HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 8/9/2007
/~
I
Page 1 of2
L1MBIRD Andrew
4~ __ 4~~_~--'__ ~v _4 4_v__44~4vvv_~ __44 4VV~Y4~ v ___v ~__ _~ 4~_44Y__VY 4~ V 4____44__ Y _4 ~_____vvv4 __vv___~~ __~ __~______v_~_MV~_4___ - v~_~~~~~~~
From: L1MBIRD Andrew'
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 5 11 PM
To: 'kgrlesma@uoregon edu'
Subject: Follow Up Questions
Ms Grelsmann Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to the follow up questions and to clarify some
earlier statements I made
Q: Can you tell me about the block length codes- what are the spec~f~cs, how are
they followed, other cases where there have been mod~f~cat~ons made to the code.
How ~s the Just~ce Center go~ng to affect/be affected by these regulat~ons? Scott
Olson says he feels that the closure of B Street w~ll v~olate these codes, any
response to that?
A The vacation does not Violate State regulations or City codes and poliCies pertaining to block length The
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) state that vacation of a public right-of-way should not result In pedestrian,
cyclist or vehicle tripS that are more than ~ mile from being adlrect route of travel between destination pOints
The Eugene-Sprmgfleld TransportatIon System Plan, Pedestrian Policy #2, states that "reasonably direct" travel
routes should be maintained between destination pOints Vacating the one-block segment of B Street and clOSing
It to public travel would result In out-of-dlrectlon travel distance of not more than 600 feet (<1/8 mile) for bicycles
and vehicles uSing surface streets The out-of-dlrectlon distance would be even less for pedestrians uSing the
public Sidewalk system or alleys The out-of-dlrectlon travel distances pertain exclUSively to users traveling east-
west on B Street across the vacated area, and not originating or ending north or south of thiS alignment A
diagram Illustrating thiS pOint IS on page 5 of the staff report to CounCil for July 2, 2007 (link
DttQ...LL~ gL~Pl!ngf!~JQ QL y~j..YV~.b!1[l1:<.71PQ.c\lJe'!V _<;l_~px?lP=:=Z1222)
Q: Olson also makes the argument that keep~ng the street gr~d patterns and
encourag~ng a walkable downtown are very ~mportant and that the closure of B Street
w~ll ~nterrupt both of these th~ngs, any response to that?
A. The City agrees that encouraging a walkable downtown IS Important, and that the closure of a one-block
segment of public street Will affect certain walking and driVing routes that might otherwise pass across the area to
be vacated However, unless the tripS have an origin and destination on B Street, there are alternate routes
available that do not require out-of-dlrectlon travel The downtown core, Including the entire periphery of the
Justice Center Site, Will remain walkable (and drivable).
Quest~on: I spoke w~th Carole Knapel and J~m Polston yesterday and when I asked them
about the "Plan B" opt~ons, I got an answer that d~dn't co~nc~de w~th what I
thought you sa~d. To my understand~ng, you sa~d that even ~f B Street ~s not bu~lt
upon, ~t w~ll st~ll be closed to traff~c, or ~s that ~ncorrect?
A Thank you for the opportunity to clarify thiS statement The segment of B Street Will be closed to public travel
for construction staging dUring the bUilding of the Justice Center The construction staging on B Street IS
anticipated to last approximately 18 months I stated previously that the segment of public street could be, closed
to public travel indefinitely Without vacating the right-of-way, If It was the Will of City CounCil However, In thiS
case, the City IS pursuing vacation of the right-of-way In order to put the land to another use - which Includes
bUilding upon a portion of the vacated area
Quest~on: Do you feel l~ke the current plan to close B Street ~s ~n l~ne w~th the
broader p~cture of the Land Use Management System? Has the c~ty been held
accountable to the same standards that a pr~vate organ~zat~on would have been?
A The current plan to close B Street IS consistent With the Initial Ballot Measure authOriZing the funding for the
Justice Center, the site option recommended by the Citizen AdVISOry Committee and selected by the City CounCil,
proVISions of Oregon Land Use Legislation, and provIsions of the City's Development and MUniCipal Codes For
8/9/2007
Date ~eceived: f~/ .2'aJ7
Planner: AL
"
Page 2 of2
these reasons, It IS In line with established land use pnnclples As with most land use deCISions, It IS the
responsIbility of the ApprOVing Authonty to weigh alternatives and determine how the Interests of the City and ItS
citizens are best served In the case of the Justice Center, Spnngfleld reSidents have expressed strong support
for the deSign and location of this project The responsibility of the City staff IS to prepare information and findings
of fact for consideration by the decIsion makers and ensunng the land use actions are processed In accordance
with State and City requirements
Since the inception of the Justice Center project, the City has gone beyond what would be required of a pnvate
Citizen or organization Vanous aspects of the Justice Center project have been presented In more than 65 public
forums since early 2005 These Include regular City CounCil, Planning Commission and Citizen AdVisory
CommIttee meetings, public heanngs, project information seSSions, open house meetings, and speCial work
sessions There have been more than 12 public hearing meetings on land use actions pertaining to the Justice
Center In addition to public forums, there have been numerous mallouts of Information to adjacent reSidents and
Interested parties, newspaper advertisements, responses to public InqUlnes (walk-In, wntten and telephone), and
project updates posted on the City's webslte Over the past 3 years since the Justice Center ballot measure was
passed, the process has been exhaustive, public and transparent - which IS entirely unlike the standards that
most pnvate organizations are held to
I trust thiS addresses your inqUiry, and please let me know If you have any further questions
Best Regards,
Andy Llmblrd
City of Spnngfleld
Date Received:
Planner: AL
t/9jJoD7
8/9/2007