Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments ENG 6/12/2007 (2) ~ t'. ~: ~, -- Submittal to the Record City of Springfield Street Vacation Request Case No. LRP 2007-00019 Testimony in opposition June 12, 2007 Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E. 1127 B Street Springfield Oregon . RE(;~J[VED JUN 1 2 Z007 BY: (JeP( -, I have been involved with the planning and development of the urban form for more than 30 years. I feel privileged to live and work within SIX blocks of Springfield's City Hall I am attracted here In part by the potential we have to make Springfield even better than it already is. The fact that our street gnd IS stili largely intact is essentIal to my feelings about this area and Its future. We are considering development of a Justice Center In a highly sensitive location at the Interface ~tween our prized histoncal 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 grid 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 activities we place there and how those activities 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 compatrble mix of activities and their interrelationships that must guide the decision making process. We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element. If 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 plannrng 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 plannrng has somehow become reversed and is asking us how we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate the proJect instead of how can the project be developed to fit the area's plans. I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to conSIder any altematives during the project development process which considered tradeoffs in the functional and space program with the aSSOCiated site constraints. Placement of a lower cost ancllla'Y building within a street nght of way is an example. I do not see how this project can be made feasible at the selected site unless the elements that have been lumped into the building program can be open to discussion and reconsideration. Date Received' t /;;'/).007 Planner: AL / I ~ , ~. When consldenng the siting of a justice center In downtown Springfield we should ask two questions; 1) How does including this activity contnbute to the desired vitality of the area? And 2) How does the facility contribute to our overall sense of place? If thiS project requires a three block area without intervemng streets then we are looking 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 Integrity of our publiC ways and spaces, then It simply needs to be located elsewhere If concessions need to be made they should to be In the functional requirements of the new facility, not the function of the neighborhood and greater community. This area IS evoMng and the nght things Will happen if we are patient and responsive when opportunity presents Its self. We may have an opportunity before us now. We must not be short sited and sacrifice the integnty of the greater community to accommodate the infleXIble reqUirements of City staff. The publiC has ve'Y 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 with many others wo"y that our local efforts to solve what has become a criSIS in the Lane County criminal justice system may be confounding the problems and aggravating a more holistic regional solution. I wonder how many others of the 53% of voters that supported the bond measure were unaware as I was that the new Jail would not do anything with the felony offenders accounting for 85% of Spnngfield's 2004 charges. The felony criminals will continue through the Lane County revolving door while Springfield 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 with decent faCilities I also believe that those activities could contribute to the vitality of the downtown if sited with sensitivity to the requirements of the larger community and neighborhood. If the Justice Center is to be built In the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it fit in and to contribute to the greater function of the area while respecting the historical framework of its public ways. If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a site better sutted to the secunty and space requirements whICh were imposed upon all of the alternatives considered in the project development process. The city Inappropriately presumed In the development of the preliminary planning and cost estimating that the street right of ways were available for incorporating into the new Justice Center Facility. The fact that the pOSSibility of street closures was mentioned in the ballot measure does not have any meaning in the context of the land use approval for this project, or exempt 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 artenal at B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing Scott E Olson, P E 2 Date Received: Planner: AL 6 j; ;,/uo 7 I / . r ;" ... Pioneer Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer function as a collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for the federal investment in the street improvements. The value of B Street both In terms of Improvements and function has not been considered in City decisions to pursue the street closure. The value of the investment the public made in improving B Street in 2007 construction costs IS over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city could be obligated to repay the federal govemment 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 arterial street system which has been designed to accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting property as local streets do. Further, the street grid IS almost entirely mtact In this area of Springfield. No other neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectiVity as eXists In thiS hlstoncal core of the Springfield communrty 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 warmmg 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 Springfield The City approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Development to Public Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed In the MUC/NDO District None of the staff reports revieWing the projects history have mentioned the fact that several months prior to making the zone change application the city added Justice Centers as an allowed use In the 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 appropriately prOVide for public Involvement in a meanrngful way throughout the planning process. A cItizen adVISOry committee, (CAC) was formed "to provide Input throughout the deSign process m regard to outward deSign of the facIlity and ItS relationship to downtown Springfield". I volunteered for the CAC and dunng my interview for the position I Informed the city counCil of my opinion wrth respect to the street closure and Indicated a deSire to work on appropriate alternatives. City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program prior to formation of the 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 hearing or any changes to the consultant's recommendations. The public was not prOVided any opportunity to participate in what was being included in the project. Later in the process every alternative conSidered Incorporated all of the elements of the space program. Ultimately all of the alternatives exceeded the project available funds but the closure of B Street was the lowest cost alternative conSidered That alternative was supported by a majority of the CAC and ultimately adopted by the city counCil B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing Scott EDison, P E 3 Date Received: Planner: AL "}:Z-P007 / / ,. ,. 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 meanrngful consideration has been given to altematlves to closing B Street. ThiS effort has resulted in a failure to comply with Goal 1 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 hearing the police chief stated more than once that if officers responding to an emergency must cross the street to reach their vehicles, ultimately one is going to be so distracted with responding that they will run in front of a car and be hit One must question the wisdom of such statements when we are trusting that same Individual to get in a police crUiser and dnve 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-crosslng of B Street have been rebuffed by police statements that such a faCility would be vulnerable to driVing under it with a bomb. We also need secure parking for the police to prevent keying of their personal vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem to justify sacrificing 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 Police 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 primary evacuation plan The city has modified the code criteria for a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the inconsistency With this project and the adopted land use policy. The critena tailored specifically to get thiS project around the land use policy impedIments to desired street closure are not grounded In any adopted land use policy and are vague and misleading In the intent Ensuring that the vacated property will remain in public ownership inappropriately assumes that the publiC Interest is better served by maximIZing public property ownership of opposed to protecting the publics legitImate interests the function of the right of way Technically the public does not own the right of way, but has an Interest In the use for street purposes. The city can not ensure continues public ownership because It does not own the property until it is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventing future city councils from selling the property to a private party Substituting pedestrian and bicycle connection criteria from the states OAR, the minrmum 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 trip length IS not conSistent with accepted pedestnan plannrng pnnciples. B Street Vacation, TestImony Opposing Scott E. Olson, P E 4 Date Received: t/L-/z{}e;7 Planner: ALII ~ I ~, ..~ Further "Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retainrng the right-of-way In its present status" lacks any criteria or measures grounded In any adopted public policy and are purposefully vague and amorphous It is clearly a relatively crude attempt to avoid complying With the land use poliCies of the city. The street vacation can not meet any of the three cnteria 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 Transportatron System Plan, the Zoning DIstrict, the Nodal Development Overlay, and the Code Critena. The criteria related to the street closure have not been addressed during the zone change, the discretionary use approval, the site review, and now the street vacation. Somewhere in the approval process the CIty must confront these Issues. There IS no variance that makes these policies go away. The city staff has the hierarchy of the project planning criteria 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 Date Received: ;/f07 Planner: Al