Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 12/26/2007 ..' I' SUITE 0, 223 A STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 (541) 746-9621 FAX (541) 746-4109 WWW CI spnngfleld or us December 26/ 2007 Land Use Board o~ Public Utlllo/,...~lJlllsslon BUilding 550 Caplto~::t NE salem~ 97301-2552 R~/ Scott E. Olson v. City of Spnngfield / LUBA No 2007-201 Enclosed please find the onglnal and four copies of Respondent City of Spnngfield's Bnef for filing In the above referenced appeal matter. Sincerely, LEAHY & COX, LLP \ \ LfC.A\.+--\ ~ c>,~\~ -.l Joseph J. Leahy JJL:rdg Enclosure cc: ~dy Llmblrd (wjenc.) Scott Olson, Petitioner (wjenc.) Dat( J Hecelved /;../u. ho/J7 Pianner AL / I "~7{t&~" 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,~ TABLE OF CONTENTS I PETITIONER'S STANDING 1 3 II STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 A Nature ofthe Land Use DeCISIOns and Relief Sought by PetitIOner 1 B Summary of Arguments 1 1 The decIsIOn complies wIth the applicable cntena for vacatIOn ofnght-of-way where the property will remam m public ownershIp and will contmue to be used for a public purpose 1 2 The CIty made adquesate findmgs m support of the vacatIOn declSlon 2 3 The CIty has conducted the proceedmgs m a fau and lmparatIOn manner 2 4 Substantial eVIdence Issues are not presented m thIS appeal 3 C Summary of Matenal Facts 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 III JURISDICTION 8 IV RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 8 A Standard of RevIew 8 B Request for OffiCial NotIce 9 C FIrst AssIgnment of Error 10 1 The CIty'S pnor land use declSlons are not subject to JudIcIal reVIew 10 2 The pnor cntena were amended and therefore are not applicable 11 3 The applicable cntena do not reqmre compliance wIth the street's functIOnal classIficatIOn, street connectivIty reqmrements, or maxImum block length standards 12 D Second AssIgnment of Error 16 1 PetItIOner falls to present a sufficIently developed argument for reVIew under thIS assIgnment of error 16 2 The vacatiOn declSlon IS supported by adequate findmgs 17 3 The CIty properly found that approval of the vacatiOn would be consIstent WIth SDC 9060(3)(c) 18 4 The CIty properly applied and mterpreted SDC 9 060(3)(d), concemmg public benefit 23 E Thud AssIgnment of Error 25 1 The CIty properly exercIsed ItS authonty to lmtiate a vacatIOn proceedmg 25 2 The CIty dId not exhIbIt any biaS and/or partiality 26 3 The CIty complied wIth StatewIde Plannmg Goal 1 27 F Substantial EVIdence Issues 27 V CONCLUSION 32 Datf" ~ecelved. /2./.2-1 joo 7 Plannf?r AL ~ / - , .; 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 1000 Frzends of Or v MarlOn County, 116 Or App 584 (1992) 1000 Frzends of Or v Wasco County Court, 304 Or 76 (1987) Barton v City of Lebanon, 193 Or App 114 (2004) Choban v Washmgton County, 25 Or LUBA 572 (1993) Church v Grant County, 187 Or App 518 (2003) Clark v Jackson County, 313 Or 508 (1992) Claus v City of Sherwood, 35 Or LUBA 437 (1999) Cole v Columbw County, 28 Or LUBA 62 (1994) Deschutes Development v Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218 (1982) DLCD v CIty of Warren ton, 37 Or LUBA 933 (2000) DLCD v Klamath County, 24 Or LUBA 643 (1993) EcklS v Lmn County, 110 Or App 309 (1991) Fasano v Washmgton County, 264 Or 574 (1973) Frewmg v City ofTzgard, 47 Or LUBA 331 (2004) Frzends ofNeabeack HIll v CIty of PhIlomath, 139 Or App 39 (1996) Green v Hayward, 275 Or 693 (1976) Halvorson Mason Corp v CIty ofDepoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702 (2001) Kmg CIty Rehab, LLC v Clackamas County, 214 Or App 333 (2007) Langfordv CIty of Eugene, 26 Or LUBA 60 (1993), rev'd 126 Or App 52 (1994) Le Roux v Malheur County, 30 Or LUBA 268 (1995) Manne Street LLC v City of Astorza, 37 Or LUBA 587 (2000) Mazeskl v Wasco County, 28 Or LUBA 178 (1994) McNern v CorvallIs, 39 Or LUBA 591 (2001) NeIghbors for LIvabIlzty v CIty of Beaverton, 168 Or App 501 (2000) Neuenschwander v Cty of Ashland, 20 Or LUBA 144 (1990) Or Entertamment Corp v City of Beaverton, 172 Or App 361 (2001) Or Shores ConservatIOn CoalztlOn v Curry County, 53 Or LUBA 503 (2007) O'Shea v Bend, 49 Or LUBA 498 (2005) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31 26 11 25 9 9 22 13 16,26 9,10 10 27 18 26 17, 19 18 26 13 13 18 20,25 31 22 16 16 28 17 26 Datn MeCGIVed /z/.lh /2<<l1 Planner Al I I 11 10 11 1 PGE v Bureau of Labor and Industrzes, 317 Or 606 (1993) Root v Clty of Medford, 35 Or LUBA 814 (1998) Stoloff v Clty of Portland, 51 Or LUBA 560 (2006) 8,9 8 28 2 3 Strawberry HIlls Fourwheelers v Benton County Board ofCommzsslOners, 287 Or 591 4 (1979) 8 SunnysIde NeIghborhood v Clackamas Co Comm, 280 Or 3 (1977) 18 Wade v Lane County, 20 Or LUBA 369 (1990) 27 Wetherell v Douglas County, 209 Or App 1 (2006) 28 Wzlbur ResIdents for a Clean NeIghborhood v Douglas County, 37 Or LUBA 156 (1999) 9 5 6 7 8 9 Woodard v Clty of Cottage Grove, LUBA Nos 2006-055,2006-056 and 2006-057 (2007) Younger v Clty of Portland, 305 Or 346 (1988) 26 28,31 12 STATUTES 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORS 197 015(1)(a)(A) ORS 197610 ORS 197615 ORS 197 625(1)(a) ORS 197829 ORS 197 829(2) ORS 197 830(2) ORS 197 830(9) ORS 197835 ORS 197835(1) ORS 197 835(2)(a) ORS 197 835(9)(a)(C) ORS 227 178(3)(a) ORS 227 178(c) ORS 271 080 ORS 271 130(1) 8 5 5 5, 12 8,9 9 1 12,17 22 11 9 27,28 12 17 25 25 1:L/Z6 ;{.~7 I /~. - 111 Dakl Received Planner Al ,) . RULES 2 OAR 660-012-0045(3) 3 OAR 660-015-0000(1) Oregon EVIdence Code 202 4 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES 6 2001 Spnngfield Charter Ordmance No 6133 7 Ordmance No 6191 8 Ordmance No 6207 9 SDC 32 020(1 )(b) 10 SDC 9 060 11 SDC 9 060(3) SDC 9 060(3)(a) 12 SDC 9 060(3)( c ) 13 SDC 9 060(3)(d) 14 SDC 41 010 15 APPENDIX 16 Spnngfield Downtown Area V IcmIty Maps 17 SDC 9 060 Pnor to Amendment SDC 9 060 18 SDC 9 060 DepIctmg Amendment 19 2001 Sprmgfield Charter 20 SDC 32 020(1 )(b) 21 22 23 24 25 20,21,28 27 10 10, 12 11 1,5, 11, 12 6,19 12, 15 1,2,4,5, 11, 12, 13, 14 2,13,17 25 18,20,28 23,25,28,29 15 App 1 - 4 App 5 - 9 App 10 -15 App 16 App 17 - 19 App 20-22 IV Datf'l Received fl.-hi ~7 Planner Al I / ' '. 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " . RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S BRIEF I. PETITIONER'S STANDING 3 Respondent CIty of Spnngfield ("CIty") accepts the standmg of PetItIoner Scott E Olson because PetItlOner satIsfied the notIce of mtent and appearance reqmrements set 5 forth m ORS 197830(2) 6 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7 A. Nature of the Land Use DecIsions and Relief Sought by PetItIOner 8 The subject oftms appeal IS the CIty'S NotIce of DecIslOn dated September 18, 9 2007 (LRP2007-00019), whiCh approved the vacatlOn of a pubhc street nght-of-way Rec 11 More specIfically, tms land use decIslOn authonzes the vacatlOn of a one-block segment ofB Street between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East to be used for the purpose of the CIty of Spnngfield's JustIce Center facIhty, whIch mcludes a pohce statlOn, Jail and mumcIpal court ld PetItIoner seeks reversal oftms decIsIOn B. Summary of Arguments 1. The deCISIon complIes with the applIcable CrIterIa for vacatIOn of rIght-of- way where the property will remam in publIc ownership and wIll contmue to be used for a publIc purpose. Most of PetitIOner's arguments collaterally attack pnor legislatIve and quasl- JudIclalland use declSlons that were not appealed The CIty'S declSlon approvmg vacatIOn of a pubhc street nght-of-way IS the only land use declSlon challenged by PetitIoner Pet Br 1 As such, the CIty'S pnor land use deCISIOns are not at Issue on appeal, and therefore are not subject to dIrect or collateral attack m thiS proceedmg Sprmgfield Development Code ("SDC") 9 060 sets forth the cntena for approval of vacatIOns The pnor crItena cIted m PetItIOner's BrIef, Pet Br 5, were superseded by a code amendment adopted on Apnl 2, 2007, and took effect on May 2, 2007, the effectIve date ofOrdmance No 6191 Rec 773 The CIty submitted ItS vacatlOn Datel Received /)..1.u~()7 Plann~r AL I / .{ . ~ 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apphcatIOn on May 11, 2007 Rec 715 Therefore, the amended cntena rather than the pnor cntena are apphcable to the vacatIOn deCISIOn that IS the subJect of thIs appeal It 3 follows that PetitIOner's contentIOn that the City has failed to comply with the pnor 4 crIterIa under SDC 9 060 IS not relevant to thIS analysIs 5 As desCrIbed m the Staff Reports and Fmdmgs to the Sprmgfield Common 6 CounCIl and SprIngfield Plannmg CommlsslOn, the CIty'S vacatlOn declSlon comphes 7 with SDC 9 060(3), the apphcable cntena of approval for vacatIOn of nght-of-way where 8 the property Will remam m pubhc ownership and wIll contmue to be used for a pubhc 9 purpose The cntena do not reqmre consideratIOn of the functlOnal classlficatlOn of the street, street connectivity, or maximum block length However, the City addressed these Issues throughout ItS analYSIS and findmgs m support of the vacatlOn declSlon 2. The City made adequate findmgs in support of the vacatIOn declSlon. PetItlOner's arguments mcorrectly assume that cntena apphcable to vacatlOns for pnvate purposes are apphcable to thIS vacatlOn, which was for a pubhc purpose The CIty'S findmgs adequately address the applIcable cntena The CIty properly determmed that vacatlOn serves the greater publIc mterest 3. The City has conducted the proceedings m a fair and Impartial manner. PetItIOner has not cited any statute, rule, or constItutlOnal baSIS for hIS claim of biaS, and the Board cannot develop hiS argument for him The City has not exhIbIted any bias or partialIty The CIty has provided numerous opportunitIes for meanmgful publIc partiCIpatIOn and comment, and therefore has complIed wIth the letter as well as the spmt of StateWIde Plannmg Goal 1, even though that goal IS not apphcable to the subJect deCISIOn 2 Date Received Planner AL 1.2.126~C07 I I -' ..', 1 4. SubstantIal eVIdence Issues are not presented m this appeal. 2 PetItlOner has not raised the substantIal eVidence Issue under any of hIS 3 assIgnments of error or with respect to any particular findmgs Therefore, all findmgs 4 must be presumed to be supported by substantial eVidence m the whole record 5 Notwlthstandmg PetItlOner's faIlure to raise thiS Issue, Respondent proVIdes cItatlOns to 6 substantial eVidence m the record Resp Br 26-30 7 C. Summary of Material Facts 8 Respondent accepts the PetltlOner's summary of matenal facts With the exceptlOn 9 of the followmg additIOns and clanficatIOns 10 A copy of the subJect deCISIon IS aVaIlable at Rec 23-32, and IS attached to the 11 PetItIOn for ReVIew A graphIC of the vacatlOn area IS mcluded m the deClSlon at Rec 15 12 See also Rec 124 and 127 (provldmg graphIC IllustratlOns of downtown Spnngfield) 13 These and other graphICS from the record are attached to thIS bnef for convement 14 reference Resp Br, App 1-4 15 The CIty'S findmgs accurately descnbe the vacatlOn deCISion as follows 16 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 17 18 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 lIes on the boundary between Tax Maps 17-03-35-24 and 17-03-35-31 19 BACKGROUND 20 25 The publIc nght-of-way proposed for vacatlOn IS part of the downtown grId street system, and was created WIth plattmg of the Map of Spnngfield (later referred to as the "Extended Survey of Spnngfield") 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 rIght-of-way All of the parcels With frontage on the subject nght-of- way are presently used as parkmg lots for the pub he, City employees and the Spnngfield Pohce Department Site Plan approval for the Spnngfield JustIce Center was Issued July 25,2006 and offiCial groundbreakmg for constructIOn IS to be mltIated on June 28, 2007 The approved plan for the Justice Center bUIldmg IS not dependent upon the subJect nght-of-way area 21 22 23 24 3 Date ReCeived. /2/~ ~"7 Planner. AL I / ' ;. 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " . 1 WIthIn the downtown area, B Street extends from MIll Street east to 16th Street, a dIstance of about 16~clty blocks or 6120 feet (1 16 miles) The one- block segment of nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn IS 264 feet long and compnses approximately 4% of the length ofB Street (Attachment 2) (Rec 109) 3 4 Over the past two years, the City of SprIngfield has taken several actIOns related 5 to the JustIce Center proJect These actIOns mclude amendments to Downtown 6 Refinement Plan (Oct 7,2005) (LRP2005-00026, Vol XII, Rec 3864-4216), 7 amendment to Metro Plan dIagram (Oct 7,2005) (LRP2005-00027, Vol XI, Rec 3749- 8 3863), code amendment to Article 23 PLO Dlstnct (Feb 6,2006) (LRP2005-00031, Vol 9 VIII, Rec 2319-2644), vacatIOn of alley (Sept 18,2006) (LRP2006-00019, Vol V, Rec 1097-1491), zone change from MUCINDO to PLOINDO (Apr 18,2006) (ZON2006- 00007, Vol VII, Rec 2098-2318), dlscretlOnary use (Apr 18,2006) (DRC2006-00013, Vol VI, Rec 1492-2097), amended site plan review (July 25, 2006) (DRC2006-00033, Vol IV, Rec 953-1096), MDS for JustIce Center Generator (Jan 8,2007) (DRC2006- 00090, Vol III, Rec 932-52), code amendment to Article 9 VacatIOns (Apr 2,2007) (LRP 2007-00002, Vol II, Rec 770-931), and vacatIOn of pubhc nght-of-way (Sept 17, 2007) (LRP 2007-00019, Vol I, Rec 1-769) Rec 351 Only the last declSlon, wmch IS the subJect of this proceedmg, was appealed The tImmg of the code amendment to ArtIcle 9 VacatIOns (LRP 2007-00002, Vol II, Rec 770-931) and the vacatIOn of publIc nght-of-way (LRP 2007-00019, Vol I, Rec 1- 7 69) are partIcularly relevant to thiS appeal The Sprmgfield Common Councll mltIated an amendment to the Spnngfield Development Code Article 9 VacatlOns, SubsectIOn 9 060, on January 22, 2007, to establIsh new cntena to apply to CounCil Imtlated vacatIOns of pubhc nght-of-way where the nght-of-way Will be retamed m publIc ownersmp but used for an alternatIve pubhc purpose Rec 915 The purpose of the proposed code amendment was to create exclUSive approval cntena for conSIderatIOn 4 Date Received. /2../2thotJ7 Planner AL ' / . ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . " of vacatIOns where the publIc nght-of-way WIll remam m publIc ownership and Will 2 contmue to be used by the publIc for another publIc purpose Rec 791 and 794 3 On March 13,2007, the Plannmg CommiSSIOn conducted a publIc hearmg on the 4 proposed amendment Rec 835 and 871-72 After consldenng the staff report and 5 wntten pubhc testImony, the Plannmg CommISSIOn adopted a recommendatIOn of 6 approval and dIrected ItS recommendatIOn to be forwarded to the Common Council Rec 7 788 and 835 The Common CouncIl held a publIc hearmg and first readmg of the 8 proposed amendment on March 19,2007 Rec 835 On Apnl2, 2007, the CouncIl 9 conducted a pubhc hearmg and second readmg of the proposed amendment, durmg whIch It adopted an ordmance (Ordmance No 6191) amendmg Article 9, SectIOn 9 060 of the Sprmgfield Development Code by a vote of 4 m favor to 2 opposed Rec 773-74 and 810 A copy of the ordmance pnor to amendment appears at Resp Br, App 5-9, and a copy of the ordmance after amendment appears at Resp Br, App 10-15 A copy of the ordmance deplctmg the amendment changes appears at Resp Br, App 16 The City then submItted a Notice of AdoptIOn to the Department of Land ConservatIOn and Development (DLCD) on Apnl5, 2007 Rec 784-97 On Apnll2, 2007, the CIty received a NotIce of Adopted Amendment from DLCD Rec 770 Because no one filed a notIce of mtent to appeal wlthm the 21-day penod under ORS 197 830(9), the code amendment was conSidered ack..l1owledged by DLCD on Apnl 26, 2007 See ORS 197610, 197615 and 197 625(1)(a) Two parties submitted wntten comments durmg the code amendment proceedmgs See Rec 879 and 896-97 However, neIther thIs declSlon nor the other earlIer declSlons related to the JustIce Center project were appealed Rec 391 5 Date ~ecelved /;!/5 lhod 7 Planner. AL I / , '" 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,', With respect to the vacatlOn decIsIOn that IS the subJect of this appeal (see Vol I, 2 Rec 1-769), the Common Council mltIated the vacatlOn of a one-block length of B Street 3 between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East on May 7, 2007 Rec 458 The City then 4 submitted Its applIcatIOn on May 11,2007 Rec 715 On June 5, 2007 and June 19, 5 2007, the Plannmg CommISSion held two quasI-Judicial heanngs to receive publIc 6 testImony and consIder the vacatIOn proposal Rec 458 and 640 At the June 19th 7 hearmg, the Plannmg CommISSIOn adopted a recommendatIon of approval m support of 8 the proposed vacatlOn to be forwarded to the Common CouncIl Rec 455 and 578 9 The Common CounCIl then held a pubhc hearmg and first readmg of the proposed amendment on July 2, 2007, dunng which the CouncIl receIved publIc testImony Rec 382 Followmg thIs hearmg, the pubhc record was held open for wntten testImony untIl July 9, 2007 Rec 95 On July 16, the Common CouncIl conducted a quasI-JudicIal hearmg and second readmg of the proposed vacatlOn, and dIrected City staff to prepare findmgs and conclusIOns m support ofthe vacatIOn actlOn Rec 33 and 108 On September 17, 2007, the Common CounCIl held another pubhc meetmg, durmg which the CouncIl adopted findmgs and conclusIOns m support of an ordmance (Ordmance No 6207) vacatmg a one-block segment of B Street between 4th Street and PIOneer Parkway East Rec 23-32 and 33 On September 18,2007, the City Issued ItS NotIce of DeclslOn regardmg the City's deCISIOn approvmg the vacatlOn ofB Street Rec 10-22 PetItIOner's Notice of Intent to Appeal was filed on October 9, 2007 Rec 5-9 The record shows that PetItIOner was mvolved throughout the proceedmgs leadmg up to the subJect deCISIon Mr Olson has served as a member of the CItizen AdVISOry CommIttee for the JustIce Center The CAC has met over a dozen tImes smce the proJect mceptIOn to diSCUSS the vanous site plannmg Issues affectmg the Justice Center ThIS does not necessarIly mean, however, that all recommendatIOns of the CAC or ItS mdlvldual members have been adopted by the JustIce Center 6 Date; f~ecelved. 12.../2&407 . / Planner AL l. 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ". ProJect Team, the PlannIng CommissIOn or CIty Council In hiS testlmony, Mr Olson acknowledges that the maJonty of CAC members voted m favor of the site deSign optIOn eventually selected by CIty Council In additIOn to the regular CAC meetmgs, there have been numerous publIc open house meetmgs, mformatIOn seSSlOns, newspaper advertisements, medIa announcements, CIty webslte postmgs, and neIghborhood mall-outs over the 18+ month penod smce the Justice Center proJect was formally Imtmted A lIst of pub he meetmgs for the Justice Center proJect (from prelImmary diSCUSSIOns through to final sIte selectIOn and bUIldmg deSign) IS attached to thIs staff report as mformatIOn (Attachment 6) 8 The pubhc meetmgs discussed above do not mclude at least seven formal land use actlOns undertaken to faclhtate the Justice Center proJect, all ofwmch reqUIred pubhc notificatIOn (see Table 1 below) Addltlonally, at hiS request, Mr Olson has been personally notIfied of publIc hearmgs pertammg to the JustIce Center, particularly the B Street vacatIOn Despite the numerous maIlouts, advertised publIc hearmgs and multIple land use actIOns that have occurred up to thIS pomt - all of which have made overtures for publIc and stakeholder mvolvement - Mr Olson IS among the few mdlvlduals that have submitted any testlmony m opposItIon to the Justlce Center proJect None of the land use actions aDD roved to thIS Domt have been annealed. (Rec 391 (emphaSIS added)) PetItIOner appeared dunng the vacatIOn proceedmgs through both pubhc testlmony and written comments PetitIOner offered publIc testlmony at the Plannmg CommlsslOn hearmg on June 5, 2007 Rec 566 Petltloner also submitted publIc testlmony at the Common CounCIl heanng on July 2, 2007 Rec 369 In additIOn, PetltIOner requested that hIS written comments preVIOusly submitted dunng the zone change and discretIOnary use proceedmgs be mcluded m the record (Rec 486-501), and submitted addltlonal written comments that speCifically address the vacatIOn deCISIOn dated June 12,2007, and July 12,2007 Rec 518-22 and 332-45 Summanes of PetltlOner's and other mdlvlduals' wntten comments and the CIty'S responses, excerpted above, were prepared as attachments to the Agenda Item Summary for the Common Councll's July 2nd and September 17th meetmgs Rec 390-92 and 45-64 7 Datel Received 1ft ~07 Planner AL ;"'" :. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I . III. JURISDICTION 2 Respondent acknowledges that LUBA has JUrISdictIOn over this matter for the 3 reasons stated m PetItIOner's Bnef Further, city street vacatIOn declSlons that are ,!lso 4 land use deCISIOns as defined by ORS 197 015(11)(a)(A) should be revIewed by LUBA 5 as land use decIsions Root v Cay of Medford, 35 Or LUBA 814, 819 (1998) 6 IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 A. Standard of ReVIew 8 The vacatIOn deCISIOn IS quaSI-JudIcIal because It apphes general standards and 9 cntena to a speCific set of facts to determme the conformance of the facts to the apphcable cntena and results m a determmatlon that will directly affect a small number of IdentIfiable persons and that mvolves the exerCIse of discretIOn Strawberry HIlls Fourwheelers v Benton County Board of Com mISS lOners, 287 Or 591, 601 P2nd 769 (1979) As explamed below, PetItlOner does not assert under any of hIS assignments of error that the subJect decIsIOn IS unsupported by substanttal eVIdence or that It VIOlates any constitutIOnal proVISIOn PetttIOner's assignments of error are either arguments With the eVidence or are based on cntena that are s!tgply mapplIcable to the deCISIOn The questIOns presented, msofar as they are adequately presented, are questlOns of law LUBA's mterpretatIOn of state law follows the methodology outlIned m PGE v Bureau of Labor and Industrzes, 317 Or 606,610-12,859 P2d 1143 (1993), except as modified by ORS 197 829 The template set out m PGE IS applIed by the courts and LUBA m cases where It IS necessary to mterpret the meanmg of statutes and other legislatIOn In thiS case, the City's goverillng body dId not have to proceed past the first level of analYSIS under PGE, as to which the Supreme Court says that "the text of the statutory provlslOn 8 Date! Received l2..h6~7 Planner AL I I I .. 2 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " 1 Itself IS the startmg pomt for mterpretatIOn and IS the best eVIdence of the legislature's mtent" PGE, 317 Or at 610 3 ORS 197829(2) prescnbes the standard of review for mterpretatIOns of local 4 enactments by governmg bodies It provides that LUBA must accept a local 5 government's mterpretatIOn of Its land use regulatlOns, unless the board determmes that 6 the local government's mterpretatIOn 7 (a) Is mconslstent wIth the express language of the comprehensive plan or land use regulatIOn, 8 9 (b) Is mconslstent wIth the purpose for the comprehensive plan or land use regulatIOn, (c) Is mconslstent with the underlymg polley that provides the baSIS for the comprehensIve plan or land use regulatIOn, or (d) Is contrary to a state statute, land use goal or rule that the comprehensive plan provIsIon or land use regulatlOn Implements Where, as here, the mterpretatIOns m questIOn are those of the local government's governmg body, LUBA IS reqUIred to apply tms lImIted and deferential standard of review and cannot substitute ItS Judgment unless the City'S mterpretatIOn IS "mconslstent with express language of the ordmance or ItS apparent purpose or polley" ORS 197 829, Clarkv Jackson County, 313 Or 508,515,836 P2d 710 (1992), see also Church v Grant County, 187 Or App 518, 524, 69 P3d 7 (2003) B. Request for OffiCIal NotIce Respondent respectfully asks the Board take offiCIal notice of the ordmances, plans, and other enactments referenced herem See WIlbur ResIdents for a Clean NeIghborhoodv Douglas County, 37 Or LUBA 156,158 (1999) ("Consistent wIth pnnclples of jUdICial reVIew and the mandate ofORS 197 835(2)(a), LUBA may take offiCial notice of the enactments of governmental bodIes pursuant to OEC 202 "), LUBA may take offiCIal notlce of LCDC orders where appropnate, see e g DLCD v CIty of DatPi Received IZ/4/kd7 Planner AL '/ 9 . l .. . 1 Warrenton, 37 Or LUBA 933,936 (2000) (LUBA may take offiCIal notIce ofa DLCD 2 contmuance order), DLCD v Klamath County, 24 Or LUBA 643,646 (1993) (LUBA 3 may take officIal notice of an enforcement order), see also OEC 202, provldmg that 4 Law JudIcIally notIced IS defined as 5 (1) The deCISIonal, constItutIOnal and pubhc statutory law of Oregon, the UnIted States and any state, territory or other JunsdIctIOn of the Umted States 6 8 (2) Pubhc and pnvate official acts of the leglslatlve, executIve and JudiCIal departments of this state, the Umted States, and any other state, terrItory or other JUrISdIctIOn of the UnIted States 7 9 (3) Rules of professIOnal conduct for members of the Oregon State Bar 11 (4) RegulatlOns, ordmances and SImIlar legIslatIve enactments Issued by or under the authonty ofthe Umted States or any state, terrItory or possesslOn of the UnIted States 10 12 (5) Rules of court of any court of thiS state or any court of record of the Umted States or of any state, territory or other JunsdlctlOn ofthe UnIted States 13 14 (6) The law of an organIZatIOn of natlOns and of foreign natIOns and pubhc entitIes m foreign natIOns 15 (7) An ordmance, comprehensIve plan or enactment of any county or 16 mcorporated CIty m thiS state, or a nght denved therefrom As used m thiS subsectIOn, "comprehensIve plan" has the meanmg given that term by ORS 17 197 015 18 A copy of the 2001 Spnngfield Charter (effective Dee 31, 2001) for whIch 19 offiCIal notice IS requested IS mcluded m the appendiX Resp Br, App 17-19 (See also 20 copy of ordmance deplctmg amendment, Resp Br, App 16) 21 C. FIrst ASSIgnment of Error 22 1. The CIty'S prior land use deciSIOns are not subject to Judicial review. 