Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 7/9/2007 ", " . Submittal to the Record City of Springfield Street Vacation Request Case No. LRP 2007-00019 Testimony in opposition July 9, 2007 RECEIVED JUL 0 9 2007 BY: Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P.E. 1127 B Street Springfield Oregon My comments throughout the following testimony are In Aerial 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 criteria the cIty failed to ground those rules in any adopted-land _use policy. The Development Code is the Implementing instrument of the Metro Plan. The Justice Center Project must still be developed In a manner consistent wIth all of the city's land use policy and rules not just the ones the changed to fit their immediate objectives SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA Springfield Development Code (SDC) 9.060(3) establishes criteria for vacatIon of right-of-way where the property will remam in public ownership and will continue to be used for a public purpose. The following findings address each of the criteria. The cIty has added these Criteria to the code thiS year In an attempt to avoid the established criteria for street vacations'. The criteria for street vacations when the use will not be public remain unchanged and reqUire findIngs the vacation is compliant with the follOWing criteria: (a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, or Conceptual Development Plan; (b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and (c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. The vacation of B Street is not consistent with any of the three criteria still applicable to any private development The city has not Justified why a public building can be allowed to compromise the street connectivity but privately owned bUildings could not. What If the proposed street closure was to accommodate a privately owned hospital? The city has implied a higher value to public ownership of property, without any rationale for granting public construction exceptions to the rules. The new Criteria for public Improvements were concocted to accommodate the proposed Justice Center proJect. The amended code critena were adopted without any comprehensive plan policy findings and are not grounded in implementatIon of any land use planning policy. They Page 1 of 14 Date Received: 7/r /l<<J7 Planner: Al I I . ' 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 Inappropnately avoided consideration of the street closurelvacatlon 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 IDconsistency of their proposed street closure. The street vacation should address the original code critena 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 policy 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); Finding 1: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.130(1) reads as follows: "The City governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized lJy ORS 271 080 and make such vacahon 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 setfor hearing, nor if the owners of a majority of the area affected, computed on the basis provided In ORS 271 080, object In Writing thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting property if the vacatIOn will substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the city govermng body provides for paying damages Provision for paying such damages may be made by a local assessment, or in such other manner as the City charter may provide." Finding 2: ORS 271.080(1) provides for vacation of "...all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, publ1c square or other public 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 Findmg 3: The Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action at the regular meeting on May 7, 2007. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is generally depicted and more specifically described in Exhibit A to this staff report. The purpose of the vacation is to retain the segment of vacated public right-of-way m public ownership, and to use the area for construction of a secure police parking lot and ancillary building serving the Justice Center. It can be argued that we value the pnvate 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 policy or that we Wish to maximize public ownership of property By vacating the public nght of way the city is not retaining anything in public Page 2 of 14 Date Received: 7 If k7 Planner: Al I I ownership The public does not own the right of way, they have a perpetual right of use. If vacated the right is terminated and the ownership is unencumbered Once vacated the property could be transferred to private ownership in the future Once he street has been vacated the city can not assure the retention of the property In public ownership Finding 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 Hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. Finding 5. All properties that dIrectly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are owned by the City of Springfield. This finding and the associated Criteria are Irrelevant and unsupported by any identified land use policy. (b) Notice bas been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1); Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.110(1), pubhc hearing notIces were placed in the newspaper of general circulation (The Register Guard) on May 18 and 25,2007. Fi~ding 7: In accordance with 271.110(2), public notice of the proposed right-of-way vacation action was posted at two conspicuous locations immediately adjacent to right-of-way proposed for vacation (at the northeastern corner adjacent to 4th Street, and at the southwestern comer adjacent to Pioneer Parkway East). Finding 8' In accordance with SDC 271.080, adjacent landoWJ;lers and residents/tenants within a 400-foot radius of the 66-foot by 264-foot linear right-of-way proposed for vacatIon were notified by mail Conclusion. The notification provided for the proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (b). Criteria (b) does not address requirements of the Springfield Development Code. The citation to SDC 