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.