23 PetltlOner argues that pnor land use deCISIOns, speCIfically the City's deCISIOns 24 approvmg a zone change from MUC/NDO to PLO/NDO (ZON2006-00007, Vol VII, 25 Rec 2098-2318), dlscretlOnary use (DRC2006-00013, Vol VI, Rec 1492-2097), and 10 Date Received Planner AL /1.,h,t /20(} 7 I / 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ amended site plan review (DRC2006-00033, Vol IV, Rec 953-1096), were m error ORS 197 835(1) provIdes m relevant part that LUBA "shall reVIew the land use declSlon 3 or lImited land use declSlon and prepare a final order affirmmg, reversmg or remandmg 4 the land use declSlon or lImited land use decIsion" The City's September 17,2007 slte- 5 speCific declSlon vacatmg a segment of B Street IS the only land use declSlon challenged 6 by PetItIOner Pet Br 1 The City's pnor decIsIOns are not the subJect oftms appeal, and 7 are not subject to dIrect or collateral attack m thiS proceedmg ORS 197 835(1), see 8 Barton v Czty of Lebanon, 193 Or App 114, 116 n 2, 88 P3d 323 (2004) 9 2. The prIor CrIterIa were amended and therefore are not applIcable. PetItIOner argues that the approval cntena that eXisted pnor to recent amendments are apphcable to the City's vacatIOn decIsIon They were not The relevant law IS ArtICle 9, SectIOn 9060 of the Spnngfield Development Code ("SDC 9 060"), which sets forth the cntena for approval of vacatIOns SDC 9 060 was mltIally adopted by the Spnngfield Common CounCil on May 5,1986, and subsequently amended by Ordmance No 6133 (July 18,2005)andOrdmanceNo 6191 (Apr 2,2007) SeeRec 773 Forpurposesof comparmg the former and current vacatIOn cntena, copIes of both ordmances are presented at Resp Br, App 5-9, 10-15 and l6 The City submitted a NotIce of Proposed Amendment to DLCD more than 45 days pnor to the first eVidentIary heanng on March 3, 2007 Rec 875-78 City staff and Bob Cortnght ofDLCD then engaged m an emall correspondence regardmg the language of the proposed amendment to ensure that the new cntena comply with the TransportatlOn Plannmg Rule and related Goal 2 Issues Rec 892-95 Followmg the adoptIOn of the code amendment on Apnl2, 2007, the City submItted a NotIce of AdoptIOn to DLCD on Apnl 5, 2007 Rec 784-97 DLCD then Issued a NotIce of Adopted Amendment, estabhshmg the DLCD acknowledgment or deadlme to appeal as 11 Date ReceIved. /LA'/2co7 Planner AL / / 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 <. Apnl 26, 2007 Rec 770 Because no one filed a notIce of mtent to appeal Wlthm the 2 21-day penod under ORS 197 830(9), the code amendment was deemed acknowledged 3 by DLCD on Apnl26, 2007 See ORS 197 625(l)(a) 4 Chapter IX, SectIOn 33 of the 2001 Spnngfield Charter provides that a non- 5 emergency ordmance takes effect on the 30th day after Its adoptIOn or on whatever later 6 date prescnbed by ordmance Because Ordmance No 6191 dId not prescnbe an effectIve 7 date, the code amendment adopted by that ordmance became effectIve 30 days after Apnl 8 2,2007, which was May 2, 2007 9 PetItIOner disregards the recent amendments to SDC 9 060, argumg that the cntena that eXisted pnor to these amendments are applIcable Pet Br 5 However, as mentIOned above, the code amendmg ordmance, Ordmance No 6191, was not appealed, and therefore became acknowledged when the 21-day penod set out m ORS 197830(9) expIred on Apnl 26, 2007 Rec 770-72 The City submitted Its vacatIOn apphcatIOn on May 11, 2007, more than a week after the amended cntena became effectIve and apphcable to subsequent apphcatIOns Rec 715 Therefore, SDC 9 060 as amended by Ordmance No 6191 IS the apphcable law governmg thIs decIsIOn ORS 227 178(3)(a) Any argument that the City has faIled to comply With the pnor cntena under SDC 9 060 IS not based on an applIcable standard and must fall 3. The applicable criterIa do not reqUIre complIance with the street's functional classificatIon, street connectivity reqUIrements, or maximum block length standards. PetitIOner argues that the CIty falled to mclude findmgs that address complIance With the functIOnal classificatIOn of B Street as a collector street, street connectIvity reqUIrements for the Nodal Development Overlay Zone, or maximum block length standards as proVided by SDC 32 020(1 )(b) Resp Br, App 20-23 As descnbed m the Staff Reports and Fmdmgs to the Sprmgfield Common CounCil dated July 2, 2007 (Rec 12 Dat~ Received Planner AL 12/2,/a07 I / I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \ 383) and July 16,2007 (Rec 109), and to the Spnngfield Plannmg CommlSSlOn dated 2 June 5,2007 (Rec 640) and June 19,2007 (Rec 458), the City'S vacatIon declSlon 3 complIes with SDC 9 060(3), the cntena of approval for vacatIOn of nght -of-way where 4 the property wIll remam m pubhc ownership and WIll contmue to be used for a pubhc 5 purpose The cntena do not reqmre conSideration of or comphance wIth the functIOnal 6 claSSIficatIOn of the street, street connectivity reqUIrements, or maximum block length 7 standards However, the CIty addressed these concerns throughout Its analYSIS and 8 findmgs m support of the vacatIOn deCISion See Fmdmgs of Fact and ConclUSIOns of 9 Law, Rec 39-44 PetItIOner's argument IS an attempt to read cntena Just removed by the CouncIl back mto the amended ordmance The language of the ordmance as amended IS clear on ItS face, and the CouncIl's mtent IS made even more obvlOUS by companng the ordmance before and after the Apnl 2007 amendments The amended ordmance expressly states that the new cntena set forth m new subsectIOn (3) of SDC 9 060 are "the" cntena for pubhc-purpose vacatlOns "notwIthstandmg" the cntena set forth m subsectIOn (2) PGE, supra, Kmg Czty Rehab, LLC v Clackamas County, 214 Or App 333, 338, 164 P3d 1190 (2007) The baSIC text and context IS clear, and so IS the mtent of the Councll m adoptmg and applymg It See also Cole v Columbw County, 28 Or LUBA 62 (1994) and Langfordv City of Eugene, 126 Or App 52, 57 (1994) (867 P2d 535) (deferrmg to local government mterpretatlOns of cntena as exclUSIVe) PetItIOner argues that the City faIled to diSCUSS the street's functIOnal classlficatlOn as a collector street Pet Br 8 ThiS statement IS factually mcorrect See Fmdmg 18 set forth verbatIm Infra Resp Br 23 and Fmdmgs 10- 17 mfra Resp Br 20- 22, and Rec 120 The Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) also notes that A and B Streets are City collector streets runnmg east/west through downtown Spnngfield Rec 196 The Dato ReceIved /J-~'~7 Planner AL / I 13 ~ 1 functIOnal classificatIOn of a street IS not relevant to the vacatIOn cntena of approval 2 The vacatlOn of a pubhc rIght-of-way IS the same process regardless ofthe functlOnal 3 claSsIficatIOn attnbuted to the affected area Rec 45 However, m consideratIOn of the 4 potentmllmpacts of the proposed vacatlOn, the CIty hIred an mdependent traffic 5 engmeerIng consultant to conduct a TIA Rec 42 The TIA exammed the eXlstmg and 6 post-vacatIOn street system m the vlcmlty ofthe JustIce Center, and evaluated the 7 pOSSible Impacts of the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn to vehiCle movements and the 8 performance of nearby mtersectIOns ld Based on ItS analYSIS, the TIA concluded that 9 there Will be a mlmmallmpact on the downtown transportatIOn plan, and that adJacent 10 local and collector streets can safely accommodate the new flow of traffic See Rec 46 11 and 192-328 12 PetItIOner further argues that the City faIled to change the street's functlOnal 13 classlficatlOn through a Metro Plan or TransPlan amendment m complIance With the zone 14 change (ZON2006-00007, Rec 2098-2318) and dlscretlOnary use (DRC2006-000 13, 15 Rec 1492-2097) approvals Pet Br 6 The vacatIOn cntena establIshed by SDC 9 060 16 do not reqUIre the CIty to change the street's functIOnal claSSificatIOn In any case, the 17 vacatIOn of a one block segment of B Street does not change the functIOnal classlficatlOn 18 ofB Street The remammg blocks ofB Street from the mtersectIOn of 4th Street to 14th 19 Street Will not be affected by the vacatIOn, wIll remam open to travel, and Will hkely 20 rem am a collector street Rec 120 and 390 In additIon, the portlOn ofB Street from 21 MIll Street to PlOneer Parkway East may remam a collector street because It stIll serves 22 the purpose of connectmg a collector street (Mill Street) and a mmor artenal street 23 (PlOneer Parkway) Rec 120, see also Resp Br, App 1 and 4 24 25 14 Date ~ecelved. / 2;0t.4(1o 7 Planner: Al I / 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i" PetitIOner argues that the CIty faIled to comply with street connectIvity 2 reqUIrements for Nodal Development Overlay Dlstnct Pet Br 10-11 There IS no 3 connectIOn between zonmg and the vacatIOn declSlon, and therefore the street 4 connectiVIty Issues raised by PetitIOner are not relevant to the vacatlOn cntena of 5 approval Rec 46 Regardless, the vacatlOn declSlon does not vlOlate provlSlons of the 6 Nodal Development Overlay Dlstnct but rather promotes the underlymg polICies of this 7 zone, which encourages "pedestnan fnendly" commumtIes, mixed use development, 8 transit access, mtenslficatIOn of development m the downtown core The Justice Center 9 facIlIty wIll be a centrally-located, CIVIC, employment-generatmg use that IS served by vemcle, transit, pedestnan and blcycle-onented modes of travel, and thus satisfies the development pohcles set forth m SDC 41 010 Rec 46 DespIte the fact that zomng IS not a relevant part of the vacatlOn deCISion, the CIty addressed concerns regardmg street connectIvity, and pedestnan and bIcycle safety and convemence m Fmdmgs of Fact 11-22 m support of the vacatIOn of B Street Rec 40-42 PetItIOner argues that the City's vacatIOn declSlon fails to comply wIth SDC 32 020(1 )(b), which establIshes the standard for maximum block length for newly created local streets Pet Br 9-10 ThiS standard does not apply to the vacatIOn declSlon because B Street IS an eXlstmg rather than newly created local street Assummg arguendo that thiS standard does apply, the proposed maximum block length WIll not exceed 600 feet Usmg GIS mappmg mformatIOn and a calIbratmg measurmg wheel, CIty staff measured from the north edge of street nght-of-way on A Street to the south edge of street nght-of-way on C Street, and determmed that the maximum block length IS approximately 575 feet Rec 41 15 DatPI Received l.2.h6./2.N,7 Planner Al " /' I -:-""1- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 " 1 Although the City'S exclusive vacatIOn cntena of streets for pubhc purposes do 2 not reqUIre consideratIOn of or complIance With the functIOnal classificatIOn of the street, 3 street connectIvity reqUIrements, or maXImum block length standards, the City has 4 adequately addressed these concerns throughout the process, and m Its Fmdmgs of Fact 5 and ConclusIOns of Law m support of the vacatlOn decIsiOn See Rec 39-44 6 D. Second Assignment of Error 7 1. PetitIOner fails to present a suffiCIently developed argument for reVIew under this assignment of error. 8 PetItIOner's arguments under thiS assignment of error are madequately developed 9 to allow review or grant PetitIOner's request that the challenged declSlon be reversed See NeIghbors for LIvabIlzty v City of Beaverton, 168 Or App 50 l, 507, 4 P3d 765 (2000) (LUBA does not review land use declSlons per se, It reVIews "the arguments that the partIes make about land use declSlons"), Deschutes Development v Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218,220 (1982) (petItlOner has the responslblhty not only to allege the facts that support ms claim but also to tell the Board the baSIS upon which to grant rehef), see also Neuenschwander v Cty of Ashland, 20 Or LUBA 144, 154 (1990) (CIty ordmances requmng that certam land use actIOns be consistent With the comprehensIve plan do not thereby transform all parts of the plan mto approval crItena) Respondent's attempts to respond should not be treated as clanficatIOns or cures to madequacles m PetItIOner's assignments of error and arguments thereunder As III hIS first aSSIgnment of error, PetitIOner's arguments under hIS second assignment are largely collateral attacks on earlIer declSlons PetitIOner acknowledges that the City has amended ItS code to estabhsh new cntena for vacatIOn of rIght-of-way where the property remams m pubhc ownersmp Pet Br 11-12 As explamed above and documented m the record, those amendments were 16 Datn f1ecelved I~( ho()7 Planner' AL /' : 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . " 1 adopted and took effect before the subJect apphcatIOn was filed Rec 715 and 773 PetitIOner's arguments based on the pnor cntena are not applIcable to the subject 3 deCISIOn and do not provIde a baSIS for deCISIon ORS 227 178(c) PetItIOner had the 4 opportumty to partIcipate m the proceedmgs leadmg to those amendments Unhke 5 others, he chose not to provide testImony at the publIc hearmgs or through written 6 comment, and therefore did not appeal the deCISIOn 7 PetItIOner's attempts to read additIonal or different cntena mto the cntena of SDC 8 9060(3), as amended, are Just such collateral attacks It can be seen from companng the 9 vacatIOn cntena before and after the code amendment that the CIty conscIOusly chose to exclude the cntena upon whIch PetItlOner relIes when consldenng vacatlOns for a publIc purpose Rec 791-794, Resp Br 11, see also attached hereto as App 7-8, 13-14 and 16 If PetitIoner belIeved that apphcable law reqUIred the retentIOn or additIon of other cntena, he should have appeared and raIsed those Issues by appealmg the amendmg ordmance, not by waItmg until the new ordmance was apphed, long after the 21-day deadlme for an appeal of the amendmg ordmance had expIred ORS 197830(9) He dId not, and he IS precluded from ralsmg these concerns here See Or Shores ConservatlOn CoalztlOn v Curry County, 53 Or LUBA 503, 509 (2007), Frzends ofNeabeack HIll v Czty of PhIlomath, 139 Or App 39,49,911 P2d 350 (1996) 2. The vacatIOn deCISIOn is supported by adequate findmgs. PetitIOner argues With the City's findmgs and cites testImony that he conSiders persuasive, but he does not argue that any speCific findmg IS unsupported by substantial eVIdence, either standmg alone or conSIdered m hght of the whole record He argues, for example, that the City's findmgs m support ofthe vacatIOn deCISIOn are based on "anecdotal and undocumented testImony about damage to employee vehicle over a multItude of decades, and Issues With pohce employees walkmg 17 Dato Received. Planner AL 12-J~,6~07 I 7G-1 , . . 