271.080 in Finding 8 does not exist Again, compliance with state statute minimum requirements for street vacations does not address the city'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 tbe vacation would be consistent witb provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vebicles as provided in OAR 660-0012- 0045(3); Finding 9: As stated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d), "safe and convement' means bIcycle and pedestrian routes, faClbties 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 destinations such as a transit stop and a store, and (C) Meet travel needs of cycbsts and pedestrians conSIdering destination and length of trip, and consldermg that the optimum trIp length of pedestrians is generally % to % mile. ThiS new criteria (c) substitutes the generic definition of the statewide goal for pedestrian and cyclist faCilities for the speCifiCity of the Springfield standards embodied within the city's Development Code. Meeting the minimum requirements for anywhere in the state Page 3 of 14 Date ~eceived: ~/r~7 Planner: Al 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 1 2-0045(3)(d), vacation ofthe 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. Findmg 11: In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacatIOn of the subject right-of-way would not result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehtcle trips that are more than 1f4 mile from bemg a direct route of travel between destination points Figure 1 illustrates approximate travel distances for all potential modes of travel from one side ofthe vacated right-of-way to the other. Should the segment ofB Street be vacated and closed to public travel, the maximum out-of-direction dtstance for passage from the eastern end of the subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end of the right-of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) would be about 600 feet (<118 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 ofthe trip. The out-of-dlrection 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 ofthe mid-block alley for east-west passage IS not a preferred route for vehicles, but is depicted on Figure 1 for dlustrative purposes. The baSIS of optimum pedestrian trip lengths is commonly based upon the 10 minute walking circle which is tYPically assigned a % 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 minute trip and cutting the effective ten minute trip to 1/8 mile. This is not inSignificant in the downtown, Nodal Development zone and the only neighborhood in the city where the streets already conform to the city connectivity and block length standards The closure of 8 Street IS clearly inconsistent With adopted city policy regardless of the street vacation process or criteria. The city has failed to even diSCUSS the street function as a collector street and has Instead focused the diSCUSSion on traffic carrying capacities of the adjacent streets where the traffic Will be diverted One should note that collector and local streets often look Identical The difference IS in the effectiveness of the street system and where publiC investment In traffic carrymg 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 8 Street Finding 12. Provision oftravel 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 parking lots or similar open areas is not considered. Finding 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-direction travel is required for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Nearby examples include portions of A Street east Page 4 of 14 Date Received:-Zj;/.uUJ7 Planner: Al 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 Histonc Dlstnct are the only portions of Springfield with the street gnd essentially Intact is a not a rational reason to start closing streets so it IS more like the less deSIrable and less compliant auto dependent neighborhoods throughout the city The walkable character of the neighborhood is highly valued by many that live and work in the area If the city needs a multi-block compound ther are plenty of locations in the city that will not necessitate the elimination of public ways Fmding 14: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by an independent traffic engineering consultant in support of the proposed right-of-way vacation (Sprmgfield Justice Center Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engineering, July, 2006). The TIA examined the existing and post-vacation street system in the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation to vehicle movements and the performance of nearby intersections. The TIA concluded there would be minimal impact on the downtown transportation system with the proposed vacation of public right-of-way. 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 fail to address the Impact of the one block closure on the function of B Street as a collector street or the functional Impact to the adjacent streets. The Street Functional ClasSIfication Map IS an element of the Metro Plan and a plan amendment IS required to change a street's function. Finding 15: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation also concluded that no traffic mitigation actions would be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the VIcinity of the Justice Center. Among the simplest and most effective measures to structure traffic movements in the area will be strategic placement of directional signage for the Justice Center. The TIA suggests possible measures to discourage traffic from traveling to and from the downtown core using nearby residential streets, including placement of STOP SIgnS at key intersections and installing curb extensions to prevent undesirable turning movements. The best way to avoid diverting traffic into undesirable streets IS to keep the collector street open to traffic instead of storing paper records, stolen bicycles and police vehicles In the street. Once vehicles have left the arterials at either end, their tnps will continue 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 matter what the signs say. Finding 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 within the segment of B Street proposed for vacatIon. Relocation of the bus stop can be done in consultation with Lane Transit District. 