use whIch reqUires an additional
pubhc reVIew and land use approval step Approval of the Discretionary Use - allowing for
further consideratIOn of a Justice Center at the selected location - was granted by the Planning
Commission on Apn1l8, 2006 (Case DRC2006-000 13) after a: public hearing.
When the Justice Center site option was sdected by City Council, the 14 City-owned tax lots
Within the footprmt of the Justice Center were zoned a combinatIOn of Mixed Use CommerCial
(eIght lots) and Public Land and Open Space (six lots) A rezoning of the eight MUC lots to PLO
was completed to create a uniform zonmg for the entIre project site (Case lON2006-00007). The
rezonmg was approved by the Planmng CommissIOn on Apn1l8, 2006 after a pubhc heanng
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 constr:ucted in a manner that
respects the constraints and city building requirements In that location
7-12
Date Received: :jY~l
Planner: AL
Page 12 of 14
. . ~ '
, Statement 4' "The CIty has falled to appropriately provIde for public Involvement in a meaningful
way throughout the planning process A cItIzen advIsory committee (CA C) was formed 'to
provIde Input throughout the desIgn process in regard to outward desIgn of the faCIlIty and ItS
relat[onshlp to downtown Springfield'. I volunteered for the CAC and during my Interv[ew for the
pOSItion I mformed the CIty councIl of my opinion WIth respect to the street closure and indicated
a desIre to work on appropriate alternatIves
Staff Response Mr Olson [S CritIcal ofthe City's "faIlure to appropriately proVIde for public
Involvement" Mr Olson has served as a member of the CItizen AdvIsory CommIttee for the
JustIce Center The CAC has met over a dozen times since the project inceptIOn to discuss the
varIOUS sIte plann10g Issues affecting the JustIce Center This does not necessarily mean.
however, that all recommendatIons of the CAC 9r ItS Ind[vldual members have been adopted by
the JustIce Center Project Team, the Plann10g Commlss[on or CIty Councll In his testimony, Mr
Olson acknowledges that the majority ofCAC members voted in favor of the site desIgn optIon
eventually selected by City CouncIl
In addItIon to the regular CAC meetings, there have been numerous publIc open house meetmgs,
information seSSIOns, newspaper advertIsements, media announcements, City webslte postings,
and neighborhood mall-outs over the 18+ month penod smce the JustIce Center project was
formally inItIated A list of publIc meetmgs for the Justice Center project (from prehm10ary
discussIons through to final sIte selectIOn and bUlld10g desIgn) IS attached to this staff report as
informatIOn (Attachment 6)
The publIc meetings dIscussed above do not 10clude at least seven fonnalland use actIOns
undertaken to faCIlitate the Justice Center project, all of which requrred publIc notIficatIon (see
Table I below), AdditIonally, at hIs request, Mr. Olson has been personally notified of publIc
heanngs pertaining to the JustJce Center, particularly the B Street vacatIon Desp[te the numerous
mall outs, advertIsed public hearIngs and multiple land use actIons that have occurred up to this
pomt - all of which have made overtures for public and stakeholder involvement - Mr Olson IS
among the few indiVIduals that have submitted any testImony 10 opposItIon to the Justice Center
project None of the land use actIOns approved to this pomt have been appealed. PublIc
Involvement for JustIce Center (Planning and Land Use ActIOns) Planning ActIOn Case Number
Public Involvement Opportunities Development Code Amendment to LRP2005-00031 Pubhc
Hearings November 1,2005, November 28, add "Just[ce Center" to Article 2 3 2005, January
4,2006 & January 17,2006 Zone Change ZON2006-000 12 Public Hearings March 21 & AprIl
18,2006 300-foot mail out notificatIOn to neighborhood DIscretIOnary Use DRC2006-000l3
Pubhc Hearmgs March 21 & Apnl18, 2006 300-foot mall out notification to neIghborhood
VacatIon of mId-block alley LRP2006-000 19 Public Heanngs June 20, 2006, July 5, 2006,
July 17,2006 & September 18,2006
.
.