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , '. across a street" Pet Br 7 He doesn't clatm that this eVIdence IS untrue or maccurate, or that It doesn't constitute substantIal eVIdence, taken alone or together wIth other eVidence 3 m the record 4 Petltloner further states that the City "has failed to even begm makmg a ratiOnal 5 case for the closure of the street "Pet Br 14 ThIS IS a more heated way of saymg that 6 the findmgs are madequate, but It IS Just as general and doesn't shed more hght 7 The findmgs m support of the subJect deCISIOn adequately "(1) IdentIfy the 8 relevant approval standards, (2) set out the facts relIed upon, and (3) explam how the 9 facts lead to the conclUSIOn that the request satisfies the approval standards" Le Roux v Malheur County, 30 Or LUBA 268,271 (1995) The Oregon Supreme Court has pomted out that the purpose of the findmgs reqUIrement IS to faclhtate appellate reVIew and that No particular form IS reqUIred, and no magIC words need be employed What IS needed for adequate JudICIal reVIew IS a clear statement of what, speCifically, the declslOn-makmg body beheves, after hearmg and consldenng all the eVidence, to be the relevant and Important facts upon whiCh ItS declslOn IS based SunnysIde NeIghborhood v Clackamas Co Comm, 280 Or 3, 20-21, 569 P2d 1063 (1977), see also Green v Hayward, 275 Or 693, 706-08, 552 P2d 815 (1976), Fasano v Washmgton County, 264 Or 574,588,507 P2d 23 (1973) 3. The CIty properly found that approval of the vacation would be consIstent with SDC 9.060(3)(c). a. The City properly found that the area vacated will rem am publIc. Petltloner argues at Pet Br 12 that "the cntena for street vacatiOns when the use Will not be Dubhe remam unchanged and reqUIre findmgs that the vacatiOn IS comphant With all of the code cntena" (EmphaSIS added) However, Petltloner does not clatm that the use at Issue - the City's new Justlce Center faCIlIty - WIll not be pubhc, which IS the predIcate for hIS contentIOn The City's findmgs on thiS cntenon are as follows 18 Dato ~ecelved 12.//;-1: ~" 7 Planner AL 1- : 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . '> (e) Whether provIsIOns have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain In publIc ownershIp. 3 Fmdmg 23 The vacated nght-of-way IS to be mcorporated mto the JustIce Center development, whIch IS a publIcly-funded proJect Ownership of the JustIce Center bUlldmg and the land on which It IS to reside (which mcludes the portIOn of nght-of-way proposed for vacatIOn), IS to remam WIth the City of Spnngfield 5 Fmdmg 24 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 nght-of-way does not pass through a thIrd party (which could occur If there were pnvately-owned parcels frontmg onto the nght-of-way), remammg m publIc ownershIp IS assured 6 7 8 Fmdmg 25 A clause has been added to the enactmg ordmance (Attachment 12) provldmg that m the event the vacated nght-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes It shall revert to publIc nght-of-way ConclUSIOn The proposed nght-of-way vacatIon complIes With Cntenon (e) (Rec 24) 9 Ordmance No 6207, Rec 24 In short, proVIsIons have been made to ensure that the vacated area wIll remam m pubhc ownershIp Cntena apphcable to nonpublIc vacatIOns are therefore mapphcable PetItIOner argues at Pet Br 12 that the amended cntena are a "constructed attempt of the city to exempt It self [SIC] from their [SIC] own land use pohcles " Respondent respectfully disagrees, but that Issue IS not before the Board That IS an Issue which could and should have been raised through hIS appearance dunng the code amendment proceedmgs and subsequent appeal of the amendment, not an appeal of an applIcatIOn of the amended cntena Frzends ofNeabeack HIll, Resp Br 17 supra PetitIOner argues that the vacatIOn of a collector street m a Nodal Development Overlay Zone IS mconslstent With somethmg, but doesn't provIde a CitatIOn to any particular provlslOn of the Nodal Development Overlay Ordmance that he claIms IS VIolated The argument IS msufficlently developed and appears at best to be a variant on the argument that the CIty should have mcluded additIonal or different standards m ItS amended vacatIOn ordmance It didn't, and the tIme to claim that It dId has passed Dato Received /f/'/u;()7 _ 19 Planner,. AL .: ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 SDC 9 060(3)(c) reqUIres that "[a]pproval of the vacatIOn would be consistent 2 WIth the prOVISIOn of safe, convement and reasonably direct routes for cyclIsts and 3 pedestnans as provided m OAR 660-012-0045(3)" PetItIOner does not claim that the 4 CIty'S findmgs, taken separately or as a whole, fall to adequately demonstrate comphance 5 WIth thiS standard Where a petItIOner challenges some but not all of a 10cal 6 government's findmgs addressmg a code standard, and makes no attempt to explam why 7 the findmgs taken as a whole are madequate, petItIOners prOVide no baSIS for reversal or 8 remand See Marine Street LLC v Czty of AstOrIa, 37 Or LUBA 587, 610 (2000) 9 (provldmg that a petitIOner's dIsagreement With a local government findmgs, Without an explanatIOn of how the challenged findmgs are madequate or unsupported by substantIal eVidence, does not prOVide a baSIS for reversal or remand) b. The CIty CouncIl properly found that approval of the vacatIOn would be consistent with the prOVISIon of safe, convement and reasonably dIrect routes. The Sprmgfield Common CouncIl made the followmg findmgs, speCifically addressmg SDC 9 060(3)(c) (c) Approval of the vacatIOn would be conSIstent with proviSIOn of safe, convement and reasonably direct routes for cyclIsts, pedestrIans and vehIcles as provided in OAR 660-0012-0045(3); Fmdmg 9 As stated m Oregon AdmlmstratIve Rules (OAR) 660-012- 0045(3)(d), "safe and convement" means bIcycle and pedestrian routes, faczhtles and Improvements WhIch (A) Are reasonably free from hazards, partIcularly types or levels of automobzle traffic whIch would Interfere WIth or dIscourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trlps, (B) PrOVIde a reasonably dIrect route of travel between destmatlOns such as a tranSIt stop and a store, and (C) Meet travel needs of CyclIsts and pedestrians consldermg destmatlOn and length of trip, and consldermg that the optImum trIp length of pedestrzans IS generally y., to Y2 mIle 20 Date Received /0-6~o7 Planner AL / / . . .. 3 Fmdmg 10 In accordance With OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacatIOn ofthe subJect nght-of-way and closure to publIc travel would not mterfere With or discourage pedestnan, cycle or vehIcle travel on the adJacent pubhc 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 2 4 8 Fmdmg 11 In accordance WIth OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacatIOn of the subJect nght-of-way would not result m pedestnan, cychst or vehicle tnps that are more than ~ mlle from bemg a direct route of travel between destmatIOn pomts FIgure 1 Illustrates approximate travel distances for all potentIal modes of travel from one SIde ofthe vacated nght-of-way to the other Should the segment of B Street be vacated and closed to publIc travel, the maximum out-of-duectIOn distance for passage from the eastern end of the subJect nght-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end of the nght-of-way (at PIOneer Parkway East) would be about 600 feet (<118 mIle) for bICycles and vemcles usmg surface streets VehIcles and bicycles have the optIOn of usmg either A Street or C Street for the east-west segment of the tnp The out-of- directIOn distance would be even less for pedestnans usmg the publIc SIdewalk system, or biCycles and vemcles passmg 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 depleted on Figure 1 for IllustratIve purposes 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 15 Fmdmg 12 Pedestnan passage through the east-west mId-block alley north of B Street can be accommodated wlthm the eXlstmg 14- foot Wide paved surface However, If It IS determmed that addltlOnal pedestnan faclhtIes are reqUIred for mamtammg safe passage through thiS alley, thiS reqUIrement could be Implemented at the tIme of SIte Plan ModIficatIOn for the JustIce Center A Type II MaJor Site Plan ModificatIOn wIll be reqUIred upon vacatIOn of the publIc nght-of-way m order to mcorporate the former pubhc nght-of-way mto the site plan area 13 14 16 17 18 Fmdmg 13 PrOVISIOn of travel routes for cyclIsts, pedestnans and vehicles would be via the eXIstmg publIc street, alley and sldewalk system The approximate travel distances shown on FIgure 1 assume travel around the penmeter of each route, and short-cuttmg through parkmg lots or Similar open areas IS not conSidered 19 20 22 Fmdmg 14 There are eXlstmg SItuatIOns m downtown Spnngfield and elsewhere throughout the CIty where portIOns of the gndded street system are not connected and out-of-duectIOn travel IS reqUIred for CyclistS, pedestnans and vehicles 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 ofG Street, and G Street west of 4th Street 21 23 24 Fmdmg 15 A Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) was prepared by an mdependent traffic engmeenng consultant m support of the proposed nght-of-way vacatlOn (Sprmgfield JustIce Center ReVIsed Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact 25 21 Date Received Planner: AL /~~~O/ , I " .. ... 1 Study, Access Engmeenng, July, 2006) The TIA exammed the eXlstmg and post-vacatIOn street system m the vlcmlty of the JustIce 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 mlmmalImpact on the downtown transportatIOn system WIth the proposed vacatIOn of pubhc nght-of-way 2 3 4 8 Fmdmg 16 The TIA prepared for the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn also concluded that no traffic mitIgatIOn actions would be reqmred to ensure safe and effiCIent flow of traffic m the VICInIty of the JustIce Center Among the snnplest and most effectIve measures to structure traffic movements m the area WIll be strategic placement of directIOnal slgnage for the JustIce Center The TIA suggests pOSSIble measures to discourage traffic from travelmg to and from the downtown core usmg nearby reSidentIal streets, mcludmg placement of STOP sIgns at key mtersectlOns and mstallmg curb extenSIOns to prevent undeSIrable turrl1ng movements 5 6 7 9 Fmdmg 17 SpeCial vehicles, such as transit buses, can be accommodated on adJacent publIc streets (pnmarlly 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 m consultatIOn WIth Lane TranSIt Dlstnct 10 11 12 ConclUSIOn Staffhave concluded that the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn 13 WIll have no adverse effect on safety, connectivity or mamtmmng reasonably dIrect travel routes for pedestnans, cychsts and vehicles As proposed, the 14 publIc nght-of-way vacatlOn complIes With Cntenon (c) (Rec 110-13) 15 PetItIoner's arguments do not address most of these findmgs, If any Where 16 unchallenged findmgs find complIance With or mapphcablhty of cntena Identified m an 17 aSSIgnment of error, the aSSIgnment does not demonstrate error McNern v CorvallIS, 39 18 Or LUBA 591,597 (2001), see also Claus v Czty of Sherwood, 35 Or LUBA 437,439 19 (1999) ("[P]etltIOner's arguments must be suffiCiently developed to demonstrate that the 20 CIty committed an error that warrants reversal or remand under ORS 197 835 ") 21 Moreover, PetItIOner does not argue that any of these findmgs are unsupported by 22 substantial eVidence, so they must be taken as factually accurate In fact, PetltlOner has 23 not mcluded a substantIal eVidence challenge m any of hIS assignments of error The 24 word "substantial eVidence" does not appear anywhere m the PetItIOn for ReView, With 25 the sole exceptIOn of a general statement m the conclUSIOn to the bnef Accordmgly, all 22 Date Received I~ft'~, Planner AL 7..... . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .: 1 findmgs must be presumed to be supported by substantial eVidence m the whole record 2 See Resp Br 17, supra, see also Resp Br 27, mfra 3 4. The City properly applIed and interpreted SDC 9.060(3)(d), concernIng publIc benefit. 4 5 PetItlOner argues that the City Improperly apphed and mterpreted SDC 6 9 060(3)(d), whIch sets forth one of the factors that was conSIdered m the CIty'S declSlon 7 approvmg the vacatIOn ofB Street Pet Br 14-15 More speCifically, SDC 9 060(3)(d) 8 prOVides that the Common CouncIl must conSIder "[w]hether a greater publIc benefit 9 would be obtamed from the vacatIOn than from retmmng the nght-of-way m Its present status" The City's pnnclpal findmgs on this cntenon were as follows (d) Whether a greater publIc benefit would be obtained from the vacatIOn than from retammg the rIght-of-way in Its present status; . . . 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 pohce parkmg and Justice Center ancIllary faclhtles The rIght-of-way would be closed to all publIc travel The Sprmgfield Pollee Department adVIses that a secure parkmg lot - close to the JustIce Center bmldmg - protects pubhc property (mcludmg pohee vehicles and case eVIdence stored m the anCIllary bmldmg) and enhances emergency response tImes as respondmg officers do not have to cross publIc streets to reach theIr vehicles Fmdmg 19 Jerry Smith, Spnngfield Chief of Pohce, submItted a memo m support of the proposed nght-of-way vacatlOn (Attachment 3) whIch reads as follows Importance of B Street ClOSIm! to the JustIce FacIlltv Pr01ect "The purpose of thIS memo IS to summarzze for the Planmng 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 parkmg area · Closmg B Street IS necessary for the secunty of portlOns of the facIlzty The planned JustIce facIllty mcludes an anCIllary bUlldmg that WIll be a repOSItory for eVIdence m cnmmal cases, storage for polzce and court records, and storage for speczallzed pollce eqUlpment and weaponry Date. Recelv"ed. /2..h~k7 23 Planner: Al / / . . ... 