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 Page 5 of 14 Date ~eceived' 7/9 IkJ07 I I Planner: Al Conclusion: 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 right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (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 Finding 17: The right-of-way presently contains a two-lane collector street with sidewalks on both sides. Upon vacation ofthe right-of-way, the subject area would be incorporated into the Springfield Justice Center and used for secure police parking. The right-of-way would be closed to all public travel. The Springfield Police Department advises that a secure parking lot - close to the Justice Center building - protects public property (including police vehicles and case evidence stored in the ancillary building) and enhances emergency response times as responding 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 meaningful change in response times can legitimately be made based upon the street closure. If the time to cross the street is of such concern, the city could designate the on street parking adjacent to the facility for police parking and on duty officers responding from the Justice center would have less delay than if they needed to get their vehicle out of a secured compound. Findmg 18: Jerry Smith, Springfield Chief of Police, submitted a memo in support of the proposed right-of-way vacation which reads as follows: The memorandum from the Police Chief in support of the closure of B Street does not prOVide compelling rationale for the closure of a collector street, severing it from the adjacent arterial street. Importance of B Street Closing to the Justice Facibty Project "The purpose of this memo IS to summarIzefor the Planning Commission the importance of closing 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 · Closing B Street is necessary for the security of portIOns of the facility The planned Justice facility mcludes an ancillary building that will be a repository for eVidence m criminal cases; storage for pobce and court records; and storage for specialized police eqUipment and weaponry Closmg B Street will allow the entire anCillary building and parking lot to be fenced m, significantly Improvmg the security of these records and eVidentiary items. Without the security fencmg m place, the ancillary bUilding 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 Page 6 of 14 Date fleceived: 7 /1 /;o1)1__~ I , -- Planner: AL 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. 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 date, Dep..., uuent vehicles and employee parking has not been secured by fenCing. WhIle thIs does not cause sIgnificant Issues during normal working hours, the Department has experzenced damage to fleet vehIcles, and employees have suffered damage to theIr personal vehicles, during late evening and early mornmg hours. Damage has ranged from paint scratches to slashed tires and broken windows 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 police officers and cil1zens: The street closure will allow officers responding to emergency calls from Inside the bUIlding to access their vehicles WIthout crOSSing a publzc rzght of way, thereby reducing the rzsk of an acCIdent during an emergency response During the Planning 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 still capable of responding through the neighborhood at 50 mph in a police cruiser and potentially use deadly force. The police street crossing capabilities are not a meaningful argument for closing B Street. Page 7 of 14 Date Received' ~/~/~()7 Planner: AL The city has strongly opposed any suggested alternatives to street closure throughout the planning process More than once, suggestions to construct an enclosed walkway over the street was met with the response that it could not work since it would be vulnerable to bombing from a vehicle · Closing B Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of municipal jail prisoners' The fenced area will serve as an outdoor holding area for municipal jail prisoners In the event that the jail must be evacuated. Without the street closure and fencing, there will not be an area outside the muniCIpal jaIl adequate and accessIble for holding prisoners Instead, an evacuation event would necessltate the uncontrolled release of all mumcipal JaIl prisoners. " During 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 bUilding. 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 4111 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 prisoners In the unlikelihood that there ever IS an evacuation, an "uncontrolled release of all muniCIpal jail prisoners" would not be necessary, as the city should be able to Identify which Inmates should be held on to as opposed to a general release of all prisoners Even in the rare event (Which is difficult to imagine) when all prisoners would be released, it would not be any different than what IS happening every day at this time in Lane County. The city has failed to demonstrate how the public would benefit In any meaningful way from the closure of 8 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~in area that is large enough for evacuation of jail prisoners in the event of an emergency. Provision 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 8 Street. This need is not supported In the city adopted Functional Space Program for the new Justice Center Finding 20: As noted m the Police Chiefs statement, ensuring responding 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. 