Public Involvement IS more than counting heads and number of meetings I have
partIcIpated from the beginning WIth the objective of keeping the street open The city
I has never appropnately prOVided any opportunity to even diSCUSS the options Instead
the process has been orchestrated and controlled to move the onglnal 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.
Statement 5 "The City cannot ensure continued publIc ownership! of the vacated portion of
public right-of-way because It does not own the property until it [S vacated Once vacated there is
no way of preventing future CIty councils from sellmg the property to a private party
Page 13of14
Date Received:. 7f~ ~C7
Planner: At /'''''
7-13
-. '. "
Staff Response' Agam, this statement is not entrrely true or false The City has latitude m its use
of public nght-of-way and could close the street to public travel temporanly or permanently
without vacatmg the right-of-way The Justice Center project IS Intended to be a long-term (50+
year) occupant of the selected site However. to address this Issue, a clause has been inserted in
the enabhng ordinance that causes the vacated area to revert to publIc nght-of-way In the event
the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes (Attachment 9)
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 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 hosprtal being proposed Public ownership
should not change the overall character of what IS planned and desired for thiS
neighborhood
Statement 6. "The stree~ vacatIOn cannot meet any of the three CrIterIa Rreviously-estabhshed In
the code
Staff Response The "previous" cntena referred to by Mr. Olson have been superseded by
Development Code amendments to Article 9 (VacatIOns) cntena adopted Apnl2, 2007 The
subject vacatIOn request was submitted after the criteria carne mto effect. Therefore, thiS
statement IS Irrelevant to the subject vacation request.
The city has never yet addressed how closure of B Street IS consistent with the adopted
land use polley or the Development Code Dunng the zone change, the DIscretionary
Use Approval, and the Site Review, findings with respect to block lengths, street
connectivity, and numerous other code and plan Issues raIsed dunng that process,
claiming that those Issues were to be consIdered dunng the street vacation
At some point there needs to be a land use decIsion that considers all of the code
requirements related to the Impacts of closmg B Street InsertIng new street vacation
cnterla to avoid the Issues may allow the vacation of the street but raise considerable
questions about the validity of the earlier land use approvals.
Page 14 of 14
Date Received:
Planner: AL
7-14
7.fr6~{)7
,
~ . 'e -
RECEIVED
JUL 0 6 2007
,
)
July 6, 2007
CITY OF SPHli'IGFlELD
CITY RECORDEr:'!
Ralph David Jacobson
4146 So. E Street
Springfield, OR 97478
Springfield City Council
225 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Dear Mayor and City Council:
As a resident of Spnngfield, I would like to say a few words in support of the
closing of the 300 block of B Street as part of the construction of the new
City Justice Facility.
I was a teacher for the California Youth Authority at its Camarillo facility in
the 80's and 90's. There were occasions when a ward would set fire to his or
her room and the dorm had to be evacuated. The wards were removed from
their building and secured in the fenced yard behind the dorm. This was for
,
security purposes: to keep the wards safe and to keep the staff safe. Be-
cause we were enclosed inside a 16-foot chain-linked fence topped with razor
wire, there was no chance of danger to the community.
I see a potential similar situation with the new jail. If there is a fire inside the
jail, or if there is a bomb scare (or a real bombing), there must be a secure
place for the mlsdemeanants to be placed after they are removed from the
jail. HaVing a fenced area In the city block north of the Jail/Justice Center,
With the fence contiguous to the buildings, would be the logical place for the
safety of the inmates, the staff, and the community if there is a disaster. ":
,
Having such a safe and secured area attached and adjacent to the Jail/Justice
Center far outweighs any Inconvenience that might occur from the clOSing of
one block of B Street. It IS for thiS reason that I support clOSing the 300
Block of B Street as part of the construction of the City Justice FacIlity.
