Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 12/4/2007 ! ;. ~ . . . . ~ ~ '&. BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS Scott E. 01son, , Petitioner, VS. The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department, Respondent, Scott E, Olson, 1127 B Street Springfield, OR 97477 \ (541) 988-4687 Petitioner Joseph J. Leahy, OSB #70083 223 A Street, Suite D Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 746-9621 Attorney for Respondent OF THE STATE OF OREGON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) L ) ) ) ) ) LUBA No. 207-201 PETITION FOR REVIEW Dat~ ""1eCeived:~/2007 --- Planner: Al . TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Petitioner's Standing Page 1 II. Statement of the Case 1 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision and Relief Sought B. Summary of Arguments C Summary of Facts 1 1 2 III. Jurisdiction 3 . ~ . ~ IV, Argument 4 , ~ .. .. !tA , . ~ FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4 @\ The city erred when it decided to vacate B Street without findings that the closure and vacation of the street meet all of the approval criteria ofSDC 9.060 bO~N '-r fC)AlIt by applying amended ~ri1eria to $is project yvhich w~ere developed Ib MCb-1 AIJ'1 'Of<.. , specifically to exempt the city from it's own-land use policy and regulation ALL- c./ZJ~,lA pertaining to B Street. The previous land use approvals for tbis project have avoided consideration of the street closure/vacation issue and code compliance with the city's assertion that the street closure question was only relevant to the ""'/S 15 T'TLvE.. vacation process, not the Zone Cfumge ZON2006-00007, Discretionary Use Approval DRC2006-00013, or Site Plan Review DRC2006-00033 land use decisions wrJch have previously been approved. The city erred in not considering all of the approval SDC criteria for each of these decisiol1s which required findings that the street closure is consistent with the Metro Plan, the TSP, the Downtown Refinement Plan and the SDC requirements. The city failed to incorporated findings in any of the land use decisions including the No T Vacation of the Right-of-W:aY_~:RP2007-00019 that address compliance with 1. T((..v~ The functional classification of B Street as a collector street, 2. The street ; connectivity requirements of the Nodal Development Overlay zone, or 3. the , maximum block length St&'l.dards- of the SDC. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " .. .. ',- .. , , SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 11 The city erred when it determined that the "Greater Public Interests" were served by vacating B Street. i The'city has amended the Springfield Development Code_ (SP~} 9.Q60(3) establishing new criteria for vacation of " ,right-of~way where the property will remain in public ownership anlWfU continue to be used for a public purpose. The city has added these criteria to the code April 3, 2007 in an attempt to avoid the established criteria for street W'...~tlons.( Rec. at 773) The criteria for street vacations when the use will not Date Received: 1~/'1/&J07 Planner: AL I / . , be public remain unchanged and require findings that the vacation is compliant with all of the code criteria The vacation ofB Street is not consistent with any of the three established criteria still applicable to all private development. THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 20 The city erred when it conspired to close B Street in spite of considerable land /"' use policy and regulation to the contrary. The city's biase4 approach to "the / procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner" (OAR 197.835(9)(3), resulting in the loss of the public commons for the use of city employees to park vehicles and ' construct a storage building in a public way that has been in continuous use by the public for over 145 years. NOI -rR...\J6' V. Conclusion No, fJ.A1'1"21> 1Jt-.!",L- ~I B1.;L 25 Datel f1eceived: /1;~7 P1a'lner: AL 1 1. Petitioner's Standing 2 Petitioner has standing under ORS 197.830(3)(b) to petition this board for review ofa 3 land use or limited land use decision made by the respondent, City of Springfield, because he 4 filed the Notice ofIntent to Appeal within 21 days of the CitYs Final Decision to Vacate a 5 264 foot long portion of B Street. There is no local appeal process, for the vacation of a street 6 right of way. 7 1. Statement of the Case 8 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision and Relief Sought 9 The challenged land use or limited land use decision is the Vacation ofB Street, City 10 of Springfield Case No. LRP2007-00019, approved 9/17/07. Pursuant to ORS 197.835 11 petitioner seeks reversal of the City's decision. 12 B. Summary of Arguments 13 B Street can not be closed and vacated to accommodate Justice CcUkl parking and storage needs 14 because B Street is designated as a collector street on the Street Functional Classification Map in the 15 Metro Plan. The city desires to close B Street at its connection to Pioneer Parkway, an arterial 16 street, immediately adjacent to the site. Further the closure B Street would result in a block length of N""'- ~,""E: 1 7 640 feet,,. 40 feet in excess of the Springfield Development Code, SDC 32.020(1)( aX 1) maximum 18 block length of 600 feet Finally, the area is within a Nodal Develvpulent Overlay zone and requires 19 extra ordinary measures for f'nhl'lucing the bicycle and ped",~lrian envhUUlUent. The closure and 20 vacation of B Street to construct a parking and storage area for the Justice Center is not consistent Y\~o PLAN '? 21 with the city's Comprehensive Plari, the Transportation System Plan, the Downtown Refinement 22 Plan., the Nodal Development Overlay zone, or the Springfield Development Code requirements 23 including block length standards. PetItion For Review Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield D3t~i r~aceived: IYY2c07 Planner: Al i 1 The city has shamefully conspired to close B Street 'Without regard for the numerous clear 2 and obvious inconsistencies 'With the city's adopted land use plans and standards. 3 The ~~~,,~ vacation does not meet any of the three criteria previously established in the code. CD 4 The criteria related to the ~L.'""'t closure have not been addressed during the zone change, the 5 discretionary use approval, the site review, and now the ;)L.cc;.l: vacation. The city has completed nine - 6 separate land use approvals or actions to advance the Justice Center project without acknowledging 7 the inconsistencies. There is no variance process that makes 1hese policies and req~"lllents go 8 away. 9 The city has the hierarchy of the project planning criteria reversed. The community has 10 planned for the develuplllent desired in the downtown area Those plans are embodied in the 11 adopted public policy documents. The "l'PLuach to this project has been how we can change 1he 12 code to 8CCvllllUodate everything the police are asking for instead of how we can build consistent 13 'With our community plan and vision. 14 The project must conform to block and connectivity standards, and respect the 15 functional street plan. Particularly since this is a Nodal Development Overlay zone which 16 relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Ironically 1he cit)ls 17 maximum block length is the local implementing standard for the bicycle and pedestrian policies 18 contained in OAR 660-012-00045(3) which 1he city is now attempting to substitute for 1he city's clear 19 and objective standards contained in 1he Springfield Development Code. 20 C. Summary of Facts 2 I The city of Springfield voters c.l.ppLVVed a Measure 20-91 in November, 2004 for the 22 construction of a new Municipal Justice Center on the city owned site of the existing police fUld 23 municipal court facilities. The ballot measure indicated that the city might need to utilize 1he right- 2 Petition For Review Scott E, Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield D(11, J ?~f3ceived: /~/.lf,k7 Planner: Al I ; I 1 of-ways of both 41h and B Streets for the construction. In July of2005 the city entered into a sole 2 source personal services contract with Liebert and Associates for planning of the Justice Center. The 3 city council ap}Jl\wed the Functional and Space Program for the Justice Center Facility on 4 November 28, 2005 without public hearing. The city 2Lppwved LRP2005-0003l a Development 5 Code Amendment to Article 23 of the Springfield Develv}lll.lent Code (SDC) on February 6, 2006 DI5c.~cNA,<t.f 6 which added Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO district On April 18, 2006 the city 8 (with conditions) to provide for the Justice Center construction. A Site Plan Review -'/1115 IS A Nlc.E SuMMAJZ'1 13......, )~R8--EV'A "J'r 7 conclulcully approved Zone Change ZON2006-00007 and Discretionary Use DRC2006-00013 9 DRC2006-00033, Amended Decision for the Justice Center was issued by the city on July 25, 2006, 10 The city amended the Springfield Development Code-Article 9, LRP2007 -00002 on April 2, 2007, 11 'Which modified the right-of-way vacation 2Lppwval criteria for publicly owned facilities. Finally the 12 city applV ved LRP2007 -000019 Vacation of the Public Right-of-Way on September 17, 2007. 13 _ B Street is designated as a COl1~tVl street on the Street Functional Classification Map of the 14 Cvulpldlensive Plan, It h{U;;l~ts with the arterial street, Pioneer Parkway East immediately 15 adjacent to the proposed Justice Center site. The Justice Center site is within a Nodal Development 16 Overlay zone which emphasizes street connectivity, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The city 17 has vacated a portion ofB Street to accommodate a secure parking area and a storage building 18 associated with the construction of a new Justice Center. 19 Ill. Jurisdiction 20 The appealed decision is a final decision or detennination of a local government concerning the 21 application of a land use regulation under ORS 197.015 (11 X a)(A)(ili) or a limited land use decision 22 pertaining to a site within an urban growth boundary 'Which concerns the applvVal or denial of an 23 application based on discretionary standards designed to regulate the physical characteristics of a use 3 Petition For Review Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Oakl F~eceived: 1;2./~kT Planner: AL / I 1 pennitted outright, including but not limited to site review and design review. ORS 197.015(13)(b), 2 LUBAhas jurisdiction of this matter under ORS 197.825. 