2 Closmg B Street wIll allow the entIre ancIllary bUIldmg and parkmg lot to be fenced m, slgmficantly Improvmg the securzty of these records and eVIdentzary ltems WIthout the securzty fencmg m place, the ancIllary bUlldmg as desIgned does not provIde sufficzent secunty for these ltems 3 5 . Closmg B Street wIll provIde secure fleet and employee parkmg To date, Department vehIcles and employee parkmg has not been secured by fencmg Whzle thIS does not cause slgmficant Issues dunng normal workmg hours, the Department has experzenced damage to fleet vehIcles, and employees have suffered damage to theIr personal vehIcles, durmg late evemng and early mormng hours Damage has ranged from pamt scratches to slashed tIres and broken wmdows 4 6 7 8 . Closmg B Street wIll Improve the safety of pollce officers and cItIzens The street closure wIll allow officers respondmg to emergency calls from mSIde the bUIldmg to access theIr vehIcles wIthout crossmg a publlc nght of way, thereby reducmg the nsk of an accIdent durmg an emergency response 9 10 12 . Closmg B Street wIll provIde a secure area for evacuatlOn of mumcIpal Jazl pnsoners The fenced area WIll serve as an outdoor holdmg area for mumcIpal Jazl pnsoners m the event that the Jazl must be evacuated WIthout the street closure and fencmg, there wIll not be an area outsIde the mumcIpal Jazl adequate and accessIble for holdmg pnsoners Instead, an evacuatlOn event would necessItate the uncontrolled release of all mumcIpal Jazl pnsoners " 11 13 14 17 Fmdmg 20 As descnbed m the statement from the Pohce Cmef, the vacated nght-of-way wIll be used for secure pollee parkmg 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 dIrect benefit to the Jail staff, pollee personnel, and the publIc 15 16 18 Fmdmg 21 As noted m the Pollee Cmefs statement, ensurmg respondmg pohce officers do not have to cross a publIc street m order to reach theIr vehicles enhaIICeS safety for both Pohce Department personn.el and publIc users of the street system 19 20 22 Fmdmg 22 Passage of the PublIc Safety ballot measure m 2004 that secured pubhc fundmg 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 vacatlOn However, all Spnngfield residents (and VISItors) benefit from a strong pohce presence wlthm the community 21 23 24 25 ConclusIOn Staff have concluded that the proposed nght-of-way vacatIOn serves a greater benefit to the pubhc than retammg the one-block segment of nght-of-way m Its present status The proposed vacatIOn also provides dIrect Date ReceIved /2-~t../.2dl9/ 24 Planner AL / / . . 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . .. benefits to the City's Pohce Department, which ultImately benefits Sprmgfield resIdents As proposed, the nght-of-way vacatiOn complIes With Cntenon (d) (Rec 113-14) The publIc benefit standard of 9 060(3)( d) IS a broad standard that calls upon the Common Council to balance publIc benefits, a task for which the CouncIl, as the City'S 5 govemmg body, IS unIquely sUIted The CouncIl struck that balance and explamed ItS 6 deCISiOn PetItlOner has not argued that the CouncIl's findmgs are unsupported by 7 substantIal eVidence He has not argued that the City mIsconstrued the standard He has 8 not argued that the CIty'S findmgs are unsupported by substantial eVidence He has 9 argued only that the Common CouncIl made the wrong factual and polley declslOns He presented those arguments to the Common CounCIl but did not preVaIl The fact that the CounCil made different factual and polIcy deClSlOns than PetltlOner would have made, or even than this Board would have made had It been m the Common CouncIl's posltlOn, does not prOVide a baSIS for reversal or remand See Manne Street LLC, Resp Br 20 supra E. Third ASSIgnment of Error 1. The CIty properly exerCIsed Its authOrIty to mItmte a vacatIOn proceeding. It's not clear from PetItIoner's arguments under this assignment of error that he raised the Issue as to whether the City Improperly mItIated the vacatlOn proceedmg on ItS own apphcatlOn In the event that he did, ORS 271 130(1) proVides that the "city govemmg body may Imtlate vacatlOn proceedmgs authOrIzed by ORS 271 080 and make such vacatlOn WIthout a petltlOn or consent of property owners" SDC 9 060(3)(a) further recogmzes the City'S authonty to ImtIate such proceedmgs LUBA has noted that "[ w ]here a local government's mterpretatlOn of Its own code, that a county department manager may mltIate an applIcatlOn for development approval on behalf of the local government, IS not clearly contrary to the express words, polley or context of the local 25 Date ReceIved. /2-pl. /~7 Planner. AL ' / 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , . 1 code, LUBA wlll defer to It" Choban v Washmgton County, 25 Or LUBA 572, 597 (1993) In the mstant case, the code IS clear and therefore LUBA Isn't even reqUIred to 3 mterpret the text of the code As such, the City has authonty to mltIate a vacatlOn 4 proceedmg on Its own apphcatIOn 5 2. The CIty did not exhIbit any biaS and/or partialIty. 6 PetltlOner argues that the City was bIased and partIal throughout the vacatIOn 7 proceedmg Pet Br 20 PetItIOner does not CIte any constItutIOnal proVISIOn, statute, 8 rule, ordmance, or other legal or factual baSIS for hiS bIaS argument He cites no facts at 9 all concernmg members of the Common CouncIl, who were the actual declsIOnmakers It IS theIr partIahty, not that of staff, which would be relevant to bIaS challenge See, e g , Halvorson Mason Corp v CIty ofDepoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710-11 (2001), and O'Shea v Bend, 49 Or LUBA 498, 503 (2005) LUBA does not develop arguments for petitIOners, and does not supply legal theones for mchoate claIms, constltutlOnal or otherwIse See Deschutes Development, Resp Br 16 supra In any case, PetItIOner's arguments fall to show that there was "actual bias" m makmg the subJect declSlon below See 1000 Friends of Or v Wasco County Court, 304 Or 76,82-85, 742 P2d 39 (1987) The standard for determmmg actual bias IS whether the deCISIOn maker "preJudged the applIcatIOn, and dId not reach a deCISIOn by applymg relevant standards based on the eVIdence and argument presented [dunng quaSI-JudiCial proceedmgs]" Frewmg v CIty ofTlgard, 52 Or LUBA 518,529 n 7 (2004) (cItmg SpIermg v Yamhzll County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 (1993)), see also Woodard v CIty of Cottage Grove, LUBA Nos 2006-055,2006-056 and 2006-057,3 (2007) A party allegmg dlsquahfymg bIaS must "show clearly that a pubhc official IS mcapable of makmg a declSlon on the baSIS of eVidence and argument [m the record] " Frewmg,52 26 Date ~~celved /~, ~"7 Planner. AL 1 ~ Or LUBA at 529-30 n 7 (cltmg SchneIder v UmatIlla County, 13 Or LUBA 281, 284 2 (1985) No such showmg has been made here 3 3. The City complied with StatewIde Planmng Goal 1. 4 PetItIOner argues that the CIty faIled to comply With StatewIde PlannIng Goal 1 5 ("Goal 1 ") throughout the vacatlOn proceedmg Pet Br 22-23 Goal 1 reqUIres local 6 governments "[t]o develop a CItizen mvolvement program that msures the opportumty for 7 citizens to be mvolved m all phases of the plannmg process" OAR 660-015-0000(1) 8 Tms goal IS not applIcable to local land use declslOns other than adoptlOn or amendment 9 of cItIzen mvolvement programs Wade v Lane County, 20 Or LUBA 369,375 (1990) 10 F. Substantial EVIdence Issues 11 As noted above, the term "substantial eVidence" or "substantIal eVidence m the 12 record" does not appear m the argument under PetitIOner's assignments of error or m the 13 summary ofthose arguments The term "substantIal eVidence" appears only m a very 14 general statement m one sentence of the two-sentence concluslOn to the PetItIOn for 15 Review The standard of reVIew IS not explamed There IS no dISCUSSIOn of the statutory 16 baSIS for the standard, ORS 197 835(9)(a)(C), or the case law mterpretmg and applymg 17 that standard Moreover, thiS term fails to correctly state the statutory standard for 18 LUBA's eVidentIary reVIew, ORS 197 835(9)(a)(C), whIch lImits the Board to reVieW for 19 "substantIal eVidence In the whole record" Eckzs v Lmn County, 110 Or App 309, 311, 20 821 P2d 1127 (1991) 21 PetItIOner makes no effort to relate ms smgle concludmg mentIOn of the term to 22 speCIfic cntena that are apphcable to the declSlon Accordmgly, the PetItIon for ReView 23 does not present any adequately-specified or developed aSSIgnments of error on the 24 substantial eVidence questIOn Notwlthstandmg PetItIOner's failure to raise thiS Issue, 25 27 Datfll Received "/ Planner AL /2;it A<<J7 I / 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , . 1 Respondent offers the followmg addItIonal comments without preJudIce to Its posItIon that no substantlallssue IS presented by PetItlOner 3 4 To prevaIl on a substantIal eVidence challenge, a petitIOner must IdentIfy the 5 challenged findmgs and explam why a reasonable person could not reach the same 6 conclusIOn based on all the eVIdence m the record Stoloff v CIty of Portland, 51 Or 7 LUBA 560, 568 (2006) As mentlOned above, PetItIOner has faIled to do so, and 8 therefore has not satisfied ills burden of proof 9 Assummg arguendo that PetitIOner had satIsfied tills burden of proof, LUBA may reverse or remand If the local government's declslOn IS based on facts that are "not supported by substantIal eVIdence m the whole record" ORS 197 835(9)(a)(C) A findmg of fact IS supported by substantial eVIdence If the record, viewed as a whole, permIts a reasonable person to make that findmg Younger v Cay of Portland, 305 Or 346,360, 752 P2d 262 (1988), Wetherell v Douglas County, 209 Or App 1,4, 146 P3d 343 (2006) The substantIal eVidence test "does not allow LUBA or the courts to reweIgh eVidence m the gmse of assessmg ItS substantIalIty" Or Entertamment Corp v Czty of Beaverton, 172 Or App 361, 366, 19 P3d 918 (2001) PetitIOner addresses the CIty'S findmgs m support ofSDC 9 060(3)(c) at Pet Br 12-13 The first part of hIS argument IS not that the findmgs are madequate but rather that the new CrItena are madequate, whIch IS not at Issue on appeal Resp Br 10, supra However, the next part of hIS argument speCifically challenges Fmdmgs 14 and 28 as madequate Pet Br 14 PetitIOner then argues that the findmgs m support of SDC 9 060(3)(d) are madequate, speCifically focusmg on Fmdmgs 31-34 Pet Br 15-18 Each of these findmgs IS addressed m turn below 28 Date ~ecelved Planner AL l2-h~ /~o7 / / /- 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ( 1 In response to PetItlOner's arguments regardmg Fmdmg 14, vacatIOn of the publIc nght-of-way Will not result m pedestnan, cyclIst or vehicle tnps that are more than one- 3 quarter mIle from bemg a dIrect route of travel between destmatIOn pomts, and therefore 4 WIll not exceed the optImum tnp length standard set forth m OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d) 5 Fmdmg 11, Rec III and Rec 45 Based on the City's measurements, the maximum out- 6 of-dIrectIon distance for bicycles and vehicles usmg surface streets Will be approximately 7 600 feet (less than one-eighth mIle) Id The maxImum out-of-dlrectIOn dIstance for 8 pedestnans usmg the pubhc Sidewalk system as well as biCycles and vehIcles usmg the 9 mId-block alley north of B Street WIll be less than 600 feet Id Pedestnans may also access the mid-block alley north ofB Street wlthm ItS eXlstmg 14-foot WIde paved surface Fmdmg 12, Rec 111 If the CIty determmes that addItIonal pedestnan faclhtIes are needed, then the City may Implement such facIlitIes durmg the Site Plan ModificatIOn process Id WIth respect to PetItIOner's dlscusslOn ofPmdmg 28, thIS findmg IS also supported by the record as descnbed above In additIOn, the TIA concluded that there Will be a mmlmallmpact on the downtown transportatlOn plan, and that adJacent local and collector streets can safely accommodate the new flow of traffic See Rec 46 and 192-328 Based on tills traffic engmeenng report and analysIs, the CIty determmed that the vacatIOn WIll not Interfere with or dIscourage pedestnan, bicycle or veillcle travel on the adJacent publIc street system due to excessive traffic or other unusual hazards Fmdmg 13, Rec 41 The publIc streets adJacent to the vacatlOn area are developed to CIty standards With SIdewalks, paved travel lanes and street hghtmg, and wIll not be affected by the vacatlOn Fmdmgs 19 and 20, Rec 41 Speed hmlts are 20 miles per hour, and traffic control slgnage IS m place on the local streets to mamtam safe vehIcle and biCycle passage m the area Fmdmg 20, Rec 41-42 29 DatE;i Received Planner Al 12;)64067 / / / . .. 