SI~c~ely, '
,;' ( J "
/CtCc~~.L'~'~
Ralph David J.9cobson
747-4974
8-1
Date ReceIved: 7.//6/.;,07
. I
Planner: AL
ATTACHMENT
~. ;. 11
REC'O J U L .. 9 za07
Steve Singleton
252 N. 65th St.
Springfield, OR 97478
July 5, 2007
Sprin~field City Council
225 5 Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am a resident of Springfield, Chairman of the Police Planning Task Force, and Vice-
Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Justice Center. I am writing to express
my support for closing the 300 Block ofB Street in support ofthe new Springfield Justice
Facility.
WhIle there has been a small amount of public criticism of this plan, I believe that the
voters knew about the B Street closing when they voted in favor ofthe Bond Measure to
construct this facility in 2004. A lot of discussions were held then about available land
for a police facility. Many different plans were reviewed, as well as various deSigns, all
with the purpose of best utilizing the land available for the Justice Center. Ample
opportunity was given for the public, as well as those of us closely involved in the
process to be well informed as to all of the ramifications that each design and plan would
entail. City staff, the Council, and the public have had a lot of opportunities to offer ideas
for building this facility without closing the street. In the end, the cost factors and the
convenience for all of us in keeping the police in downtown Springfield led to the <<
deciSIOn to build across one city block.
To alter this plan will compromise many factors that surround the operatIOn of the police
department and the safety of its employees:
. In case of an emergency, officers would have to navigate across a public street
to get to their vehicles, possibly endangering themselves and defimtely
slowing down response tunes
. If evacuation of the jail facility should ever be necessary, there would be no
secure, fenced-in area for officers to maintain control over prisoners, and
public safety.
. Closure of one city block would insure the security of unportant police
equipment, police and court records, specialized firearms, evidence and
ATT ACHMENT
9-1
Date Received: 7j/6~o7
Planner: AL 7"
. . 1110 ..
Spnngfield City COL .J
July 6, 2007
Page 2
property, To alter the current plan would put the ancillary building outside the
secure area, thus, raising important security issues.
. Closure would provide secure parking for police and employee vehicles,
which historically have been damaged from vandalism. It would also provide
a safe area for entering and exiting vehicles, especially in later hours,
. Clos~e would greatly improve the traffic and flow of daily operations in the
police department, jail, and courts. The convenience of this design will
enhance seamless service between all departments. This will undoubtedly
have an effect on man-hour efficiency ~d operations budget savings.
Closing the street for one block has been and is our best available option, though it does
, come at the cost of some inconvenience to motorists and pedestrians. All in all, I have no
doubt that this plan is for the better good and benefit of not only downtown Springfield,
but to all of us, its citizens.
c,XA L-
Steve Singleton
:
DatE'l Received:~/.1~~7
\:; l :;}r : :t~r: AL
9-2
. '. .
City of Sorin':1fie1d Justi.ce Center Proiect ~Iic Meetinqs
Date Public Input Opportunities fDcludiOg Land Use Actions
2005-01-18 City Council - JC Facility Planning
2005-04-18 City Councll- JC Construction Contract Options
2005-06-13 City Council - JC Programming Consultant Contract
2005-06-20 City Council _ Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate JC Programming Consultant Contract
2005-08-01 City Council - Requests for proposal for JC Architect
2005-09-26 City Council - JC CItizen AdvIsory Committee Application Interview?