3 IV. Argument' 4 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 5 The city erred when it decided to vacate B Street without fmdings that the closure and 6 vacation of the street meet all of the apprQval criteria ofSDC 9.060 by applying amended w 7 ,criteria to this project which where developed specifically to exempt the city from ies own 8 land use policy and regulation pe~ng to-8 Street. t 9 The previous land use approvals for this project have avoided consideration of the 10 street closure/vacation issue and code compliance with the city's assertion that the street 11 closure question was only relevant to the vacation process, not the Zone Chan~e 12 ZON2006-00007, Discretionary Use Approval DRC2006-00013, or Site Plan Review 13 DRC2006-00033 land use decisions which have previously been approved. The city erred in 14 not considering all of the approval SDC criteria for each of these decisions which required 15 findings that the street closure is consistent with the Metro Plan, the TSP, the Downtown 16 Refmement Plan and the SDC requhl:<lllents. The city failed to incorporated findings in any 17 \ of the land us.e decisions includipg"the Vacation of the Right-of-Way LRP2007-00019 that - 18 \ address compliance with 1. The functional classification of B Street as a collector street, 2. r/1J.blrJG S' A~ 11'1 C-&...V l:>€b , tJ -Wi:: SI;z~FF RtP cf!..T ~ 19 }be s!reet connectivity requirements ofttle ~odal Development Overlay zone, or 3. the 'D I 1::> "-'oC:" 'I; AVE;- IC;I? ~ 20 \~um block length standards of the SDC. 21 The Springfield Development Code 9.060(2) establishes criteria for the a}Jp1UVal of 22 street vacations, 23 The application shall be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the 24 following approval criteria. 4 Petition For Review Scott E, Olson PetitIoner 1127 B Street, Springfield Dat€'I Received' /Y;~7 Planner: AL 1 (a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the , 2 ConcepUliU 3 Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan 4 diagram, Plan District map, or ConcepUliU Development Plan; 5 (b) The Vacation shall not conflict \Vith the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 6 1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and 7 blocklengfhs;and 8 -(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service 9 protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned 10 land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. 11 The vacation ofB StreeUs not consistent with any of the three criteria established in ~ 12 ,the SDC. The petitioner provided 16 pages of specific policy and code inconsistencies in his 13 March 28, 2006 submittal to the record of Discretionary Use and Zone Change. (Rec. at 138). 14 The city subsequently approved the zone change and discretionary use, dismissing the 15 petitioners 16 pages of testimony with the following two sentences: 16 "The issues raised by Mr. Olson pertain almost exclusively to the proposed street 17 vacation and block lengfh variance applications that would be referred to the Planning 18 Commission for a recommendation at a future public hearing, prior to being presented 19 to City Council at another public hearing meeting. Staff is unable to respond to these 20 issues as the Discretionary: Use and Zone Change request criteria do not have any 21 direct relationship to the Metro Plan and Trans Plan transportation goals, objectives 22 and policies."(Rec. At 1505) 23 The city's response is rather preposterous since the approval criteria for the Discretionary Use 24 include ..- 25 SDC 10.030 CRITERIA 26 A Discretionary Use may be approved only if the Planning Commission or Hearings 27 Official finds that the proposal conforms with the Site Plan Review approval criteria 28 specified in Section 31.060 of this Code, where applicable, and the following 29 approval criteria: 30 (1) The proposed use conforms with the applicable: 31 (a) Provisions of the Metro Plan: 32 (b) Refinement vlans: 33 (c) Plan District standards: 34 (d) Conceptual Development Plans; or 3 5 (e) Special use standards in this Code; 36 (2) The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: 37 (a) The location, size, design and overatinf! characteristics of the use (overatinfT. 38 characteristics include but are not limited to varkim!. trafflc, noise, vibration, 5 Petition For Review Scott E, Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Date Received: /0 ~7 Planner: Al J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 *=- 29 30 31 "32 33 34 35 emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); (b) Adeauate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the DroDosed site. and on-site circulation and emerIlencv reSDonse as well as pedestrian. bicvcle and transit circulation: \ (c) The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and (d) Adeauate DubUc facilities and services are available. includinf! but not limited to. utilities. streets. storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. (Emphasis added.) The city did acknowledge Metro Plan and SDC obstacles to proceeding with the closure ofB Street in the staff report dated March 21,2006: Additional Annrovals The subject applications are the first steps in a series of development applications for Planning Commission and Council consideration in order to allow develvplllent of a Justice Center at the proposed location. If the Planning Commission approves the Discretionary Use and Zoning Change requests, .an application would be taken to Council for a Type II TransPlan amendment to remove the affected portion of B Street from the colledor street network. Application also would be required to have the affected portions of B Street, 4th Street, and the alley between A and B Streets vacated. If a TransPlan amendment application is submitted, the Planning Commission would be required to provide a recommendation to City Council on that matter and proposed street and alley vacations. A variance to the block length requirement also would be required upon vacation of B Street between Pioneer Parkway East and 4th Street, as the perimeter travel distance would exceed the parameters established by the SDC. (ree. at 1911) .The city has not amended Trans Plan to remove B Street from the collector street ') network. Further the variance provisions of the SDC do not exist which apply to right of way C"cc....K W\\\-l MOlT vacation decisions. Additionally, a variance to city wide block length standards in a Nodal Development Overlay is clearly inconsistent with the intent and requirements of the zone as articulated in the Downtown Refinement Plan. The city erred in it's assertions that "the , Discretionary Use and Zone Change request criteria do not have anY direct relationship to the Metro Plan and Trans Plan transportation goals, objectives and policies", P/f S l' b~'cISlo.N 6 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review ,/ Datn ~3ceived: /.2./9';<<>7 Planner: AL " 1 Further the city proceeded to approve Site Plan Review for the project and issued 2 building permits without consideration of the street closure and vacation as required in 3 Condition 1 of the Discretionary Use approval. 4 ], Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center 5 where 6 improvements are to b~ constructed witbin the B Street right~of-way between 4th Street 7 and Pioneer Parkway East, and public 'passage is not maintained, the City Council 8 must 9 approve an alteration of use or vacation of the affected portIOn of B Street right-of- 10 way . (Rec. at 1494) 11 Prior to making any determination of the closure and vacation of B Street and 12 contrary to the 13 Condition of Approval for the Discretionary Use Approval the city issued a Notice to Proceed 14 with construction of the facility on June 12,2007. 15 The city finally addressed the street closure issue in the city's July 17,2007 decision 16 to vacate B Street. However the decision is flawed since the city only considered the new B.) -, . - . 17 ',criteria amended to the code three months earlier, which were clearly concocted to usurp the 18 land use impediments to their desired street closure. The new criteria essentially provides for 19 the city to choose to ignore any land use policy or standard on public projects by making an 20 amorphous ~and undefined finding that "a greater public benefit" is derived from the street 21 vacation. Instead of addressing the clear and objective standards of the code, which have 22 been constructed to implement their adopted land use policies, the city has amended the code 23 in an attempt to avoid ever confronting the nonconformity of the proposed street closure. 24 The fmdings in support of the city's decision are based upon anecdotal and undocumented 25 testimony about damage to employee vehicle over a multitude of decades, and ~ssues with 26 police employees walking across a street. 7 Scott E. Olson Petiuoner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review DatEi ~1eceived: p-At kl Planner: AL . / *" NOT ~ANT 7 focused the discussion on traffic carrying capacities of the adjacent streets where the traffic will be -. ""-" '-.)lILLA 8 diverted. One should note that collector and local streets often look identical. The diIfc.H:;Uce is in the 6:>t.... t..tt..ToR ~~ CAi 9 effectiveness of the street system and Vv ~l':;"lC public inv=huent in traffic canying pavement bas been , J vOl.uM~ f- l 1 0 m~ilp A two lane ~hocl is capable of handling the same traffic whether it is a collector or a local street fv~r::. , 1 -.. ~~O/'l A 11 11 The pavements onA Street and C Sh.:..d have not been reconstructed to carry the collector street udffic 7<0 ;- I ~b.S l 12 that bas previously utilized B Street which was reconstructed to collector street standards in 1997 at a (NI/1 L- T I - )N'" 'C;JQ. l 13 present value in excess of$l~OOO,OOO. Since the collector and local streets in the area are the same c..,'1 1 ~~\, \ ~ r- ~I~ <.-Tt... '-f ! A F'urJ(.Tlc)""'. 15 traffic study fail to address the impact of the one block closure on the function ofB Street as a collector *" U1- ~ fv..f.:fOJt ~, v't>L-VMt;";, *" --tJO S T;1rJb1iCD DR ~T~/,4 1 Ironically, the petitioner's testimony which was dismissed as irrelevant to the 2 Discretionary Use approval and relevant only to the street vacation was ultimately dismissed 3 by the city as irrelevant to the new approval criteria for the vacation of the street. The city 4 has failed to establish that the street closure conforms with the comprehensive plan and 5 zoning requirements, 6 The city has failed to even discuss the street function as a collector stree~ and has instead 14 widths~ it did not require a traffic engineer to come to that kind of conclusion. The staff report and 16 street or the functional impact to the adjacent streets. The Street FlIDctional Classification Map is an 17 element of the Metro Plan and a plan amendment is required to change a street's function. 18 19 20 21 22 SDC 7.030 METRO PLAN AMENDMENT - DEFllv1110NS. AMENDMENT. An amendment to or change in: (1) the text of the Metro Plan, refinement plan, or functional alan: or, (2) the diafffam of the Metro Plan, refinement alan or functional vlan. 23 The city erred in not addressing all of the criteria for street vacations. The city has 24 added criteria to the code in an attempt to avoid the established criteria for street vacations. 