1 In response to PetItIOner's arguments regardmg Fmdmgs 31-34 m support of SDC 2 9 060(3)(d), there IS substantial eVIdence m the record to support the City's findmgs See 3 Rec 113, 128, 173, 177 and 565-56 The Spnngfield Pohce Chief, Jerry SmIth, 4 addressed these concerns through pubhc testimony and m wntmg to City staff Rec 565- 5 56 and 128 In support ofFmdmg 31, Chief Smith stated that a secure parkmg area was 6 necessary to prevent damage and vandahsm based on the fact that both employees' 7 personal vehIcles and the Pollee Department's fleet vehIcles have been vandahzed dUrIng 8 late evemng and early mornmg hours Id Such property damage has ranged from pamt 9 scratches to slashed tIres and broken wmdows ld 10 With respect to Fmdmg 32, ChIef Smith also addressed the need for a secure c 11 parkmg area to ensure the safety and secunty of publIc officers and pubhc, and to 12 faCIlItate qUIcker response tImes m hiS memorandum to City staff Rec 128 The 13 vacatIOn of the publIc nght-of-way Will allow offers respondmg to emergency calls from 14 mSlde the Justice Center faclhty to qmckly access theIr vehicles WIthout crossmg a publIc 15 street Id 16 In support ofPmdmg 33, Chief Smith's WrItten testImony descnbes the need for a 17 secure parkmg area to mamtam an anCIllary bUIldmg onsIte as a rep'osItory for eVidence 18 m crImmaI cases, storage for pollee and court records, and storage for specIalIzed polIce 19 eqmpment, and weaponry Rec 128 The vacatIOn of B Street WIll allow the entIre 20 anCillary bUIldmg to be fenced, which WIll ensure the secunty of these records and 21 eVIdentIary Items ld Without a secure parkmg area, the anCillary bmldmg does not 22 provide suffiCIent security for these records, eVidence and weaponry Id 23 Chief Smith also descnbes the need for a secure parkmg area to proVide an 24 emergency evacuatlOn area m support of Fmdmg 34 He stated that the secure parkmg 25 area Will serve as an outdoor holdmg area for mumclpal JaIl pnsoners m the event that the 30 Dato f~ecelved ':;-/Y.k7 Planner. AL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . JaIl must be evacuated Rec 128 In the absence of a secure parkmg area, the Pollee 2 Department WIll not have an area that can adequately accommodate and hold pnsoners 3 Id Wntten testImony submitted by Ralph DaVId Jacobson, a former teacher at a youth 4 detentIOn faclhty, provides additIOnal support In favor of a secure parkmg area for 5 evacuatlOn purposes Rec 173 Mr Jacobson states that, durmg emergency evacuatIOns, 6 the "wards were removed from theIr bmldmg and secured m the fencmg yard behmd theIr 7 dorm Id ThiS was for secunty purposes to keep the wards safe and to keep the staff 8 safe" He further comments that SImilar sltuatlOns may arise With the new JaIl, JustIfymg 9 the constructIOn of a secure parkmg area and vacatIOn of B Street Id In reVIeWIng the eVIdence presented, LUBA may not substItute ItS Judgment for that of the local deCISion maker Rather, It must conSIder and weigh all the eVIdence m the record to which we are dIrected, and determme whether, based on that eVidence, the local deCISIOn maker's conclusIOn IS supported by substantial eVidence m the whole record Younger v Czty of Portland, Resp Br 28 supra, 305 Or at 358-60, 1000 Fnends of Or v MarlOn County, 116 Or App 584, 588, 842 P2d 441 (1992) If there IS substantial eVIdence m the whole record to support the CIty'S declSlon, LUBA wIll defer to It, notwlthstandmg the fact that reasonable people could draw different conclusIOns from the eVidence Younger, 305 Or at 358-60 Where the eVidence IS confhctmg, If a reasonable person could reach the deCISion the City made, In view of all the eVidence m the record, LUBA Will defer to the local government's chOIce between confhctmg eVIdence Mazeskl v Wasco County, 28 Or LUBA 178, 184 (1994), aff'd, 133 Or App 258,890 P2d 455 (1995) Assummg arguendo that PetitIOner had raised the substantIal eVidence Issue m hiS PetItlOn for ReVIew, LUBA would surely determme that the City's findmgs are supported by substantIal eVidence m the record, and therefore would defer to the City'S declslOn 31 Date-Received /14~~7 Planner.. AL '7 ~ . .. , t V. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, LUBA should affirm the deClSlOn of the Spnngfield 3 Common CouncIl to vacate one block of B Street 4 Dated thiS ~ day of December, 2007 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 Respectfully submItted, 6 7 P\L\.. G.~ L. ~c),",N~~ Allen L Johnson, OSB #73153 Attorney for Respondent h-c ~ City of Spnngfield ~ 8 9 ~O~~'~'n ~ '-~'-\'-I Joseph J Leahy, OSB #70083 Attorney for Respondent CIty of Spnngfield Attorneys for Respondent CIty of Spnngfield thank Alyssa Johl, Law Clerk, for her slgmficant work m helpmg with the preparatlOn of thiS Respondent's Bnef 32 Date, Received /Lft" /kx;7 Planner. AL I / , CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on December 26, 2007, I filed the ongmal of thIS Respondent City of Sprmgfield's Brief, together with four copIes, wIth the Land Use Board of Appeals, Pubhc Utlhty CommIssIOn Bmldmg, 550 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97301-2552, by first-class mall Dated 12-26-07 ~~ ~ 'L~~\*'J Joseph J Leahy, OSB No 70083 Allen L Johnson, OSB #73153 Of Attorneys for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 26, 2007, I served a copy of thiS Respondent CIty of Sprmgfield's Bflef by fIrst-class maIl on the partIes lIsted below Scott E Olson 1127 B Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 PetItIOner Dated 12-26-07 .\,':.~~ ~ Lr-;....~ \~ Joseph J Leahy, OSB No 70083 Allen L Johnson, OSB #73153 Of Attorneys for Respondent , . Date Received. /~~7 Planner AL ' / / . .. t PROPOSED STREET RIGHT -OF-WAY V ACA TION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007-00019 SUBJECT SITE \ , ' II " ., ..II I' )\ \ \ \ \ \\ II \\ JJ : II I , \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '. \ \ \ \ --", \1 I , I LJ II,": 111,:11 , I I I I I j I I I I ! I I I, I I I I ! , I I \ \ ~ i I i ! I \ ,~\ \ w.', I I I I -\ -n~" I I \ \ \ \ I I \ I I " I '---- I \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ ! \ \, Ij' t \ 1 I \ \ I I \ \ 1 I .- BST III I \ U i~1 II i I i~i 'II' \~: ln.1 'e:: AST :tf II E' 1 D:I I i , I I , Sprmgfield, OR - r-'I \ \ \ \ I I -, I I ! I \ I \ I! \ ------ ~ I , I I I \ \ \ , , \ , \ \ ' \ I \ \ i Hili I \ I II \ \ I I 'I I , \ I \ \ I"i In I II I I I \ \ \ - ' I 1 I , I , I I I II I , I I I : I \ I I I I I I'll I I I I , \ I I I n I I , i III , i \ I i " , ' ! I II I I' ~II ~l\l I \ I rl Hl\ HiJI ~, ! I' '\ \ I i I I I i \:' I I I r1 I I Iii H I ; ! 1\ \ , , I I I I '---\ \ \, \ \ , , , \ \ \ \ I i I I \ ' I I i I !---..l nl II , I 1 \ \ H \ \ I I ; I \ I I I \ I I I I II I I EST I \ \ \ I \ I W , I \ 1 I I I ' \ \ I I \ I I \ I I I I I \ II W 11\1 i CST II I \ \ \ I \ ' I I I I I , I I I CST I I I I ' I I I I ! ; I ' I I I I \ I I I , IIIl111i IHi \ I 1 I, I, \:--1 , I \ I \ \ \ II I ! : \ \i\I\" 'H H I h ,I ; I I iHil i I i I I I"" H ,m '~ I bl \~ J~lllla 1III I I ,I 'W'I III i ! I ;1 !~ll III I \ 111111: 1 II MAIN ST U! ! \ ~lllll il! SAST ~ II \' I--if, I "', I I ",,~I ----. I ~ I __ ",",__/ I -J J -- r----- -, fI I ..-!'""" / i I I I : l-/ c.. I \ \ I \ \ \ \ I ..J-1 \ ~ - --J l II ~~ ! ,,,-I ~II /1 ---, II I \~I I' -'- f---' , I --1 \ \ I \ 1;;\ III I~' :~l ./ I , I I L.F" \ I;; I rH 1:;;\ 'I , I I I I I I ~ I I I WI \ II ! I ! \ II I I' I 1;;1 I Ii I \ I i I~i I i I I ! I I I 1 II1I I! II: III ! I ! i l! \ ~ ~ " ~ """'" - ,,-' ,~' '" <- - " ....~ ,~,;t':;''':i': .~,';:"~1h' "". "" =.Ji .t' -,,-, , .tiim-~ ~""~_I:" - I:d d;F,LU ~-t-- ..r'....... ti,"",'"-,t.!/hh" ~", "'~ ~.r~- :"1 ,. J:--r;;r~ ~ ., ~ ,.....~;:,r. '",:~r I". ~'jil" " " " ,.?" "'::1" " L ~~. ~-'- ~ " ,> ", -'0 .":'-.- - ~',~,,, > '"''l! ~'-" ,\",', ~ ~ ,r ":::...-^' ~_..";;""_llml,.:"....'m,-JMt:L "'. l' . .;L"-;-~;,~- -"";"~ ~ C ltil, r lMn_alIr..,...nxu9'p-.........r......lJ!'annn: J-:"_ " ~~..w r....from_",.,._,..,trp>fIDaIfIJI_ofrlu:--.~ ," 0 100 200 Feet " -,,;L~ 'Itm " ... '_ _ /,,-'-T , ,...- W _~,,_~~ ~~ "'''"'_ 1= _+T ,r;:-tl'- _ r _ , ~ '" r.-, +;;1 2-2 Date Received J24&~07 App 1 Planner AL / /' . ... j PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B ~ I KEET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007-00019 Springfield, OR SUBJECT SITE I I i I \: I I 17 -031,35-24 13900 '4000 14'00 '4300 I 264.00' I I I \ . I I~ en I to co co, co B STREET I co I l- I en 264 00' i <: w >- 1800 <: ~ 1600 1Sl0 i v 1700 a: <( I tl.. l- e::: 1900 17 -03-35-31 en w J: w ! "7 l- I 5 ~ tl.. r i I I A STREET . .1.5'1":1$[,;;;- 1" ~~I,,~--' ~ = .-J;.. ,,- M ,-1' 21i.;u iyI\rUl~:;t.r.tt~~~I~~ 1""1. ~ -;. .. _:., :$.<.1I ~I\.p~,,"- .-.r~ t. ""P'_"'~l_--t ~ ~~-.:~~~~~1: J7:.. Il j. .. ,~.,.p~~." ~,r:"i ; ,:t r.....~ - <"t.."",~- of _ ~ 7hfnareno~.-z,..... ."l>.1Ii&'J'P.DliUCL11l;-J.sl.- .. ~ 1...(Jrer:rammle.a1J r.t:qJDlUlbilIGrjaranytiDD-"rddnUll'e'ansUtr - . i'!;;,-~~~#~~if"',.;'....~ __~:,,~~{f.............t I ~""'.:l ... -"" l....-r c- L ......= ~ ! _ _ -lw1.. ..=- ;; ;:: I f.. r .dl::- _,u nlllh- ....ITl, .Hlr;- 4.,t..l r_'1 ~ ~t!!j! I.. ..!r":lllllt'J;;'ihlrlT-'~~1 IT ;:.t:.!~.. I ~:r ,\ ~? _}~':'~'t -''v1 f=- ' ..... -- 'l-~ - - - 1"'Th:; '0 .-'k ~-- 50 I-':-''''~' 100 Feet filil,; v- -I,....... r_ ~.... i.~r{ ~- ,r - lJ'llI:ln J;~ .hi!",~"" \- -' ~:;;..1ii1 ~,...mlM;i1'r - ""- ~~~.1J!ti'~11\ i!rot ~~- ~ I ~lll ;I~ lr l/wlri- .. 'l=;~t! ...- - ~ ~:~-= "~I->~!.;7 ~-- l~ ;;. UBy"2OO7 1 2-3 r- date RscE?l'/ed Planner AL ~~7- App 2 . ... PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST CASE LRP2007 -00019 Spnngfield, OR SUBJ ECT SITE \ I I ~ I I I 17 _031,35-24 13900 14000 14100 '\4300 2J.OO' N tel I~ I-~g 10 0 40 acre _ng --------- en to tel tel B STREET r- oo <: w >- <: ~ :::::: ~ 0.. c::: W w z o 0.. 264}00' 1800 1600 1500 1700 1000 17 -O3~35-31 ! I I r- oo :r r- '<:t A STREET + "i.t..lr-r~~1';~4~~.! 0\7.~u~r';.~..;~.,... t'" -~_. ..- ;=rr,J:,I;.;,I""n~-I'::'-. "- -~. r::'" ., .1, rf~r ;:.;:'- - ,~~'"J.J!.l"'""'::~'- iill~.I",lf',~llnt,_rll";r~,..'"I,,I\t:,>ir"'.' 7. ~, j,.-' ~,.': . 'l\i:f;i1~I.~'.at~f-";~ ";,7',r:"~,:;- =~,. .,".~,"-,,;,. ~'~.J,."'" __L'" .1t,.I~'jt"lr r ,..l...' r." r.~ . J ""'" .~~ ,r ' = - ,'I ".;j1, ~~ ., _" ".'" .., " .c~ ,," -,...... "'0",," ~ .". - " --, ' .. --" .~,<~r . ,= ~tmo.ro...... .......' ,hDt.rr_ durP"'dUCt _ - ~i11' I, "gllr'''~:O ....._~, ':, -.~. - ',,, ',~l.l~'l:; ":;id\"I~'; ~#. ,llsu:so:munLIJUn:JFOmtbillnf.....,._ordomlllr..,.,.,1IK '" - , .'0 ~ ~';j 50 . 100 Feet... ~'" ,,\-~JJ\--;"- ~ ,-. :r; '- ._~ 2'~........r_'_""JD'I"""_.....,ryq(Iha,,",,",,,r _ ,...-_ - -." ~, l' , ~_. ~' "" L rl:~'::-.r ..;;ji=-;::,F:'~ '"'if/" ~_ _ _ " r":;: , " ", .-: "'- J: ;;, - - Alay 2UJl 2-4 Dacf'J ReceIved Planner AL App 3 /f,4007 / I ~ Iii o ~ ~ Q: == ~ M r ::PI : ST B STREET OVERV~EW 'i' . I~UI I ~T II '1 - c- I - .---_-_ -- -/1/ I , 1-" - c- ...... ... .-- IL=:J. lJl 7 ~C==:LJ~.I Ii; Ii; ~ l;; 0' - ~ ~~: ~ ~ 1 I ~ lL- . f ~ ~ ~~I~~~Llr- 'J" Ii; \ In ~ In \n,1i; Ii; ~ ~ ~ ~ i ='0 '~'$~ , ~~""'-'-- ~~~~'\'% ~~"""'. o 250 500 Feet ~ ./ - :.d' . Total length of B Street From Mill Street to 16th Street' 6117.83 Feet (1.16 miles) > :g Date Received ~0.G~G7 ~ Planner AL' ~- - --. ARTICLE 9 VACATIONS 9.010 PURPOSE 9.020 APPLICABILITY 9.030 REVIEW 9.040 APPLICATION SUBlvllllAL 9.050 NOTICE 9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL 9.070 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Date Received /0;4""7 Planner AL 9-1 App 5 .. ARTICLE 9 VACATIONS 9.010 PURPOSE. As land develops, and as land uses change over tIme, certam public property and easements may no longer be necessary or may need to be relocated The reconfiguratlOn of SubdlvlslOns and PartItIOns may also be desired TIns Code, the Spnngfield MunICIpal Code Sections 3.200 through 3.206 and ORS 271.080 et seq provIde procedures, requIrements, and approval cntena for VacatlOns 9.020 APPLICABILITY. (1) The VacatIOn process shall apply to publIc nghts-of-way, other publIc land, publIc utIlIty and other publIc easements, and recorded SubdIvISIon and PartItIOn Plats under the jUnSdIctIOn of the City. (2) The CIty'S VacatlOn process shall not apply to (a) Lands over whIch Lane County or the State have JunsdIctIOn such as publIc nghts-of- way or SubdIvISIOn and PartitIon Plats wItlun the City'S urbanlzable area, or (b) Lane County streets and State highways wIthm the CIty hmlts where Junsmctlon has not been transferred to the CIty 9.030 REVIEW. (1) The VacatIOn of all publIc easements shall be reviewed under Type II procedure EXCEPTION' PublIc utIlIty easements wrthm PartItlOn and SubdiVISIOn Plats may also be realigned, reduced m WIdth or omitted as part of the Replat process as specified m ArtIcle 42 of thiS Code (2) The VacatIOn of any publIc nghts-of-way, any other publIc land as speCified m ORS 271 080 et seq , and the VacatIon of PartItIOn and SubdIvIsIOn P 1ats III part or III their entIrety, mc1udmg publIc nghts-of-way and publIc utthty easements located wlthm the Plat, shall be reviewed under Type IV procedure. 9.040 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. (1) VacatIOn ofpubbc nghts-of-way and pubhc easements may be applIed for by property owners, publIc agencies, or imtIated by the CIty CounCil (2) VacatIOn of PartItIOn and SubdIvISIon Plats may be applIed for by property owners 9-2 OatCi Received 12-~/t~ 7 Planner Al I ~ App 6 .. (3) A complete apphcahon together with all reqUIred matenals shall be submItted to the DIrector pnor to the reVIew of the request as specl'fied m SectIOn 3.050, Apphcation Subrmttal The applIcation shall mclude (a) A legal descnption of the publIc nghts-of-way, easement or plat to be vacated prepared by an Oregon Licensed Land Surveyor or other profeSSIOnal approved by the Director; (b) The reason for the VacatIOll, (c) The proposed use of the property after Vacation, (d) For CItizen 1ll1tiated Vacations of pub he rights-of-way or PartItlOn and SubdiVISIOn Plats, the petitIOn of affected property owners, (e) A map prepared by an Oregon Licensed Land Surveyor or other profeSSIOnal approved by the DIrector of the area proposed to be vacated The map shall show 1 The date, north arrow, and standard scale, 2 The Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the affected propertIes and adjacent propertIes, 3. A VICInlty Map on the Site PIan (VICImty Map does not need to be to scale), 4 All adjacent streets mcludmg street name, alleys, and accessways, and nght-of- way and pavmg WIdths, 5. All dunensIOns of eXlstmg publIc utIlIty easements and any other areas restnctmg use of the parcels, such as conservatiOn areas, slope easements, access easements, etc , 6. EXIstmg drmensIOns and square footage of the lots/parcels mvolved, 7. Proposed dImenSIOns and square footage of the lots/parcels mvolved (applIes to VacatiOns of undeveloped SubdIVISIOn Plats and right-of-way VacatIons), 8 For publIc easement and nght-of-way VacatIons, clearly show dImenSiOns of entIre easement or nght-of-way on or adjacent to the subject lots/parcels. Also clearly show dImensiOns of that portIOn proposed for VacatIOn, mcludmg square footage, and 9. Fornght-of-way VacatIons, demonstrate complIance Wlth the boundary reqUIrements ofORS 271 080 et seq 10. The legal descnptIOn of the easement, nght-of-way or Plat, or portiOn thereof, proposed to be vacated. DatC1 ReceIved Planner, AL . /LbA ~d7 App 7 / / 9-3 ..