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 8 Street safely There could be an over crossing but then it might get bombed. Page 8 of 14 Date Received: 7 /9~1 Planner: AL / / F10ding 21: Passage of the Public Safety ballot measure in 2005 that secured public funding for the Justice Center project demonstrates Springfield residents' commitment to the project. Comparatively few people within the City regularly use the segment ofB Street proposed for vacation. However, all Springfield residents (and visitors) benefit from a strong police presence wIthin the community. The narrow passage of both of these funding measures was about a community pretty evenly split on making offenders accountable addressing serious deficenies 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 use the segment of B 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 Springfield residents let alone "all Springfield residents (and visitors)". In this instance strong police presence seems to mean haVing things their way whether It IS allowed or not or if anyone else objects. This staff finding In particular IS offensive to those who wish to take a more balanced view of how to more appropriately accommodate a Jail and police faCIlity in the core of our community and not be bullied by those with a narrower perspective. Conclusion: Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation serves a greater benefit to the public than retaining the one-block segment of right-of-way 10 its present status. The proposed vacation also provides direct benefits to the City's Pollee Department, which ultimately benefits Springfield 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 critical 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. Finding 22: The vacated right-of-way is to be incorporated into the Justtce Center development, which is a publicly-funded project. Ownership of the Justice Center build10g and the land on which it is to reside (which includes the portion of right-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 right-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 Page 9 of 14 Date Received: -0~ Planner: AL been envIsioned in the land use policy and rules is blind to ownership The same rules apply to private and public projects Finding 23. Upon vacation of the nght-of-way, the land ownership automatIcally reverts to the City as it owns the abutting property. Because the ownership ofthe vacated right-of-way does not pass through a third party (which could occur if there were privately-owned parcels fronting onto the right-of-way), remaining in public ownership is assured. We are considering whether the building belongs In the street, not who should own It. Conclusion. The proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (e). But IS criteria (e) legitimate In the larger planning context? It appears to be a construct In an attempt to avoid addreSSing the legitimate Criteria that Implement the city's adopted land use policy. The city has not made any attempt to make a balanced evaluation of the vacation and I 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 inGornpl~te and failed-to prOVide supporting eVidence addressing the approval Criteria In fact they do not even identify the cnteria. Similar applications from the private sector woulcf 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 merits of my concerns. The following staff response to my Planning Commission testimony further demonstrates the city's commitment to closing B Street without regard to what is or IS not consistent With their overall plans for the area. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES Nine people provided testimony at the Planning 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 staffwish to address here. Page 10 of 14 Date ~e6e'\1ed:~d'1 -=> Planner: Al Statement 1. "I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during the project development process which considered tradeoff in the functional and space program with the associated site constraints." Staff Response: The site planning for the Justice Center project examined a wide variety of desIgn options including underground parking, orientation of the jail and police/courts building onto different streets, expansion to adjacent (not cIty-owned) properties, and possible alternate sites in the downtown area (again, not city-owned). About 15 possible site plan options were initially 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 examined during the preliminary site planmng 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 functron. 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, Inunediately 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 ofB 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. Staff Response: A portion ofB Street from 14th Street to Pioneer Parkway East (approximately 4,400 lineal feet) was rehabilitated in 1997 at a total cost of$759,676.11 (Project #1-882). The apportioned project cost for the subject one-block area (approximately 300 feet or 7% ofthe 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 obtain more timely state funding ($376,000) for the entire project. Based on the lineal footage, the state-funded portIOn of the 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 direct federal involvement with the B Street upgrade project and the city would not be required to repay any government agency - state or federal- ifthe one block segment of the street is closed to public traffic Additionally, the remaining I3 blocks ofB Street from the intersection of 4th Street to 14th Street are not affected by the proposed vacation and will remain 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 Page 11 of 14 Date; Received:. ~/i.2aT;1 Planner: Al '- 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 CommerciallNodal Development to Public Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUCINDO District. None of the staff reports reviewing the proJect's 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 PLOINDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at the time 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 in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District at the time voters approved the concept of having a large-scale facility combining police, law courts and municipal jail constructed in Springfield. However, key components of the Justice Center, including courts, admimstrative offices and publIc offices (including detention facilities) are individually listed in the PLO