25 The criteria for street vacations when the use will not be public remain unchanged and 8 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review ~N')P0iN! ' ufbATE ~ pLAtJNE1)! Dat€'1 Received: /0JA?7 Planner: AL 1 require findings the vacation is compliant with the following criteria: g) 2 (a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, Trans Plan, and the 3 Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable 4 Refmement Plan diagram, Plan District map, or Conceptual Develvplllent Plan; 5 (b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 6 1997;( and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and 7 blocklengtlls;and 8 (c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service 9 protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned 10 land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. 11 ,The vacation ofB Street is not consistent with any of the three criteria still applicable to any (f) 12 private development. The city has not justified why a public building can be allowed to 13 compromise the street connectivity but privately owned buildings could not. What if the 14 proposed street closure was to accommodate a privately owned hospital? The city has 15 implied a higher value to public ownership of property, without any rationale for granting 16 public construction exceptions to the rules. The new criteria for public improvements were 17 concocted to accommodate the proposed Justice Center project The city needs to consider all 18 of the land use requirements for new developments regardless of ownership or whether they 19 support their short term goals. 20 The SDC 32.020(1)(b) establishes a maximum block length stand throughout the city 21 of Springfield: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 SDC 32. 020(1) (b) The lavout of streets should not create excessive travellem.!ths.. varticularlv for vedestrians-and cvclists, Block lenf!th for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet. unless the developer demonstrates that a block length must be greater than 600 feet because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions' i. Physical conditions preclude a block length 600 feet or less. These conditions may include topography or the existence of physical features, including but not limited to: wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by 1 state or federal law. ii. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels that physically preclude a block length 600 feet 9 Scott E. Olson Petitloner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review Datf'1 Received: Planner: AL /)..H4tJ7 / 1 or less, considering the potential for redevelopment. 2 iii. In the case where the extension of a public street into the proposed development 3 would create a block length exceeding 600 feet, the total block length shall be as 4 close to 600 feet as possible. 'N,ofE 5 The city erred in deciding to vacate B Street because it results in a block length of 640 6 feet in excess of the maximum block length. Section 32.020 further requires that the street 7 system provide for the "locations shall ordinarily be shown in TransPlan; applicable 8 Refinement Plans, Plan Districts", B Street is identified in the "TransPlan" Functional 9 Classification Map as a collector street. It is also identified in the Downtown Refinement 1 0 Plan as a collector street. The "Plan District" has a Nodal Development overlay which 11 emphasizes street connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle safety and convienence. 12 SDC 32.020(1) General Provisions 13 (a) The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to 14 existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, and to the planned use of 15 land to be served by the streets. The street svstem shall assure efficient traffic 16 circulation that is convenient and safe. ... Street locations shall ordinarilv be shown 17 in TransPlan: applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts. Master Plans, Conceptual 18 Development Plans; or the Conceptual Local Street Map. The arranf!ement of public 19 streets shall vrovide for the continuation or U.VVI ovriate projection of existin1! streets 20 in the surroundinf! area, unless topographical or other conditions make continuance 21 or coriformance to existing street alignments impractical, 22 1. The following street connection standards shall be used in evaluating street 23 alignment proposals not shown on an adopted plan or that are different from the 24 Conceptual Local Street Map: 25 g. Street desim shall enhance the efficiencv of the retzional collector and arterial 26 street svstem by providing relatively uniform volumes of traffic to provide for 27 optimum dispersal, 28 It is obvious that closing a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street in a 29 Nodal Development zone is not consistent with the land use policy and requirements in 30 Springfield. The SDC established requirements for Nodal Development in SDC 41.010 31 ESTABLISHM:ENT OF THE NODAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY: 32 (1) PURPOSE The Nodal Development Overlay District (INDO) is established to 10 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review -' Dato Received: /0be.t'7 Planner: AL /. 1 work in conjunction with underlying zoning districts to implement transportation 2 related land use policies found in the Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Plan 3 (TransPlan) and in the Eugene-Spr,ingfield Metro Area General Plan, The INDO 4 District also supports ''pedestrian-:friendly, mixed-use development" as outlmed in 5 the State Transportation Planning Rule. 6 Design standards for the INDO District are structured to foster the essential 7 characteristics of 8 pedestrian-friendly, human scale development that define ~~nodal development. " 9 These include: ,10 (a) Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit 11 use, walking and bicycling; 12 (b) Transit access within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile) of anywhere in the 13 node; ~1RA.;:-1="J c.. 14 (c) Mixed uses and a core commercial area so that services are available within ':1::i; Fle c::D 15 walking distance; '-')t::. 16 (d) Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open ~pace, and public jacilitiestSJ } !?ANSIT 17 that can be reached wit/rout driving; and ~-;IL L 18 (e) A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density NL-ABLF 19 of at least 12 units per acre. It is important to note that the Nodal Development 20 Overlay District works using the design and development standards found in Article 21 40-Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, as a basis for achieving pedestrian-friendly *' ~-r.,- 22 design, As such, there are frequent references in this article to standards found in 23 Article 40, The overlay district is needed to add those special standards and 24 prohibitions that help define a nodal development area under TransPlan. 25 The city erred when it did not consider the Nodal Development overlay requirements 26 in the decision to vacate B Street. The closure of a collector street that has been an open NoT Pl-A, I tl.> tlN"-' L- 27 'pu~lic way for 145 years in a NDO overlay zone is clearly not consistent with the intent or I 'b1"J.- 28 the specific requirements of the zone designation. 29 Finally the SDC criteria for street vacation requires findings that "(c) There shall be I 30 no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service". It is apparent that such 31 a finding for the closure of B Street would be absurd. - 32 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 33 The city erred when it determined that the "Greater Public Interests" were served by 34 vacating B Street. 35 The city has amended the Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) 9.060(3) 11 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review Dat€'l Received: /2.Hko7 Planner: AL I I 1 establishing new criteria for vacation of right-of-way where the property will remain in @/iJ 2 public ownership and will continue to be used for a public purpose. The city has added these 3 criteria to the code April 3, 2007 in an attempt to avoid the established criteria for street 4 vacations.( Rec. at 773) The criteria for street vacations when the use will not be public 5 remain unchanged and require findings that the vacation is compliant with all of the code 6 criteria The vacation of B Street is not consistent with any of the three establisbed criteria (J) 7 still applicable to all private development. 8 The vacation decision is only supported with findings related ~o the new crite~ia' eD 9 which are clearly a constructed attempt of the city to exempt its self from compliance with 10 their own land use policies. The new criteria ofSDC 9.060(3) (a) The Vacation was initiated by 11 the Clty Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1); this is a statutory requirement-for the vacation of 12 public ways and does not address the land use decision requirements associated with closing a publIc 13 collector street and constructing a public building in the street The city is attempting to default to the 14 statutory minirmnn procedures to vacate a public street The ORS Chapter 271 requirements do not 15 address the land use appJ.uval process necessary to consider the closme of a public way. Particularly a 16 collector street in a Nodal Develvpment Overlay zone. Being consistent with the ORS 271 17 requirements does not in any way assure consistency with loca1land use requirements. 18 the city has made findings that the vacation of B Street is consistent with the new @) 19 crit~ria ofSDC 9.060(3)(c): 20 Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and 21 reasonably direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians as provided in OAR 660-012- 22 00045(3) 23 The city has made findings that the closure ofB Street is consistent with this criteria OARCJ 24 660-012 relates to requirements of the city to adopt regulations to implement the required 12 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review Dat~l f~eceived: 12-/~/2c()7 Planner: Al / 1 Transportation System Plans. The cited section begins: 2 (3) Local governments shall adopt land use or subdivision regulationsfor urban 3 areas and rural communities as set forth below, The purposes of this section 4 are to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular 5 circulation consistent with access management standards and the function of 6 affected streets, to ensure that new development provides on~site streets and 7 accessways that provide reasonably direct routes for pedestrian and bicycle 8 travel in areas where pedestrian and bicycle travel is likely if connections are 9 provided, and which avoids wherever possible levels of automobile traffic 10 which might interfere with or discourage pedestrian 'or bicycle travel. 