~ . (4) Where publIc easements are proposed to be vacated, a notanzed letter of concurrence with the VacatIOn from all utility proVIders other than the City (telephone, cable TV, electnc, water and gas), shall be subIDltted With the applicatIon 9.050 NOTICE. (1) Notice for Vacations revIewed under Type II procedure shall be as specIfied III SectIOn 3 080(2) ofthls Code (2) NotIce for VacatIOns reVIewed under Type IV procedure shall be as specified III SectIon 14 030(2) of thIs Code EXCEPTIONS: (a) Newspaper notice shall be publIshed once each week for two consecutIve weeks pnor to the pubhc heanng. The first day of publIcatIon and the postmg shall be not less than 14 days before the heanng (b) The applicant sha11 post two SIgnS, approved by the Director on the subject property, or Ifnght-of-way IS proposed to be vacated, the notice shall be attached to a telephone or other SImIlar utilIty pole WithIn the VacatlOn area (3) Notice for all VacatIons shall be mailed to all utihty provIders proVIdmg servIce wIthm the CIty lImIts and the City'S urbarnzable area 9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL. (1) For the VacatIOn of pub he uttlIty easements, the DIrector shall approve, approve WIth conditIons, or deny the applIcatlOn The apphcatIOn shall be approved if the Vacation IS found to be consIstent WIth t..lJ.e follommg cntena (a) There are no present or future servIces, facilItIes, or utIhtIes deemed to be necessary by a utIlity prOVIder and the easement IS not necessary, or (b) If the utilIty prOVIder deems the easement to be necessary, public servIces, faCIlItIes, or utilItIes can be extended In an orderly and effiCIent manner In fui. alternate lo::anon (2) Where the proposed VacatIOn of pubhc nghts-of-way, other CIty property, or PartltlOn or SubdiVISIon Plats IS reVIewed under Type IV procedure, the City CounCIl shall approve, approve With condItIons, or deny the VacatlOn apphcatJon The applIcatIon shall be approved If the VacatIOn IS found to be conSIstent WIth the followmg approval cntena (a) The VacatlOn shall be III confonnance With the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted FunctIOnal Plans, and applIcable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan Dlstnct map, or Conceptual Development Plan, Date ReceIved /.2..h,40'/ Planner AL / / ' App 8 9-4 ..; ~ (b) The VacatIOn shall not conflIct Wlth the prOVIsIons of Spnngfield Mumclpal Code 1997, and tlus Code, mcludmg but not lImIted to, street connectIvIty standards and blocklengtns,and (c) There shall be no negatIve effects on access, traffic cIrculatIon, emergency service protectlon or any other benefit denved from the publIc nght-of-way, pubhc1y owned land or PartitIOn or SubdIVISIon Plat. 9.070 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. If the DIrector or the City Council approves a VacatIon, the followmg condItIons may be attached. (1) For a VacatIOn mvolvmg publIc nght-of-way, where applIcable, an easement for a publIc faCIlIty, publicly owned utlhty or other utihty shall be retamed (2) A publIc facilIty, publIcly owned utilIty or other utilIty shall be constructed, relocated or removed at the apphcant's expense or through cost shanng WIth the City as may be available A new publIc easement shall then be reqUIred (3) A Vacated PartitIOn or SubdIvIslOn Plat shall be replatted, where necessary (4) A pubhc nght-of-way shall be relocated and rebuilt at the applicant's expense or through cost shanng Wlth the City, as may be available (5) Where the VacatlOn of a CIty nght-of-way results m an assessment of speCIal benefit to the remammg property, the property owner shall prOVIde compensatIOn to the City m accordance With SectIOn 3204 of the Spnngfield MumcIpal Code 1997 (6) The CIty CounCIl may attach any other conditIons as may be reasonably necessary m order to allow the VacatlOn to be granted (Ord.6133 07/18/05): TItle page, SectIons 9.010, 9 020, 9.030,9.040,9050,9060 and 9070 Datfll Received , Planner AL /Z~t/:k07 / / ' App 9 9-5 -,,' " ARTICLE 9 VACATIONS 9.010 PURPOSE 9 020 APPLICABILITY 9.030 REVIEW 9040 APPLICATION SUBlVllnAL 9 050 NOTICE 9 060 CRI 1 hKlA OF APPROVAL 9 070 CONDITIONS OF Mt'KOV AL 9-1 Date Received /0~(l7 App 10 Planner AL . / ". "" 41 ARTICLE 9 VACATIONS 9.010 PURPOSE As land develops, and as land uses change over tIme, certam pubhc property and easements may no longer be necessary or may need to be relocated The reconfiguratlOn of SubdivIsIons and PartitlOns may also be deSIred ThIS Code, the Spnngfield MumcIpal Code SectlOns 3 200 through 3 206 and ORS 271 080 et seq provIde procedures, reqmrements, and approval cntena for VacatlOns 9.020 Art LICABll..ITY (1) The VacatlOn process shall apply to pubhc nghts-of-way, other pubhc land, pubhc utlhty and other pubhc easements, and recorded SubdIvIsIon and PartItIon Plats under the JunsdIctlOn of the City (2) The City'S VacatlOn process shall not apply to (a) Lands over whIch Lane County or the State have JunsdIctIOn such as publIc nghts-of- way or SubdIvIsIon and PartItIOn Plats wlthm the CIty'S urbanlzable area, or (b) Lane County streets and State hIghways wIthm the CIty lImIts where jUflsdIctlOn has not been transferred to the City 9.030 REVIEW. (1) The VacatIon of all publIc easements shall be reVIewed under Type II procedure EXCEPTION PublIc utIlIty easements wIthm PartitIon and SubdIVISIon Plats may also be reahgned, reduced In wIdth or omItted as part of the Replat process as speCIfied In ArtIcle 42 of thIS Code (2) Tne VacatIon of any puohc nghts-of-way, any otner pubhc land as speCIfied m ORS 271080 et seq , and the VacatlOn ofPartItlOn and SubdIVISIon Plats In part or m their entrrety, mcludmg pubhc nghts-of-way and publIc utilIty easements located WIthIn the Plat, shall be reVIewed under Type IV procedure 9.040 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL (1) VacatlOn of publIc nghts-of-way and pubhc easements may be apphed for by property owners, pubhc agenCIes, or mltIated by the City CounCIl (2) VacatlOn of PartItIon and SubdIVISIon Plats may be applIed for by property owners 9-2 Date,Recelved Planner. AL /2-.~ ~Ob 7 / / App 11 ... ... (3) A complete applIcatIOn together WIth all reqmred matenals shall be submItted to the DIrector pnor to the reVIew of the request as speCIfied m Section 3 050, ApplIcatIOn Submittal The applIcatIon shall mclude (a) A legal descnptlOn of the publIc nghts-of-way, easement or plat to be vacated prepared by an Oregon LIcensed Land Surveyor or other professIOnal approved by the DIrector, (b) The reason for the Vacatlon, ( c) The proposed use of the property after Vacation, (d) For CitIZen lll1tIated Vacations of publIc nghts-of-way or PartItIOn and SubdIvlslOn Plats, the petItIon of affected property owners, (e) A map prepared by an Oregon LIcensed Land Surveyor or other profeSSIOnal approved by the Director of the area proposed to be vacated The map shall show 1 The date, north arrow, and standard scale, 2. The Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the affected propertIes and adJacent propertIes, , 3 A VIcmIty Map on the SIte Plan 01IcmIty Map does not need to be to scale), 4. All adjacent streets mcludmg street name, alleys, and accessways, and nght-of- way and pavmg WIdths, 5 All dlmenslOns of eXIstmg publtc utIlIty easements and any other areas restnctmg use of the parcels, such as conservatIOn areas, slope easements, access easements, etc , 6 EXIstmg dImenSIOns and square footage of the lots/parcels mvolved, 7 Proposed dImenSIOns and square footage of the lots/parcels mvolved (applIes tc VacatlOns of undeveloped SubdIVISIon Plats and nght-of-way V acatlOns), 8 For publIc easement and nght-of-way VacatIOns, clearly show dImenslOns of entIre easement or nght-of-way on or adJacent to the subject lots/parcels Also clearly show dImenSIOnS of that portIOn proposed for VacatlOn, mcludmg square footage, and 9. For nght-of-way VacatlOns, demonstrate complIance With the boundary reqUIrements ofORS 271 080 et seq 9-3 Date ReceIved Planner. AL /2A~~07 - , App 12 .... 10. The legal descnptiOn of the easement, nght-of-way or Plat, or portiOn thereof, proposed to be vacated (4) Where public easements are proposed to be vacated, a notanzed letter of concurrence wIth the VacatIOn from all utlhty provIders other than the CIty (telephone, cable TV, electrIC, water and gas), shall be submitted WIth the applIcation 9.050 NOTICE (1) NotIce for VacatiOns revIewed under Type II procedure shall be as speCIfied m SectiOn 3080(2) OfthlS Code (2) Notice for VacatIons revIewed under Type IV procedure shall be as speCified m SectIOn 14030(2) ofthls Code EXCEPTIONS: (a) Newspaper notIce shall be pubhshed once each week for two consecutIve weeks pnor to the pubhc hearmg The first day of pubhcatIOn and the postmg shall be not less than 14 days before the heanng (b) The applIcant shall post two SIgnS approved by the DIrector on the subJect property, or lfnght-of-way IS proposed to be vacated, the notIce shall be attached to a telephone or other sunilar utlhty pole Wlthm the VacatIOn area (3) NotIce for all Vacations shall be malled to all utIlIty proVIders provldmg servIce wlthm the CIty hmIts and the City'S urbamzable area 9.060 CRiTERIA OF ArrKOV AL (1) For the VacatiOn of public utIlIty easements, the Director shall approve, approve With condItions, or deny the applIcatiOn The applIcatiOn shall be approved If the VacatIon IS found to be conSIstent WIth the followmg cntena (a) There are no present or future servIces, facllmes, or uuhtles deemed to be necessary by a utthty proVIder and the easement IS not necessary, or (b) If the utility prOVIder deems the easement to be necessary, pubhc servIces, faCIlItIes, or utIlItIes can be extended m an orderly and effiCIent manner m an alternate locatiOn (2) Where the proposed VacatIOn ofpubhc nghts-of-way, other CIty property, or PartItIOn or SubdIVISIon Plats IS reVIewed under Type IV procedure, the CIty Councll 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 followmg approval cntena 9-4 Dat~ Received 1~}6 ~7 Planner. AL ;; ~ App 13 .. ,..,. (a) The VacatIOn shall be m conformance wIth the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted FunctlOnal Plans, and applIcable Refinement Plan dIagram, Plan DIstrIct map, or Conceptual Development Plan, (b) The VacatIOn shall not conflIct WIth the provlslOns of Spnngfield MumcIpal Code 1997, and thIS Code, mcludmg 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 denved from the pubhc nght-of-way, publIcly owned land or PartitIOn or SubdIVISIon Plat (3) Notwlthstandmg the provIslOns of SectIOn 9 060(2) where the land affected by the proposed VacatlOn ofpubltc nght-of-way, other publIc land as speCified m ORS 271 080, or pubhc easement WIll remam m publIc ownershIp and will contmue to be used for a publIc purpose, the request shall be reVIewed under the Type IV procedure The City CounCIl may approve the VacatlOn applIcatlOn If It IS found to be conSIstent WIth the followmg cntena (a) The VacatIOn was ImtIated by the CIty Counctl pursuant to ORS 271 130(1), (b) Notice has been glVen pursuant to ORS 271 110(1), (c) Approval of the vacatlOn would be conSIstent WIth prOVISIon of safe, convement and reasonably dIrect routes for cyclIsts, pedestnans and vehIcles as prOVIded m OAR 660- 0012-0045(3), (d) Whether a greater publIc benefit would be obtamed from the vacatIOn than from retammg the nght-of-way m Its present status, and ( e) Whether prOVISIons have been made to ensure that the vacated property WIll remam m pubhc ownershIp 9.070 CONDITIONS OF Ar r KOVAL If the DIrector or the CIty CounCIl approves a vacatlon, the foHowmg condmons may be attached (1) For a VacatlOn mvolvmg publIc nght-of-way, where applIcable, an easement for a publIc faCIlIty, publIcly owned utIlIty or other utIhty shall be retamed (2) A publIc facIlIty, publIcly owned utIlIty or other utIlIty shall be constructed, relocated or removed at the applIcant's expense or through cost sharing With the CIty as may be avaIlable A new pubhc easement shall then be reqUIred (3) A Vacated PartItlOn or SubdIVISIon Plat shall be replatted, where necessary 9-5 Date,Recelved. /J-4~(J7 , j/ Plannel AL App 14 . .. ..., (4) A publIc nght-of-way shall be relocated and rebUllt at the applIcant's expense or through cost shanng WIth the CIty, as may be avaIlable (5) Where the VacatIOn of a City nght-of-way results In an assessment of specIal benefit to the remammg property, the property owner shall provIde compensatIOn to the CIty III accordance With SectIOn 3204 ofthe Spnngfield MunIcIpal Code 1997 (6) The City CouncIl may attach any other condItIons as may be reasonably necessary 1D order to allow the VacatIOn to be granted (Ord.6133 07/18/05)' Title page, SectIOns 9 010, 9 020, 9 030, 9 040, 9 050, 9 060 and 9 070 (Ord. 6191 04/2/2007)' New SectIOn 