2005-10-03 City Council - JC Recommended Architect
2005-10-24 Advertise Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption Request
2005-10-25 City Wide Inforum Update on Project
2005-10-25 Citizen AdvIsory Committee (CAC) Meeting
2005-11-01 Planning Commission - Citizen Involvement Program "
2005-11-01 Planning Commission - Public Hearing for Public Land and Open Space District Amendments
2005-11-07 City Council Regular Session Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption
2005-11-14 Report from Jail Operations Funding Task Force
2005-11-21 City Council Regular Session Review & Approval of Contract with Architect
2005-11-28 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2005-11-28 Justice Center Functional and Space Program
City Council Regular Session Council Authorizes Contract negotiations w/ CM/GC Firm & Request
2005-11-28 to approve JC Functional & Space Program
2005-11-29 CAC Meeting
2005-11-30 CAC Meeting
2005-12-05 Springfield Justice Center - Recommended Construction Manager/General Contractor
2005-12-20 CAC Meeting
2006-01-04 Planning Commission Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2006-01-17 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2006-01-17 Justice Center Consultant Contract
2006-01-18 CAC Meeting
2006-01-23 Property Tax Levy for MUnicipal Jail Operations
2006-01-26 Justice Center Site Design Options
2006-02-09 CAC Meeting
2006-02-09 Justice Center Public Forum Invitation
2006-02-13 CAC Meeting
2006-02-21 City Council Regular Session Selects SchematiC Design Program
2006-03-21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zone Change
2006-03-21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Discretionary Use
2006-03-22 CAC Meeting
2006-04-18 Planning CommiSSion Public Hearing for Zone Change
2006-04-18 Planning CommiSSion Public Hearing for Discretionary Use
2006-04-26 CAC Meeting
2006-05-24 CAC Meeting
2006-06-14 CAC Meeting
2006-06-14 Justice Center Open House Invitation
2006-06-20 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
2006-06-20 Planning Commission - Revl~w of Justice Center Site Plans
2006-07 -05 CAC Meeting
2006-07 -05 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request (PubliC Alley)
2006-07-17 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
2006-07 -17 City Council Regular Session Approve/Not Approve SchematiC Design & Cost Estimate
2006-08-23 CAC Meeting
2006-09-18 City Council public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
ATTACHMENT
10-1
Date Received:_7//(,/24)7
Planner: AL I I - ,
. ,. .
2006-09-20 CAC Meeting
2006-10-18 Justice Center Open House Invitation
2006-11-15 CAC Meeting
2006-11-27 City Council Work Session Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007-01-10 CAC Meetmg \
2007-01-16 City Council Regular Session Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007-01-22 City Council Regular Session Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007-02-12 DIscuss Options for Nammg of the Springfield Justice Center
2007-03-13 Planning CommiSSion Public Heanng for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments
2007-03-19 City CouncIl Public Hearing for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments
2007-04-16 City Council Regular Session Accept/Not Accept Memeorandum of Understanding
2007 -06-05 Plannmg CommiSSion Public Heanng for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
2007-06-19 Planning Commission Public Heanng for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
2007 -07 -02 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
,
"
Date ~eceived: 7 t6 ~177
Planner" AL / I ~
10-2
. " "
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSI(J~
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. LRP2007-00019
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
VacatlOn of a one-block segment of B Street located between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East.
1. On May 7, 2007, the Spnngfield CIty Council lrutlated the vacatIon actIOn In accordance wIth Spnngfield
Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Plannmg Case No LRP2007-000l9 - CIty of Spnngfield PolIce Department,
applIcant.
2 The applIcation was mltIated m accordance wIth SectIOn 3 050 of the Spnngfiel9 Development Code Timely
and sufficIent notice of publIc heanng, pursuant to SectIOns 14.030 and 9 050 of the Spnngfield Development
Code, has been proVIded
3 On June 5, 2007, a public heanng on the vacation request was held and the wntten 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 testIfymg at that heanng have been
conSIdered and are part of the record of thIS proceedmg.
CONCLUSION
Based on thIS record, the requested vacatIOn applIcatIon IS consistent WIth the cntena of SDC 9 030 Tlus general
findmg IS supported by the speCIfic findmgs offact and concluslOn m Attachment A, Vacation Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planrung CommiSSIOn hereby recommends the CIty CounCIl approve the vacation request at a publIc heanng
ATTEST
AYES: tf-
NOES: ~
ABSENT: l
ABSTAIN: 0
'-jjf(l
PlygpmrumsslOn Charrpersnn
Attachment
-11-::1
Date Received: 7 1t./2tP()7
Planner: AL / /
. ,.... .