11 Substituting this language as a means of avoiding the local adopted standards related 12 to street functional classification, block length standards, and Nodal Development zones is 13 absurd. The criteria the city is attempting to avoid are a direct consequence of this OAR - 14 Further the ~odal Development overlay is required for compliance with the Tran Plan t 15 requirements for vehicle mile reductions embodied in the Transportation Planning Rule 16 (TPR). 17 Substituting the broad pedestrian and bicycle connection criteria from the state's TPR 18 for required anywhere in the entire state for the specifics of the local Comprehensive Plan, 19 Transportation System Plan, Refinement Plans, Zoning Requirements and SDC requirements 20 is an obvio~~ttempt to avoi~pil~'With the local adopted policy and code 21 requirements. The basis of VpGtuUlll pedestrian trip lengths is CullllllOl1ly based upvlJ. the 10 minute 22 walking circle which is typically assigned a 1,14 mile radius. Adding a one block detour adds 23 Of-'PlUh..il1Jately 640 feet or 1/8 mile to the trip, effectively requiring 5 minutes walking out of direction 24 during the ideal 1 0 minute trip and cutting the effective ten minute trip to 1/8 mile. This is not 25 insignificant in the downtown, Nodal Development zone and the only neighborl100d in the city where 26 1he streets already ~nfV.ull to the city connectivity and block length standards. The closure ofB Street 27 is clearly inconsistent with adopted city policy regardless of the ;:o,l.a.o;ct vacation process or criteria. The l 13 Scott E, Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Dato Received: 10~o7 Planner: AL Petition For Review 1 city findings in support of this criteria misconstrued basic pedestrian planning principles and 2 the intent of OAR 660-012 in arguing that the addition adding 40% out of direction travel to 3 the most desirable ~ mile pedestrian trip length is not consistent with accepted pedestrian 4 planning principles. (Finding 14, Rec. at 18). 5 This new \JJ.~k;L;a (c) suL~Glutes the generic definition of the statewide goal for pedestrian and 6 cyclist facilities for the specificity of the Springfield standards embodied within 1he city's 7 Development Code. Meeting the minimum req1fucuLents for anywhere in the state of Oregon for the 8 special and unique requirements of a collector street at its' intersection with an arterial street in 9 Downtown Springfield a Nodal Develui.I1Uent zone is ina.W.l.VpL~ and not consistent with the ? 1 0 adop~ zoriing and Transportation System Plan policy or the specifics of the block length standards 11 which apply to all zones Vv~lL.;.u the city of Springfield. 12 The city's Finding 28, "that right-ol-way vacation will not compromise safe, convenient and " 13 reasonable direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 14 660-012-0045(3)." (Rec. at 20) 15 This conclusion seems DreDosterou~. when what is being considered is the closure of a 16 collector street in a Nodal Development zone. The city's conclusions demonstrates the city's 17 .ina.hilitv to take an impartial view of the Police Department's insistence upon closing the 18 street. The city has failed to even be1Pn makiIlg a rational case for the closure of the street 19 even if the land use policy and code could accommodate it, which in fact they do not. 20 Lacking other clear and objective standards, the city erred in not applying the locally adopted 21 LUuillg and develupment code criteria and requirements in ddc.~g ~l1.ipliance with SDC 9.060(3) 22 (c). 23 In SDC 9.060(3)(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtainedfrom the 14 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Petition For Review Dato :'<Hceived: Planner: AL , ~4A T 5 lDNltJG Ge, -ra:bo WI""" / T": 1.2/~.2.?d 7 " I 1 vacation than from retaining the right of way in its present status; the city has attempted to 2 justify compliance with this criteria through Finti;ngs 28 through 35 of the Findings of Fact 3 and Conclusions of Law for the street vacation approval. All of these fmdings are based 4 upon project requirements for parking and storage that should never have been planned for 5 the street. 6 In response to the city's Finding 33 related to the need for the ancillary Duilding, this 7 is a $30 million improvement and the records storage could have been designed in other 8 locations than in the street. The fact that the city insisted on placing the ancillary building in 9 the street even after being informed that their code would not allow that, is not a justification ] 0 for closing the street. In the day of electronic records, putting a building in the street to store 11 court records does not make sense. The city has been inflexible in developing alternative , ......... 12 designs that avoid street closure and still build within the available funding. It was the city's 13 choice to design weapons and evidence storage in the street That does not justify the street 14 closure or provide a supporting argument. 15 The city has also concluded in Finding 32 that closure of the street is necessary to 16 enhance police emergency response times. Officers are not typically waiting at the station to 17 respond to emergencies. Emergency response is from officers on patrol. No meaningful 18 change in response times can legitimately be made based upon the street closure. If the time 19 to cross the street is of such concern, the city could designate the on street parking adjacent to 20 the facility for police parking and on duty officers responding from the justice center would 21 have less delay than if they needed to get their vehicle out of a secured compound. 22 In Finding 31 we learn that damage and vandalism to police vehicles is an ongoing problem, 23 Testimony from the Police Chief at hearings were vague anecdotal references to vandalism to 15 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Date Received: /2-J;/~7 Planner: AL Petition For Review 1 personal vehicles. In his May 16,2007 memorandum (Rec. at 398) he offers two sentences 2 which state that "the Department has experienced damage to fleet vehicles, and employees 3 have suffered damage to their personal vehicles, during late evening and early morning 4 hours. Damage has ranged from paint scratches to slashed tires and broken windows." So 5 the city concludes that secure parking in the public street is justified to prevent the alleged 6 keying of personal vehicles or slashing tires. An undocumented problem and city objective 7 which clearly does not justify sacrificing the functionality of a million dollar collector street. , 8 The current police facility has a fenced parking compound but the gates remain open. It is 9 questionable how moving the parking into the street will resolve this problem. 1 0 Arguments about police response times seem equally absur<1. In Finding 32 the city 11 erroneously concludes closing the street "will result in quicker response times for police 12 officers because they don't have to cross a public street, " The city has strongly opposed any 13 suggested altema1ives to street closure throughout the planning process. More than once, suggestions 14 to construct an enclosed walkway over the street was met with the response that it could not work 15 since it would be vulnerable to bombing fiUlll a vehicle. 16 Additionally, the closure of the street is not necessary to ~1c.dU;; secure parking. If the :.L.ccl 17 remains the staff will need to cross a street to reach their vehicles. The city has not in the past provided 18 secure parking for ~llljJloyees and is not obligated to do so. The bond measure did not descnbe the 19 project as providing secme employee parking. If 1he city can do so within the land u...~ constraints at 20 the site and within the available funding it is likely a worthy obj"",,(j ve, but does not ~au.au.L 21 CvllljJromise to the greater public good and CuUlllllmity as envisioned in the land use policy of the city. 22 During the Planning CVlilluission hearing the Police Chief spoke of the eminent danger of an officer 23 responding fiUlll the building to an em';"~I:$Q.lcy being in a state of mind where eventually it was nearly 16 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Datf'1 Received: /,Zft/.kt?7 Planner: Al Petition For Review 1 inevitable that someone would get hit while crossing this street to reach there police vehicle. It does 2 not seem reasonable to argue that a responding officer is in a state of mind where he is not capable of 3 safely crossing a neighLu~I.00d street but is still capable of .c.;)~nding Iluvugh the neighborhood at 50 4 mph in a police cruiser and potentially use deadly force. The police street crossing capabilities are not 5 a meaningful argmnent for closing ~ Street Further, suggestions that response times would be 6 enhance if the street remains open and the city designated the adjacent on street parking for police 7 vehicles allowing for response without opening gates to the secure compOlmd have been ignored by 8 the city. 9 In Finding 34 the city determined that the secure parking area is necessary for 10 emergency evacuation of the jail. During the design development when the use of the 11 proposed secure parking area for the evacuation of inmates was suggested, the project 12 architects pointed out that there is not a secure corridor leading from the proposed, jail on the 13 south half of the block to the secure parking to the north of the police and courts building. 14 Additionally the primary evacuation would be to the exercise area within the jail compound. 15 Secondary evacuation routes would most likely be out the corridor between the two buildings 16 onto Pioneer Parkway or to 4th Street This facility will incarcerate misdemeanor offenders. 17 Is it reasonable to close a collector street in a nodal development zone to have a secondary or 18 tertiary evacuation compound for misdemeanor offenders that ~e currently being matrixed 19 out on a daily basis? The functional space program developed by the city for this project 20 does not identify the need for the additional secure area for the evacuation of jail prisoners. 21 In the lmll'k-elihood that there ever is an evacuation, an "uncontrolled release of all municipal 22 jail prisoners" would not be necessary, as the city should be able to identify which inmates 23 should be held on to as opposed to a general release of all prisoners. Even in the rare event 17 Scott E. Olson PetitJoner 1127 B Street. r;l-',;"'gfield Date Received' /).../~~o7 / Planner: AL Petition For Review 1 (which is difficult to imagine) when all prisoners would be released, it would not be any 2 different than what is happening every day at this time throughout Lane County. Of course if 3 B Street remains open the secure parking area across the street would be available. 'Again, 4 the city is constructing far fetcbed arguments to justify the desired street ,closure. Statements .. .