and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) Districts, 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 in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) for interpreting 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 desirable 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 adoptmg necessary Development Code amendments once the project fundmg was secured, and prior to selecting a preferred SIte option. The Code amendments were adopted through standard, state-mandated public procedures that involve public notification, public hearings 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 public review and land use approval step. Approval ofthe Discretionary Use - allowing for further consideration of a Justice Center at the selected location - was granted by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 (Case DRC2006-000 13) after a public hearing. When the Justice Center site option was selected by City Council, the 14 City-owned tax lots within the footprmt ofthe 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 zoning for the entire project site (Case ZON2006-00007). The rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 after a public hearing. My comments related to the addition of Justice Centers to the allowed use in the Development Code were intended to pOint out that the presumption that this could be done In a manner consistent With the district standards and compatible With other uses had not been established when the city asked voters to approve funding the construction of the faCility at that location. I was not objecting to the process, but that by adding the use to those allowed it IS ImpliCit that the facility can be constructed In a manner that respects the constraints and city building requirements in that location Page 12 of 14 Date Received:.uflfpoo7 Planner: Al / I , . Statement 4: "The city has failed 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 facihty and its relattonship to downtown Springfield'. 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 indicated a desire to work on appropriate alternatives Staff Response' Mr. Olson IS critical of the 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 planning issues affecting the Justice Center. This does not necessarily mean, however, that all recommendattons ofthe CAC or its individual members have been adopted by the Justice Center Project Team, the Planning Commission or City Council. In his testtmony, 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 meetings, information sessions, newspaper advertIsements, media announcements, City website postings, and neighborhood mail-outs over the 18+ month period since the Justice Center project was formally initiated. A list of public meetings for the Justice Center project (from preliminary dIscussions through to final site selection and buildmg design) IS attached to this staff report as information (Attachment 6). The public meetings discussed above do not include at least seven formal land use actions undertaken to facilitate the Justice Center project, all of which required public notification (see Table I below). Additionally, at his request, Mr. Olson has been personally notified of public hearmgs pertaming to the Justice Center, partIcularly the B Street vacation. Despite the numerous mall outs, advertised public hearings and multiple land use actions that have occurred up to this point - all of which have made overtures for public and stakeholder involvement - Mr Olson is among the few individuals that have submitted any testimony in oppOSItion to the Justice Center project. None of the land use actions approved to this point 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 Public Hearings November 1,2005; November 28, add "Justice Center" to Article 2:32005; 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 DRC2006-00013 Public Hearings March 21 & Apri118, 2006 300-foot mail out notification to neighborhood Vacation of mId-block alley LRP2006-000 19 Public Hearings 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 has never appropriately prOVided any opportunity to even discuss the options. Instead the process has been orchestrated and controlled to move the original concept forward. Every alternative considered was more expensive than the street closure option and no tradeoffs from the Functional Space Program were ever offered or considered in public. 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 is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventmg future city councils from selling the property to a private party. Page 13 of 14 Date Received: Planner: AL 7;0/ /.1P07 I / .. ~ . Staff Response: Again, this statement is not entirely true or false. The City has latitude in its use of public right-of-way and could close the street to public travel temporarily or permanently without vacating the nght-of-way The Justice Center project IS intended to be a long-term (50+ year) occupant ofthe selected site However, to address this issue, a clause has been Inserted in the enabling ordinance that causes the vacated area to revert to public right-of-way in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes (Attachment 9). The street will be gone and the traffic patterns ree~tabllshed, 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 hospital being proposed. Public ownership should not change the overall character of what IS planned and deSired for thiS neighborhood Statement 6: "The street vacation cannot meet any of the three cnteria previously established In the code. Staff Response: The "previous" criteria referred to by Mr. Olson have been superseded by Development Code amendments to Article 9 (Vacations) criteria adopted April 2, 2007. The subject vacation request was submitted after the criteria came into 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 policy or the Development Code. During 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 during 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 closing B Street. Inserting new street vacation cntena 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:~~07 Planner: Al