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 Spnngfield City Council has declared its intention to vacate public right-of-
way in the CIty of Spnngfield; 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 Spnngfield
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support of
thIS vacatIOn satisfy the critena of approval for vacations found m SectIOn 9.060 of the Spnngfield
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interest of the CIty In carrymg 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 Spnngfield Planning Commission conducted a public heanng on June 5,
2007 and June 19, 2007 in the Council Chambers of Springfield CIty Hall, 225 FIfth Street,
Spnngfield OR and 'recommended uncondltlonal approval of thIS publIc nght-of-way vacatIOn
(LRP2007-00019); and
WHEREAS, the Spnngfield CIty Council met m Council Chambers, at 225 FIfth Street, on
Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Readmg) and on , the _ day of ,
2007, (Second Readmg) at the hour of7:00 pm., 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
ATTACHMENT
12-1
Date Received: ;/;i~'7
Planner: AL 7 .,.
.. \...~ ..
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
SectIOn 1. The CouncIl finds that the legal notIce of the heanng was lawfully publIshed and
posted; that ObjectIOns were made at the vacatIOn heanng held; that the public mterest Wlll not
be Impaired by the vacation ofthe alley right-of-way, and that vacation of saId alley will be m the
best mterest of the publIc and increase the benefit of the property involved.
Section 2: The publIc'nght-of-way in the CIty of Spnngfield, as generally depicted on the
site map and more partIcularly d;scribed m the property legal descnptIOn whIch are together
attached as Exhibit A of this Ordmance, is declared to be vacated.
SectIOn 3: The findings adopted by the CIty Council m support of the alley nght-of-way
vacation are hereby made part of thIS Ordmance by reference.
Section 4: ThIS right-of-way vacatIOn IS subject to the special provisIOn that m the event the
vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for JustIce Center purposes It shall revert to publIc nght-of- ,
way
Section 5: ThIS nght-of-way vacation is subject to the establishment of temporary
easements or lIcenses for eXlstmg utihtles located withm the right-of-way to be mamtamed,
contmued, repaIred, reconstructed, renewed, replaced, rebuilt or enlarged subject to the provisIOns
of said temporary easements or licenses '
SectIOn 6' The C~ty Recorder is directed to file certIfied copies of thIS ordmance 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 ofSpnngfield this
day of
,2007.
-Mayor
, I~~,,~~l~
; ~,,~~~ ..) \.._~~~
_ (..l2.. $' L ~ ~-=L,_
, I!- I
Ordinance
- 2 -
Date Received: 71tb/l7
Planner: AL / I
12-2
..... ~.l ·
ATTEST:
City Recorder
State of Oregon )
) 5S
County of Lane )
Ordinance
This mstrument was acknowledged before me on
by
as
(POSItion)
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON
(Name)
, of the City of Spnngfield
My cOIrnmssion expires:
- 3 -
12-3
Date Received:
Planner: Al
7/;'~t77
/ I
...a .. ...
EXHIBIT A
"I "/UU S') .. 13
... 13800
en
<( . 3 G
<:l
W I'lJ 4
... @O~
>-
<(
~ ....
. ! 17 -03-35-24
~ W
~ 14100 1~ w 14,
<( ~
C- o ~
~ ....
~ 13900 14000 en
w .
(l
W "l 14300 :J:
-
Z 5 6 I-
0 0 ..q
(II ..
..
-
C- ,,~ 7 61:: 8 '-6 5
I J
I RIGHT-OF-WAY I
'3 I
t . ,TO SEVACATED
L: I
I .1
l I
- - ~ 33' r:
66' 4'" 66' .. 66' 66' 33'
;:, 1800 1
0.()
.. 1700 1600 1 500 , V,
I'
0
:::J 0
~
1900 3 2 1
0 :r. t
0.()
....
4 r:'l 4
tl .; ~~2' .J U L:.
:: 17 -03-35-~ 1 .... .,.
- -
r; " R EOI ("',
34' ~
0 0
0 0 2400
.2000 2100 C"J t"1
0 NA\~ Q <:,
(\, ~ ~
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 bemg the Northeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and 8
Street In Springfield, Oregon, thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of 8 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, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield,
said pOint being the Northeast corner of 8 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 74 /
Oate 1~,?\:eived,__.7 hiM?
Ordmance - 4 - 12-4 plaqr:~'H, Al