~ - - 5 about the need to evacuate inmates to the secure parking area in B Street are inconsistent 6 with what the CAC was t6ld about jail evacuations. The secure parking area is adjacent to 7 the Police Courts building not the jail on the opposite side of the block from B Street. The 8 need for this function in B Street is not part of the Functional and Space Program and is not 9 the primary evacuation plan. (fi) 10 , The city has modified the code criteria for a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the 11 inconsistency with this project and the adopted land use policy. The criteria tail,ored 12 specifically to get this project around the land use policy impediments to desired street 13 closure are not grounded in any adopted land use policy and are yague and misleading in the 14 intent. 15 Ensuring that the vacated property will remain in public ownership inappropriately assumes 16 that the public interest is bdh:a. served by maximizing public property ownership as opposed 17 to protecting the publics legitimate interests in the function of the right of way. Further 18 "Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining 19 the right-of-way in its present status" lacks any criteria or measures grounded in any adopted 20 public policy and are purposefully vague and amorohous. It is clearly a relatively ,glide , #' ---.... 21 attempt to avoid complying with the land use policies of the city. 22 The May 16, 2007 memv~Cl.udUIll from the Police Chiefin support of the closure ofB Street 23 does not provide Cv~lling rationale for the closure of a collector street, severing it ~Vlll the adjacent /1 18 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Date ~eceived: /'-/~ ~,,~ 7 Planner: AL / ~ .. ~ Petition For Review ~ ~ . .' 1 arterial street. The Police Chief bas testified at the Planning Commission that the street closure was 2 pursued from the beginning because it was the lowest cost means to construct the ~';"'.:J facility. The 3 fact that it is ch~VJ. to build out into the street and not have to pay for :>u'-Cl ~.l}!J.v v'ements is not 4 disputed and is probably always true but it is not a legitimate rationale for closing the street. The cost 5 analysis did not consider the investment the city made to upgrade B Street in 1997. Such 6 reconstruction efforts are typically not made to local streets. IfB Street is severed from Pioneer 7 Parkway, it will function as a local street not a collector as it is still designated in the Street Functional 8 Classification Plan. 9 The city's decision to vacate B SL.c;ct is fOlmded on a misconception that using the street is the \ - 10 cheapest way to build and that the city can nwke the necessary accommodations in the land use 11 apP! vv'al process. In making the <k.;(.'-'l.Luination" a greater public benefit would be obtained from the 12 vacation than from retaining the right of way in its present status" the city caul in not applying the 13 clear and objective standards of the SDC which implements the adopted policies contained within the 14 Metro Plan, the TSP, and the Downtown Refinement Plan. 15 The city has not justified why a public building can be allowed to compromise the 16 street connectivity but privately owned buildings could not The amended SDC 9.060(3)(e) 17 provides for exemption to the city's land use rules when: 18 (e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property 19 will remain in public ownership. 20 What if the plVposed street closure was to accommodate a privately owned hospital? The 21 city has implied a higher value to public ownership of property, without any rationale for 22 granting public construction exceptions to the rules. The new criteria for public @ 23 improvements were concocted,to accommodate the proposed Justice Center project The city 24 bas failed to demonstrate how the public would benefit in any 111"'''''~ way ll.Vll! the closure ofB ~, 19 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Datr; ~eceived: /~h~7 Planner: Al 1- . Petition For Review . " . " 1 Street yet how it is in the "greater public benefit". The issue is whether a storage building and parldng 2 lot belongs in the street, not who should own it But is criteria (e) legitimate in the larger planning 3 Cvuk.<t? It ap~ to be a ~nstIuct in an attempt to avoid addressing 1he legitimate criteria that 4 implement the city's adopted land use policy. 5 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 6 The city erred when it conspired to close B Street in spite of considerable land use 7 policy and regulation to the contrary. The city's biased approach to "the procedures 8 applicable to the matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the 9 petitioner" (PAR 197.835(9)(3), resulting in the loss of the public commons for the use of 10 city employees to park vehicles and construct a storage building in a public way that has been 11 in continuous use by the public for over 145 years. The city has been aware that the land 12 use requirements of this site preclude the intended development of the right.of -way and has 13 manipulated ~e Justice Center site planning and land use approval process to usurp the clear 14 and objective standards applicable to the site and has beU!g~rently insisted that the street .- , 15 closure is required. The city manipulated the public involvement process and refused to ever 16 consider Justice Center designs which respected the land use plans and requirements of the 17 area and and were within the available fmancial resources of the project. 18 The city processed woefu1~ inadeq~ land use applications that would never have 19 been accepted from other applicants. The application for the street vacation consists of the 20 cover sheet and a single sheet site plan. (Ree at 715). The application should never have 21 been accepted for review as complete, There is no evidence that the city even conducted a 22 completeness review of this application or the similarly deficient applications processed for 23 the Zone Change ZON2006.00007(Rec. at 2317), the Discretionary Use DRC2006-00013 20 Petition For Review Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Datfl Received: 10/~~7 Planner: AL 1 (Rec. at 2058), or Site Plan Review. (Rec. at 1089). Instead of fulfilling their duty to 2 provide an impartial analysis of the application and to provide balanced and complete review 3 of the applications consistencies with the land use requirements of the city, the review staff 4 conspired with the applicant to develop arguments in support of the application and to --- ~ 5 misconstrue the facts to achieve the desired closure ofB Street in spite of the considerable - ~ 6 requirements to the contrary. The city has violated the public trust, failed to fairly. exercise 7 7 its ad ministerial duties, and exhibited considerable misfeasance in the process of vacating B 8 Street. The city has been biased ,throughout the land use approval process and has 9 . misconstrued the requirements to keep B Street open as a public way. /' 10 Further, the street grid is almost entirely intact in this area of Springfield. No other 11 neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectivity as exists in this historical core 12 of the Springfield community. The traditional street system has become increasingly valued 13 by urban planners ~gle with how to reduce our impacts on greenhouse gas 14 emissions and global warming. Closure ofB Street in a Nodal Development Overlay Zone 15 which emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility is clearly obviously wrong:md the city 16 know it. The city has behayed outside of their authority to achieve their desired closure of - -~.- .... 1 7 the street. 18 The city has not made any attempt to make a balanced evaluation of the vacation and / 19 or closure of B Street. The staff reports are all defensive, argumentative and reach 20 unsupported conclusions. The city's preiudic~ and conflict of interest have been apparent and 21 throughout the Justice Center planning process. No opportunity to consider realistic 22 alternatives to the street closure were ever allowed. All of the land use approval applications 23 related to the Justice Center were incomplete and failed to provide supporting evidence 21 Petition For Review' Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Oal. I :. ~dceived: Planner: AL /047 1 addressing the approval criteria In fact they do not even identify the criteria 2 For this city sponsored project the review staff has consequently developed the 3 arguments in support of the applications and defended the applications against all of the 4 concerns with code and comprehensive plan compliance raised throughout the land use 5 approval process. There has not been even a pretense at impartiality. The city has failed to -- _._--~--' 6 perfonn their due diligence and carry out their duty to apply the adopted land use policy to 7 the street closure issues. The city should have relied upon a third party hearings officer if 8 they could not refrain from a one sided commitment. The city's behavior has been 9 disappointing at best and raises ethical questions of conflict of interest. 10 The city's biased approach to the closure ofB Street has been backwards. The city 11 has attempted to work at modifying the planning framework to fit the proj ect instead of how 12 the project can be made to fit the land use requirements of the site they have selected. They @ 13 have modified the develupment code standards twice~ changed the sites zoning, approved a 14 discretionary use which requires findings of compatibility that have not been addressed, 15 approved a Site Plan Review without the street vacation which is a condition of the 16 discretionary use approval, and finally approved the vacation of the street, all without 17 addressing the fact the the closure is clearly not consistent with code and Metro Plan 18 requirements. 19 No attempt was ever made to develop an alternative that was within the available 20 fimds and ~ "~pected the land use requirement for new development in this zone including the 21 closure of streets. The city has orchestrated a pl)'lnnlng process from the very beginnings of 22 this project in which no meaningful consideration has been given to alternatives to closing B 23 Street This effort has resulted in a failure to comply with Goal! requirements for the entire 22 Petition For Review Scott E, Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield " Datfll Received: / ~ h {07 Planner: Al I ~ . . " 1 JustIce Center Planmng process. 2 The city has consistently refused to even discuss alternatives to closing B Street and 3 steadfastly argues, often _in absurd ways why the street should be closed. In the public 4 hearing before the Planning Commission the police chief stated more than once that if 5 officers responding to an emergency must cross the street to reach their vehicles,__ultimately 6 one is going to be so distracted with responding that they will run out in front of a car and be 7 hit. One must question the wisdom of such statemen~s when we arehusting that same 8 individual to get in a police cruiser and drive 50 miles per hour down residential streets and _ 9 appropriately handle deadly weapons. Such arguments demonstrate the desperation with ~' 10 which supporting arguments for the street closure have been constructed. 