9060(3)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) 9-6 Dat~1 f{ecelved Planner AL /2- /zb ;{otl7 I / . App 15 9 "'fII 9 060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL (1) For the Vacatlon ofpubbc utlbty easements, the DIrector shall approve, approve wIth condItlons, or deny the applIcatlon The appbcatIOn shall be approved If the Vacatlon IS found to be consIstent WIth the follOWIng cntena (a) There are no present or future servIces, facIbtIes, or utibtles deemed to be necessary by a utilIty prOVIder and the easement IS not necessary, or (b) If the unlIty provIder deems the easement to be necessary, public servIces, facilItIes, or utIlItIes can be extended In an orderly and effiCIent manner In an alternate locatIon (2) Where the proposed VacatIOn of publIc nghts-of-way, other CIty property, or PartInon or SubdIVISIon Plats IS reVIewed under Type IV procedure, the CIty CouncIl shall approve, approve WIth condItIons, or deny the Vacatlon applIcanon The appbcatlon shall be approved If the VacatIon IS found to be consIstent With the followmg approval cntena (a) The VacatIOn shall be In confonnance 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 Vacanon shall not confl.1ct WIth the prOVISIons of Spnngfield MuniCipal Code 1997, and this Code, mcludmg but not lumted to, street connecnvIty standards and block lengths, and (c) There shall be no negatIve effects on access, traffic crrculatlOn, emergency servIce protectJ.on or any other benefit denved from the pubbc nght-of- way, pubbcly owned land or PartItIOn or SubdIVISIon Plat (3) Notwlthstandmg the prOVISIOns ofSectlon 9 060(2), where the proposed Vacatzon or publzc right-of-way, other publzc land as specifzed m ORS 271 080, or publzc easement wzll remazn m publiC ownership and wzll contznue to be used for a publzc purpose, the request shall be reviewed under the Type IV procedure The City CounCil may approve the VacatlOn applzcatzon if It IS found to be consistent With the followmg criteria (a) The Vacatlon was znmated by the City CounGt! pursuant to OPS 271130(1), (b) Notice has been grven pursuant to ORS 271130(1), (c) Whether, on balance, the pubbc znterest wzll be served by the vacation of the rlght~or~way, other publzc land as specifzed zn ORS 271080, or publiC easement, and, (d) Whether provISlOns have been made to ensure that the vacated property wzll remazn zn publzc ownershzp Date Received /l-~{~t77 Planner AL / -/ ' App 16 . ..- tf SPRINGJ.iJ.ELD CHARll!..K Preamble We, the people of Spnngfield, Oregon, m order to aV3ll omselves of self-determmatIon m mUnicIpal a:ffinrs to the fullest extent noW or hereafter reserved, &AU.ed or allowed by the constrtUt1ons and laws of the Unrted States or the State of Oregon, through tins Charter confer upon the CIty the followmg powers, subject It to the followmg restnctIons, prescribe for It the followmg procedures and governmental stru.,,;"'" ~ and repeal all Charter prOVISIOns of the CIty operatIve before tb1s Charter takes effect -1- Date Received .!.~( 4p? A 17 Plannel AL 7 1 ~ - pp " .,. -- Spnngfield Charter CHAr IJ!,R IX. ORDINANCES Semon 30. Ordammg Clauses. The ordammg clause of an Ordmance shall read (1) In case of adoptIon by the Council alone, "The Common CouncIl of the CIty of B}'uugfield ordams as follows" (2) In case of adoptlOn or ratrlicatIon by the voters of the CIty, "The People of the CIty of Spnngfield ordam as follows" SectIon 31. Adoption by Council. (1) An Ordmance, b~IU1'" bemg adopted by the Councll, shall be read by tItle only m open CouncIl meetIng on two dIfferent days (2) The CouncIl may adopt an Ordmance b..........g an emergency clause at a smgle meetIng by the ..,..}',..ss '"f'f'H,1lll of213 maJonty of the CouncIl, proVIded the OrdInance IS read first m full and then by trtle If the Ordmance appears on the v...L;"'.... agenda made avatlable to the CouncIl and the pubhc at least 3 days pnor to the meenng WIth the mmcatlon that It bears an emergency clause, the readmg m full may be dIspensed WIth and both readIngs shall be by trtle SectIon 32. Approval or Disapproval by Mayor. (1) The Mayor, unless an OrdInance IS chs'"f'}',,,.red, shall mmcate "'t'f'wllll by SIgnature and date upon the Qrdmance, wluch will become effectIve m the manner proVIded by Charter If the Mayor dIsapprDves, the Ordmance shall be . ........ed to the CIty Recorder v..lL.. 10 days of receIpt, wIth reasons for chs"'f'f'.v.ral m wntmg If Dot returned by the Mayor wrthm such perIod, the OrdInance shall become effectIve upon the explI'lltIon of such tmle (2) An OrdInance W&.}'}'ADved by the Mayor shall be conslliered agam by the Council at Its next regular meetIng, at wluch tune the reasons for ms...pp. u Illl shall be read and the Ordmance shall agam be voted upon If three-fourths of all members of the CouncIl vote m favor of passage, the OrdInance becomes effectIve, otherwISe the OrdInance IS rejected. SectIon 33. Effective Date. A NOn-Em."Af,"UCY Ordmance takes effect on the 30th day after Its adoptIon or on whatever later day the OrdInance prescribes An Ordmance adopted to meet an emergency may take '"'.ff.....~ as soon as adopted. -14- Datn Received Planner AL /0~~(> 1 / App 18 .. , ... Sprmgfield Charter CHAr. J..1!.K.lWL IMPLEMENTATION Section 50. ContinuatIon of Ordinances. Insofar as COnsIstent wrtb thIs Charter and unttl amended or repealed, all Ordmances of the CIty m force when the Charter takes effect ....;....... the effect they have at that tmle SectIon 51. Repeal. All Charter proVISIOns oftb.e CIty adopted before thIs Charter takes effect are hereby repealed Section 52. Severability The terms of tins Ch-\.;,;.. are severable If a part of thIs Charter IS held mvahd, that mvahdlty does not affect another part of the Charter, except as the lOgIcal relatumslup between two p"'~ reqwres Section 53. Time of Effect. nus Charter takes effect on December 31,2001 -20- Date Received /./L4/~ ~e:: 7 App 19 Planner AL .. . .. ARTICLE 32 PUBLIC AND PR!V ATE IMPROVEMENTS 32.010 PURPOSE. (1) Plannmg references for publIc and pnvate UU-!JLovements The mtent oftb.1s ..Amcle IS to ensure that pubhc and pnvate J.ll11'.lJ.Uvements Wltbm the CIty lmuts and the CIty'S urbamzable area are mstalled and serve all lots, parcels, buildmgs or structures m accordance Wlth applIcable Metro Plan polICIes, mcludmg AuxilIary Map#l, TransPlan, other functlonal plans, the Con....:.pl.ml Local Street Map, applIcable Refinement Plans, Plan DlstnCts, Master Plans, and Conceptual Develupw.ent Plans, th1s Code, and any other apphcable regulanons (2) ConstI'llCbon and design references for publIc U,U.plovements under City JUl1schctlon Specrficanons for the deSlgn, construcl:1on, reconstrucnon or repmr of streets, alleys, Sldewalks, bus turnouts, accessways, curbs, gutters, street hghts, street Slgns, samtar)' sewers, stormwater management systf"1TlC\. street trees and planter stnps Wltb.m the publIC nght-of-way, medIans and other publIc Improvements Wlthin the crty lmuts and the eny' s urbamzable area shall be lD accordance wrth tb.1s Code, the Spnngfield MumcIpal Code 1997, the CIty'S Engmeenng Deszgn Standards and Procedures Manual and, the PublIc Works Standard Constructlon Specificanons The PublIc Works DrrectorTetams the nght to modify therr Clted references on a case-by-case basIS (3) ConsrrucOon and deSIgn references for other public agency nnprovements Each pubhc agency, mc1udmg but not hrruted to, the proVlder of water, electnClty, parks and publIc transit Servlce that have specific consrrucnon srandaras snail submn correspondtmce dunng the "Development ReVlew process that addresses therr constrUctlon reqUIrements (4) ConstrucTIon desIgn references for pnvate Improvements ( a) SpecIficatIons for pnvate street nnprovements WItbm the CIty lmuts and the CIty'S urbamzable ar~ shall be approved by the Pubhc Warks DIrector ill accordance WIth SectJon 32.030 of tb.1s Arbcle and the City'S Engzneenng Deszgn Starulards and Procedures Manual and any other apphcable Tez:,oulatlons (b) Other pnvate llllf-Uovements WlthIn the CIty lmuts and the CIty'S urbamzable area shall be as specified m tlus Code and/or appLvved by the Buildmg OffiClal (5) Amencans wIth DlSabihtles Act All applIcable pubhc and pnvate nnprovements shall also meet current applIcable standards of the Amencans Wlth DlSabilmes Act. 32.020 STREETS - PUBLIC. (1) General ProVlSlons (a) The locatIon, width and grade of streets shall be considered m therr relanon to eXlStmg and planned 5ucdcl, to topo:rapb1cal conmnons, and to the planned use ofland to be served by the ~u.:.cts L The street system shall assure effiClent traffic CITCula:b.on that 15 convement and safe Grades, tangents, curves and mtersecuon angles shall be ap}-/J.upnate Dat~ ,Received Planner. AL ILpl, ~()7 I ,/L-< I App 20 32-2 .. ~ ,~ for the traffic to' be o..4Lued, consIdenng the terram Street location and deSIgn shall consIder solar access to' buildIng SItes as may be reqmred to' comply WIth applIcable solar regulatIons specrfied m flus Code, the need for utilIty locations, and the preservanon of natural and lnstonc resources mventoned ill the Metro Plan Street locahons shall ardmarily be shO'wn m TransPlan, applIcable Refinement Plans, Plan Dl,Strlcts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development Plans, or the Conceptual Local Srreet Mall The a.l.Hl.I.lgement of pubhc meets shall prOVIde for the connnuatlon or appHJpnate proJecTIon of eXlStmg streets m the surroundmg area, unless topograpmcal ar other condItlOns make connnuance or canformance to eXIstIng street ahgnments lTIlpractIcal 1. The followmg street cannecnon standards shall be used m evaluaong meet alIgnment prapasals nat shown on an adopted plan or that are dIfferent from the Conceptual Local Street Map. a.. Streets shall be deSIgned to' effiCIently and safely accommodate all modes of travel mcludmg emergency fire and medIcal servIce vemcles b. The layout of srreets should not create exceSSIve travel lengths, partlcularly for pedestnans and cyclIsts Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless the developer demonsrrates that a block length must be greater than 600 feet because of the eXIstence af ane or more of the followmg candl'oons 1 PhYSIcal condITIOns preclude a block length 600 feet or less These condrtlOns may mclude topography or the eXIstence of phYSIcal features, Includmg but nat hmIted to' wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, nvers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by state or federal law U. BUlldmgs or ather eXIsting development an adjacent lands, mcludmg preVlously subdlVlded but vacant lots or parcels that phYSIcally preclude a block length 600 feet or less, consldenng the potential far redevelopment. ill In the case where the extensIOn of a pubhc meet mto the proposed development would create a block length exceedmg 600 feet, the total block length shall be as close to' 600 feet as possible c.. Streets shall be mterconnected to praVIde for the effiCIent prOVISIon of publIc facihtles and for more even dIspersal of traffic . d. New streets shall be deSIgned to accommodate pedestnaIlS and bIcycles safely e. The street CIrculatIon pattern shall prOVIde connecnons to and from act1V1ty centers such as schools, commerClal areas, parks employment centers, and other m.aJor attractOI f. Street desIgn shall numrruze 1IDpacts to waterways and wetlands, street deSIgn shall follow slope contours where possible ':!~ ':! /._ / / App21 Datel Re,celved J-f 21/200 '7 Planner AL I / -., (;. .'" 1'" g Street desIgn shall enhance the effiClency of the reglOl.lal collector and artenal street system by provldmg relanvely uniform volumes of traffic to provIde for optlmum dIspersal h. Streets ldentrfied, as future transIt routes shall be de"Slgned to safely, effiCIently and phYSIcally accommodate transIt velncles i. Streets shall meet all deslgn standards m thIS Code, the CIty'S Engzneenng Deszgn Standards and Procedures Manual, the Pubhc Works Standard ConstrUcTIon SpecIficanons, and the Spnngfield MumClpal Code 1997 j. Streets shall proVIde lOgical and efficIent extenslODS of the public street system to adJommg propertles 2. The DlI'ector, m consultatIon WIth the Public Worlcs Drrector, may modIfy the Conceptual Local Street Map wnen a proposed alIgnment IS consIstent with the street connectlon gwdehnes (32.020 (l)(a)(l.) or when ex.lstmg condItIons make applICaTIOn of the Conceptual Local Street Map lIDpractlcal or mconslstent With accepted tranSportatIon plannmg pnnClples (b) All streets and alleys shall be dedIcated and Improved In accordance WIth tlns Code (c) Alllots/parcels shall have Q.p~.JLoved access to a pubhc street or alley The access shall be prOVIded by eIther 1. Drrect access to a pubilc :>Uc.vL or a1ley, 2 Threct access to a pnvate street., or 3. AIl rrrevocable Jomt use/access easement that has been approved by the CIty Attorney, where a. Pnvate dnveways In heu of a panhandie onveway, where specl'fied elsewhere m th1s Code; or b. Combmed access fortwo or more lots/parcels are reqw.red to reduce the number of access pomts along a street, as determmed by the Pubhc Works Director (d) Development App~\J val shall not be ya..ured where a development will create dangerous or hazardous trafiic cond1t.J.ons. (e) A d..,..yeloper may be reqmred to p~ '-pare a Traffic Impact Study to show how the deSIgn and mstallatIon of on-Slte and off-Slte lu11:'1Uvements will rrl1n1mi7.e Idl:a!l1i.ed traffic nnpacts The study shall be mcluded WIth a development apphca:tlon, m any of the rollowmg mstances DateJ~acelved Planner. AL j;{ j.u j;)iyn / -Ii' App 22 ~"....:1.