11 Other ab_sur4,arguments have ~een constructed throughout the planning process. On 12 at least two separate occasions suggestions to construct a pedestrian over-crossing ofB Street 13 have been rebuffed by police statements that such a facility would be vulnerable to car 14 bombs. 15 The public bas very narrowly supported the project in both bond and jail uJ^i!aJons elections. 16 The projects approval can hardly be considered a mandate to ignore our land use policy and give the 17 police anything they ask for including a collector street so 1hey can park next to the door and store 18 paper records and stolen bicycles in what is now a collector s1reet 19 The city inappJ.upJ.;&ely p......,J1l1ed in the develvpLUent of1he preliminAry planning and cost 20 ~~~!Bting that the ~l...ccL right of ways were available for inCOtpulaiing into 1he new Justice Q:;u.ig 21 Facility. The fact that the possibility of street closures was mentioned in the ballot measure does not , 22 have any mc.cwit~ in the context of the land use Clp.PJ.U val for this project, or exCiJ.Up~ the city from. 23 adhering to their own land use policies and code requirements. The police chiefhas testified that the 23 Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield DatA Received: /.:zfrA07 Planner: AL / Petition For Review . 1 plan to build across B Street was based upon the lower cost to build into the o:>ltl:-c.t 2 The city app~oved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercia1/Nodal Develv1Jm~nt to Public 3 Land and Open Space/Nodal Develupment because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUC/NDO 4' District None of the staff r"1JuJ.~ reviewing the projects history have m(,;utioned the :fact that several 5 months priorto making the zone change application the city added Justice Ccuk:J.O:> as an allowed use in 6 the PLO/NOO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at th~ time the city asked voters to 7 fimdtheprqject 8 The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful 9 way throughout the planning process. A citizen advisory committee, (CAC) was formed "to 10 provide input throughout the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its 11 relationship to downtown Springfield". City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and 12 Space Pro!:S1<1W prior to fonnation of the CAC. The draft document was p~".:.ented to the CAC. 13 However the committee was told it was for their infUlluation only and they would have no input on the 14 contents of the space pro/7C1.u1. The Functional and Space Pro&c:u.u was adopted by the city council 15 without public hearing or any changes to the consultant's recommencfutions in response to staffs' 16 direction. The public was not pluvided any opportunity to pcu [';cipak in what elements were being 17 inCv'J.}Mated into the project. 18 Public involvement is more than counting heads and number of meetings. The city 19 has never appropriately provided any-opportunity to even discuss the options. Instead the 20 process has been manipulated and controlled to move the original concept forward. Every 21 alternative considered was more expensive than the street closure option and no trade-offs 22 from the Functional Space Program were ever offered or considered in public. 23 The city has chosen to develop arguments countering every public concern raised 24 Petition For Review Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Dat€'I R'eceived:~fr4"7 Planner: AL I 1- lover the !,~uposed street closure rather than impartially weighing the merits of the proposal 2 before them. The city has never yet addressed how closure ofB Street is consistent with the adopted 3 land use policy or the Develvp.l..Uent Code. During the zone change, the Di:...,n-;~onary UseApp~vval, 4 and the Site Review, no findings were offered with respect to block length~_ ::>L.cdL connectivity, and 5 numerous other code and plan issues raised during that process, claiming that those issues were to be 6 considered during the ::>L.o;;l vacation. These issues have never been addressed by the city. The 7 decision to vacate B Street should be reversed. 8 V. CONCLUSION 9 The city's decision to vacate B Street should be reversed ~ there is no suL~bilial - 10 evidence to support a conclusion that the closure and vacation of a collector street in a Nodal 11 Development Overlay Zone is in Cumpliance with the Metro Plan, Trans Plan, Dov..Hluwn Refinement 12 Plan, or the Springfield Develupment Code requirements. The city's decision should also be reversed 13 because there is no legal or factual basis to support the city's conclusion that the ~L.o;;t closure is 14 COnsbi.clll with the land use requirements of the site. Rather the evidence demonstrates that the city 15 erred in db~"'e:uding multiple criteria on which the determination should be based. 16 Dated this 3nl day of December, 2007 17 RESPECTFULLYSUBMlllblJ, j ,r " Ii I I I . I j ~ E. Olson, Petrtioner 18 19 & . ~ ~ ~ Petition For Review Scott E. Olson Petitioner 1127 B Street, Springfield Datf'1 ~eceived: /.l.~~07 Planner: Al / 25 . .. VACATION ORDINANCE NO. 620; AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE, 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF B STREET IN BLOCK 1 OF IJ:1.1i; MAP OF SPRINGl'll!tLD, BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LAA"E COUNTY, OREGON, DATElJ APRIL 5, 1872- 'WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council has declared its intention to vacate public right-of-way in the City of Springfield.; and WHEREAS, the request for vacation was submitted in conformance with the provisions of ORS 271.080 et seq., and with the provisions of Article 9 V A~ATIONS of the Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support of this vacation satisfy the criteria of approval for vacations found in Section 9.060(3) of the Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interest of the City in carrying out its plans and programs for the general development of the City; and \VHEREAS, la\Vfu.l notice of the proposed vacation was published and posted; and WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Comniission conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2007 and June 19, 2007 in the Council Chambers of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR and recommended unconditional approval of this public right-of-way vacation (LFlP2007-00019);and WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street, on Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Reading) and on Monday, the 16th day of July, 2007, (Second Reading) at the hour of7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the proposed vacation and-L persons appeared to object; Division o( Chi.ef' Deput.y Clerk . 20^1.0e.~12f\ Lane County Deeds and Records V g~ V . I I I .1 : : $71.00 0~9~413~2'070065120d100105 09/1912007 09 :26: 17 ~M - RPR-VRC Cnt=l Stn=15 CASHIER 04 $50.00 $10.00 $11.00 Return to: City of Springfield - City Recorder, 225 Fifth Stree~ Springfield, OR 97477 Ordinance 6207 - 1 - DatEi Received: /.,.4ftcd7 Planner: AL 23 . ~ NOW, THEREFORE, TIffi CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Council finds that the legal notice of the hearing was lawfully published and posted; that l. objections were made at the vacation hearing held; that the public interest will not be impaired by the vacation of the street right-of-way, and that vacation of said street will be in the best interest of the public and increase the benefit of the property involved.. Section 2: The public right-of-way in the City of Springfield, as generally depicted on the site map and more particularly described in the property legal description which are together attached as Exhibit A of this Ordinance, is declared to be vacated. Section 3: Findings 1 through 36 and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Common Council in support of the street right-of-way vacation are hereby made part of this Ordinance by reference. Section 4: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the special provision that in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes it shall revert to public right-of- way. Section 5: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the establishment of temporary easements or licenses for existing utilities located within the right-of-way to be maintained., continued, repaired, reconstructed, renewed, replaced, rebuilt or enlarged subject to the provisions of said temporary easements or licenses. Section 6: The City Recorder is directed to file certified copies oftbis ordinance with the Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane County Surveyor. ADO!" LtD by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 17 day of Sept ember , 2007, by a vote of 4 for and 2 against. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 17th day of September, 2007. .... ~~-JL ~ayor ( 0 , NO+a.rj On ~ll DWI r11j PCUj-e.. Date Received: /-:-/~D7 Planner: Al , ~. ~&)\'"'-':~ )_L~\-\.,. _ ~} IllQ'"] Ordinance f.t>~O 7 - 2- ( ,- i', ,:1 l _ ~ 24 , ~ ~ A IJ.J!..8T: ~~ City Recor~r State of Oregon County of Lane Ordinance (P~o1 ) ) ss. ) _ - - ~:'l.:--c~-=:c":..."-=-.G~'="""' ~ - >>&::2"> ....' ~S"....,..... . ~1 . - OFF1Cii\L SEAl ',\ . ,. .:.w,f. C30ViA ". .:." .. ........ ~ :." ..~ "I 1\' I . "','or '" . ....V.,U JUG. Ofl[,~'.:, ' ':I.:t:, I'Ul'l.ll\ I ..... ':If 7C 'I"'} f :' C. "~T,\ISSK'N f~", w':, :.I.... . \, I ""';~')'I"C:;:'Il~!';lm[Y;'\f,ESIKV,?Z.zrtJ~V '- - ,.1 I ~. ....~ _<::......_..:::..-::-'1-:.~.; .'; ~ .. ......:;...::~-E;!-~....... ,r......_~...,..;JI.... ~ -- -. This instrument was acknowledged before me on Setf. /1 .:/ob1 as Ua..t- Or \.. (position) by SldneL1 IJJ. l.,el~ er. J (N 1lII1e) of the City of Springfield, (lA~1 ~ ~ NOTARY PUBl{JC iOR OREGON -3- My commission expires: 11- J, ).... ;;.0 0 q Date Received: Planner: AL /~407 / 25 Beginning at the Southwest Comer of Lot 5 of Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, filed and recorded in Book I Page 1, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon, said point being the Northeast comer of Pioneer Parkway and B Street in Springfield, Oregon; thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of B Stree~ 264 feet more or iess, to the Southeast comer of Lot 8, Blo~ 28 of the Map of Springfield, which is the Northwest comer of B street and Fourth Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Southerty projection of the Fourth street right of way, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being the Northeast comer of B Street and Fourth Street; thence along the Southerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet more or less, to the Northwest comer of Lot 4, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being the Southeast comer of Pioneer Parkway and B Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Northerly projection of the easterly light of way of Pioneer Parkway, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, all in the City of Springfield, Lane County, Oregon. / / Date Received: /Z-/'i/.2,;o7 Planner. Al / / ~ > ,lLXJ::U.Jjn A ....... U) <( 0 w ~ >- -<t ~ r:t: <( D... 0::: UJ '<:I W ~ Z o - a.. l~/UU S') ~ 13800 4 3 G @O{ 17 -03-35-24 Ot 14100 1-4260 , S Q .. 13900 14000 5 6 14300 CII II ,,(,... 7 ~6' 8 .~.~.~..'~. ..; ~ :"\ "'f_ ~~ 66' 4T 66' 66' 66' o 1 BOO \D o 1700 N . .... 1600 1500 . c ~ 1900 3 2 1 c <.D 4 t::.. ;; n:! 17-o3-35-~1 I r".,", u I 1:) : ~T;tJ2' 34' T o 0 2100 ~ g ~~@ 2400 o 2000 c :;! LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ordinance -k W1 -4- 1 13': ...... W ~ 14 ....... CI) h ~ :r: I- 'lI:t I '-6' 5 3S'. 33' r. 1 n .... v,t ~ ~f' .,;"."' ... :::'I 4 8.. '<l' r:- 2! g e:l (:) (\J ... 26 " .. VACATION OF rUlSLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW City of Springfield Case No. LRP2007-00019 A.t"1'LlCANT The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department VACATION ACTION The vacation of a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street right-pf-way. LOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACAl.l!.V \ The public right-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is a segment ofB Street located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East The right-of-way lies on the boundary between Lane County Tax Maps 17-03-35-24 and 17-03-35-31. FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OFIJ::Lli; VACATION Finding 1: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.080 prescribes: (1) Whenever any person interested in any real property in an incorporated city in this state desires to vacate all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, public square or other public place, such person may file a petition therefor setting forth a description of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for which the ground is proposed to be ured and the reason for such vacation. (2) There shall be appended to such petition, as a part thereof and as a basis for granting the same, the consent of the owners of all abutting property and of not less than two-thirds in area of the real property aifefFted thereby_ The real property affected thereby shall be deemed to be the land lying on either side of the street or portion thereofproposed to be vacated and extending laterally to the next street that serves as a parallel street, but in any case not to exceed 200 feet, and the land for a like lateral distance on either side of the streetfor 400feet along its course beyond each terminus of the part proposed to be vacated. Where a street is proposed to be vacated to its termini, the land embraced in an extension of the streetfor a distance of 400 feet beyond each terminus shall also be counted. In the vacation of arT)' plat or part thereof the consent of the owner or owners of two-thirds in area of the property embraced within such plat or part thereof proposed to be vacated shall be sufficient, except where such vacation embraces street area, when, as to such street area the above requirements shall also apply, The consent of the owners of the required amount of property shall be in writing, [Amended by 1999 c.866 J2l Finding 2: ORS Section 271.130(1) prescnbes: The city governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271. 080 and make such vacation without a petition or consent of property owners. Notice shall be given as provided by OR? 271.110, but such vacation shall not be made bifore the date set for hearing, nor if the owners of a mqjority of the area affected, computed on the basis provided in ORS 271.080, object in writing thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting property if the vacation will substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the city governing body provides for paying damages, Provision for paying such damages may be made by a local assessment, or in Such other manner as the city charter may provide." Finding 3: In accordance with ORS 271.080(1), the area being vacated is a one-block segment of public street Date Received: /2..h~07 Planner: AL 27 ,.. .. ," Finding 4: In accordance with ORS 271.080, the City of Springfield prepared a legal descriptioD of the segment of public street to be vacated. The legal description was prepared by the City Surveyor and was available for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening of the City Council Public Hearing on the proposed vacation action. The legal description is attached to the enacting ordinance as Exhibit A. Finding 5: In accordance with ORS 271.080, tbe City of Springfield stated the reason for the proposed public street vacation and the purpose for which the ground would be used. The reason and purpose were available for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening oftbe City Council Public Hearing on the proposed vacation action. The reason and purpose for the vacation action are stated on the Public Hearing Notices for the pl<lnni"g Commission Public Hearing held June 5, 2007 and the City Council Public Hearing held July 2, 2007. The Public Hearing Notices were published in the newspaper and mailed to adjacent landowners and residents as required by ORS 271.110 and provisions of the Springfield Development Code. Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.0&0 and 271.130(1), the Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action by passing a motion on May 7,2007. The motion is noted in the minutes of the City Council meeting of May 7, 2007. Finding 7: Notification of the proposed vacation action was given in accordance with ORS 271.110 and the Springfield Development Code Articles 3.100 and 9.050(2). "Notification of Street Vacation" signs were posted in conspicuous locations at both ends of the segment of public street proposed for vacation; a legal notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Register-Guard) on June 15 and 22, 2007 prior to the City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action; and landowners and residen~ within a 400 foot radius oftbe street segment were notified in writing of the Public Hearing. Affidavits for the public mailout notification and newspaper publication are part of the record for the vacation action. Finding 8: All properties that directly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are owned by the City of Springfield. There are no third-party properties that would be isolated or deprived of legal and physical access upon vacation of the right-of-way. Finding 9: The Public Hearing was advertised, conducted and concluded before any fmal action on the vacation was taken. The City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action was opened on July 2, 2007 and continued to the meeting on July 16, 2007. The Public Hearing was concluded on July 16, 2007. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, Council directed staff to return on September 17,2007 for adoption of findings in support of the vacation action. Finding 10: No landowners or residents within the 400-foot public notification area submitted testimony opposing the street vacation. Finding 11: The street vacation will not compromise safe and convenient pedestrian. bicycle and vehicular access in the area. Finding 12: Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d) states that "safe and convenient' means bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements which: (A) Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic whIch would mterfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle traveljor short trips; (B) Provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations such as a transit stop and a store; and (C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and fedestrians considering destination and length oj trip; 'and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally * to * mile. Date Heceived: Planner: AL /~4':r7 " / 28 . .. .. ,. Finding 13: In accordance with OAR 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way and closure to public travel would not interfere with or discourage pedestrian, cycle or vehicle travel on the adjacent public street system due to excessive traffic or other unusual hazards. East-west traffic circulation can be accommodated on adjacent local and collector streets. The adjacent and parallel public collector street (A Street) is less than 300 feet to the south. Finding 14: In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way would not result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle trips that are more than 1/4 mile from being a direct route of trav~l between destination points. Vacation of the segment ofB Street would result in out-of-direction distance for passage from the eastern end of the subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end of the right- of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) of about 600 feet (<118 mile) for bicycles and vehicles using surface streets. Vehicles and bicycles have the option of using either A Street or C Street for the east-west segment of the trip. The out-of-direction distance would be even less for pedestrians using the public sidewalk sy1:llwu~, or bicycles and vehicles passing through the mid-block alley north ofB Street. Finding 15: A travel distance diagram for the public streets surrounding the proposed vacation area is provided as Figure 1 in the staff report for the vacation action. For purposes of preparing the travel distance diagram, staff used GIS mapping information and a calibrated measuring wheel to verify potential vehicle travel distances. Meastu.:..u!ents were taken in the field from points within the travel lanes of the public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area to determine likely travel distances for vehicles. Travel distances for pedestrians using the public sidewalk system and public alley are less than the distances described for vehicles, but are not described on the diagram as there are more short~cutting opportunities for pedestrians than vehicles. The diagram also is intended to illustrate maximum out-of- direction travel distances. Finding 16: The -60O-foot out-of-direction distance is limited to trips that have an origin and destination on B Street and that would otherwise pass across the vacation area. Trips that have an east-west component and that are not confined to B Street can be accommodated on adjacent public streets without any out-of-direction travel. Trips that have origins and/or destinations outside the B Street alignment and require a north-south travel component can be made on adjacent public streets with minimal or no out-of- direction travel distance. Finding 17: In accordance with Springfield Development Code Section 32,020(1)(a)1.b, block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet The proposed vacation action will not create a north-south block length f'v,.....1ing 600 feet Ai> measured from the north edge of street right-of-way on A Street to the south edge of street right-of-way on C Street, the distance is approximately 575 feet The existing mid- block alley between the proposed vacation area and C Street reduces this maximum block length distance because it will continue to accommodate east-west vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian passage. Finding 18: Pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicle passage will not be obstructed on the adjacent public streets outside the vacation area. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle p~sage through the east-west mid-block alley north of B Street can be accommodated within the existing 14-foot wide paved surface. Finding 19: The public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area are developed to City standards with sidewalks, paved travel lanes and street lighting. The adjacent public streets are designed to accommodate one lane of vehicle travel in each direction and parking on both sides, The pavement widths are sufficient to allow for continuous traffic flow in each direction with full utilization of the curbline for parking. Therefore.. negotiating the public street system adjacent to the proposed vacation area will not create any unusual hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicles. ' Finding 20: Safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travel will be maintained with the proposed right-of~way vacation. The surrounding public sidewalk and street system adjacent to the vacation area will not be altered by the p!vposed vacation action. Speed limits are 20 mph and traffic control signage is in place on Data Received: r.z...h 10tJ 7 Planner: AL ' / l,e" 2 9 c. -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. the local streets adjacent to the right-of-way proposed for vacation in order to maintain safe vehicle and bicycle passage through the area. Additionally, the width of pavement on the adjacent public streets is comparable to the proposed vacation area, Therefore, vehicles and bicycles will have the same opportunity for safe passage, parking and maneuvering. Finding 21: A Traffic Impact AnalysJs (TIA) was prepared by an independent traffic engineering consultant to evaluate the impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation (Springfield Justice Center Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engineering, July, 2006). The TIA was placed in the record of the vacation proceedings. The TIA examined the existing and post-vacation street system in the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible impacts of the proposed right-of-way \,acation to vehicle movements and the perfonnance of nearby iulwlo:oections, The TIA concluded there would be IJ'1iniTlJ.al impact on the downtown transportation system with the proposed vacation of public right-of- way. Finding 22: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation concluded that the proposed vacation action would have minimal impact on the transportation system. The report determined that levels of service would be maintained on nearby intersections and that no traffic mitigation actions would be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the vicinity of the Justice Center. Finding 23: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 9 - Vacations contains Criteria of Approval for vacation of easements, rights-of-way, plats and other City property. The section describing the criteria of approval reads: 9.060 Criteria of Approval (1) For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, ""'1'1" ove with conilitions or deny the application. The application shall be approved if the Vacation isfound to be consistent with the fDllowing criteria: (a) There are no present or future services. facilities Dr utilities deemed to be necessary by a utility provider and the easement is not necessary; or (b) Jjthe utility 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 In Vi'osed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other City property, or Partition or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application shall be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria. (a) The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan. TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, or Conceptual Development Plan; (b) The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code 1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and (c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection or arty other benefit dertvedfrom the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9,060(2) where the land affected by the proposed Vacation of public right-Df-way, other public land as specified in ORS 271,~80, or public DatE'1 Received: l.l.hhd)7 Planner: AL I / 30 '" .. ,. ~ ~ ~ , ~ / -' to easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be usedfor a public purpose, the request shall be reviewed wuler the Type T" procedure. The City Council may approve the Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the following criteria: (a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Cozmcil pursuant to ORS 271.~30(1); (b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1),' (c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660- 012-0045(3); - (d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtainedfrom the vacation thanfrom retaining the right-of-way in its present status; and (e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain m public ownership. Finding 24: The vacation is not a public utility easement, therefore Criterion 9.060(1) is not applicable. Finding 25: The vacation is a segment of public street right-of-way that will remain in public o'WIlership and will continue to be used for a public purpose (Justice Center facility). Therefore, Criterion 9.060(2) is not applicable; the applicable Criterion of approval is 9.060(3), - Finding 26: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(a), the vacation action was initiated by City Council on May 7, 2007 and pursuant to ORS 271.130(1). Finding 27: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(b), notice of the vacation action-has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1). Notice of the vacation action also has been given in accordance with the City's Development Code (SDC 3.100 and 9.050) and Municipal Code (Section 3205). Finding 28: In accordance 'With SDC 9.060(3)(c), approval of the vacation would not coml'lv.IJ..lise safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660- 012-0045(3). As described in th~ above findings, the out--of-direction travel distance for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians is not expected to be more than 600 feet. The out--of-direction travel distance is minimal or non-existent for trips with origins and destinations outside the linear alignment oftbe street containing the vacated area. Finding 29: In accordance 'With SDC 9.060(3)(d), the public benefit attributed to a public Justice, Center facility with secure parking area and ancillary building that serves the entire municipal area is deemed to be a greater benefit than retaining the one-block segment of street right-of-way for public travel. Finding 30: It is of critical importance and public benefit to maintain a safe Justice Center facility with a contiguous, secure parking area. The pL.;..ferred design of the Justice Center facility includes the contiguous secure parking area, and therefore requires the one-block segment of public right-of-way pLvposed for vacation. Finding 31: Damage and vandalism to police vehicles is an ongoing problem that requires repairs at the expense of taxpayers , Incorporating the proposed vacation area into the Justice Center 'Will improve the security of publicly-funded police and special operations vehicles and equipment stored at the facility (testimony from Police Chief Jerry Smith dated May 16, 2007). It is of public benefit to deter damage and vandalism through administration of a secure parking area that is contiguous to the Justice Center facility. Date Received' Planner: AL /71~t77 / 31 td .. ~ Finding 32: Safety and seCUlrj ~,~f police officers and the public are paraL..._.mt to the Police Chief and other interested parties that submitted testimony in support of the vacation action. Maintaining a secure parking area immediately adjacent to the police station will prevent responding officers from having to cross a public street to reach their vehicles. The secure parking area will result in quicker response times for police officers because they don't have to travel as 'far to their vehicles and don't have to cross a public street Therefore, the proposed vacation will benefit the greater community, particularly those requiring timely police assistance. , Finding 33: The preferred site design for the Justice Center includes an ancillary building for retaining police and court records, evidence, recovered items, and police equipment Proximity to the Justice Center and security of the ancillary building is necessary to protect the integrity of its contents, The preferred placement of the ancillary building is within a portion of the street right. of-way area proposed for vacation. , Finding 34: The secure parking area adjacent to the Justice Center can be used for emergency evacuation of jail prisoners. The secure parking area provides a contained muster area for prisoners that otherwise could be subject to an uncontrolled release in the event of an emergency evacuation. Providing a contained evacuation area increases the safety and security of the community and the prisoners themselves. The secure parking area that can be used for emergency evacuation is within the street right- of-way area proposed for vacation. Finding 35: Based on Findings 29 to 34, the benefit obtained from the proposed vacation area (through its use as an integral part of the Justice Center facility) is of greater public benefIt than retaining the right- of-way in its present status. Finding 36: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(e), a special condition has been inserted in the enacting ordinance requiring that the right-of-way revert back to public right-of.way if the vacated area ceases to be used for the purpose of a municipal Justice Center. The sp~ial_ condition is intended to ensure the land is retained in public ownership. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and the record of the vacation action (City of Springfield Case No. LRP2007-00019), the right-of-way vacation is consistent with and meets the applicable requ~o;.w.ents of ORS 271.080 & 271.130(1), OAR 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), and Springfield Development Code Sections 9.060 and 32.020(1)(a). ~D\."-l"-' j L~t'\~J ~ III {c-,_.-=~ Date ~eceived: /0/.loD7 Planner: AL / 32 -,..~- ... ....-..,..,.....".- ."''''1 ,~~--___ _~___ -