HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 Vacation of One Block Segment of B Street Public Right-of-Way Between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, Case No. LRP2007-00019
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
July 2, 2007
Regular Meeting
Development i;erv 'ces
Andy Limbird
x3784
20 minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM TITLE:
VACATION OF ONE BLOCK SEGMENT OF B STREET PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST, CASE
NO. LRP2007-00019
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a Public Hearing and First Reading for the following: AN ORDINANCE
VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE BY 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY SHOWN IN BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE
COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On May 7, 2007, City Council initiated an action to vacate public right-of-way for the
segment ofB Street between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East to facilitate
development of a secure police parking lot and ancillary building serving the
Springfield Justice Center.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Staff Report, Findings and Summary of Public Testimony
Attachment 2: Maps showing the proposed vacation and B Street overview
Attachment 3: Memo from Police Chief Jerry Smith
Attachment 4: Testimony from Bob Foster (various dates)
Attachment 5: Testimony from Scott Olson dated March 28,2006
Attachment 6: Testimony from Scott Olson dated June 12,2007
Attachment 7: List of Public Meetings held for Justice Center 2005-2007
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Recommendation
Attachment 9: Ordinance
DISCUSSION:
On February 28,2006, the Springfield City Council considered four site options for
the Justice Center project. The site option selected by the City Council utilizes City-
owned property which is located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, arid
which extends from A Street to the mid-block alley north ofB Street. The sele'?ted
site option incorporates a one-block segment ofB Street right-of-way into the
development area for use as a secure police parking lot, and a building pad for an
ancillary building serving the Justice Center.
The subject right-of-way is a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street
running east-west along the northern edge of the existing police and courts parking
lot. The City owns all abutting tax lots that have frontage on the public right-of-way
proposed for vacation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 5
and 19, 2007, and adopted a recommendation in support of the proposed vacation .at
the Public Hearing meeting on June 19,2007.
~
ATTACHMENT 1
VACATION REQUEST
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
Case No. LRP2007-00019
APPLICANT
The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department
REQUEST
The vacation of a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment ofpublic street right-of-way.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
The public right-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is a segment ofB Street located between 4th
Street arid Pioneer Parkway East. The right-of-way lies on the boundary between Tax Maps 17-03-35-24
and 17-03-35-31. .
BACKGROUND '
The public right-of-way proposed for vacation is part of the downtown grid street system, and was created
with platting of the Map of Springfield (later referred to as the "Extended Survey of Springfield") in
1872.' There are eight City-owned properties (Map 17-03-35-24, Tax Lots 13900-14100 & 14300; and
Map 17-03-35-31, Tax Lots 1500-1800) that are directly adjacent to the subject right-of-way. All of the
parcels with frontage on the subject right-of-way are presently used as parking lots for the public, City
employees and the Springfield Police Department. Site Plan approval for the Springfield Justice Center
was issued July 25, 2006 and official groundbreaking for construction is to be initiated on June 28, 2007.
The approved plan for the Justice Center building is not dependent upon the subject right-of-way area.
Within the downtown area, B Street extends from Mill Street east to 16th Street, a distance of about 16
city blocks or 6120 feet (1.16 miles). The one-block segment of right-of-way proposed for vacation is
264 feet long and comprises approximately 4% of the length ofB Street (Attaclnnent 2).
On June 19, 2007, the Planning Commission concluded a Public Hearing for the proposed right-of-way
vacation, and subsequently passed a recommendation of approval of the vacation to the City Council.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE APPLICABLE CRITERIA
. Springfield Development Code (SDC) 9.060(3) establishes criteria for vacation of right-of-way that must
be met in order to approve this request. The following fmdings address each of the criteria.
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
Finding 1: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.130(1) reads as follows: "The city governing
body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080 and make such vacation without a
petition or consent of property owners. Notice shall be given as provided by ORS 271.110, but such
vacation shall not be made before the date set for hearing, nor if the owners of a majority of the area
affected, computed on the basis provided in ORS 271.080, object in writing thereto, nor shall any'street
area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting property if the vacation will
substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the city 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 cha~ter may provide."
Finding 2: ORS 271.080(1) provides for vacation of"...all or part of any street; avenue, boulevard, alley,
plat, public square or other public place..." In accordance with ORS 271.080(1), the vacation action
ATTACHMENT
1-1
requires "a description of the ground proposed to be vacated, the purpose for which the ground is
proposed to be used and the reason for such vacation."
Finding 3: The Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action at the regular meeting on May 7,
2007. The right-of-way proposed for vacation is generally depicted and more specifically described in
Exhibit A to this staffreport. The purpose of the vacation is to retain the segmentofvacated public
right-of-way in public ownership, and to use the area for construction of a secure police parking lot and
ancillary building serving the Justice Center. .
Finding 4: In accordance with ORS 271.130(1), the decision on the vacation action will be made at a City
Council meeting, and after Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and Council.
Finding 5: All properties that directly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are
owned by the City of Springfield.
Conclusion: The proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (a).
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.110(1), public hearing notices were placed in the newspaper of
general circulation (The Register Guard) on June 15 and 22,2007. Additionally, a public hearing for the
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council was held on June 5 and 19,2007.
Finding 7: In accordance with 271.110(2), public notice of the proposed right-of-way vacation action was
posted at two conspicuous locations immediately adjacent to right-of-way proposed for vacation (at the
northeastern comer adjacent to 4th Street, and at the southwestern corner adjacent to Pioneer Parkway
East).
Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 271.080, adjacent landowners and residents/tenants within a 400-foot
radius of the 66-foot by 264-foot linear right-of-way proposed for vacation were notified by mail. Public
hearing notification was sent out for both the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. People
that provided testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing also were notified by mail of the City
Council public hearing.
Conclusion: The notification provided for the proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion
(b).
(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 660-0012-0045(3);
Finding 9: As stated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d), "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 interfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips; ,
(B) Provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations such as a transit stop
and a store; and '
(C) Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians considering destination and length of trip;
and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally % to 12 mile.
Finding 10: In accordance with OAR 660-0l2-0045(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
1-2
circulation can be accommodated on adjacent local and collector streets - particularly A Street, which is
located less than 300 feet to the south.
Finding 11: In accordance with OAR 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way would not
result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle trips that are more than l;.l mile from being a direct route of travel
between destination points. Figure I illustrates approximate travel distances for all potential modes of
travel from one side of the vacated right-of-way to the other. Should the segment ofB Street be vacated
and closed to public travel, the maximum out-of-direction distance for passage from the eastern end of the
subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end ofthe right-of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) would
be about 600 feet (<1/8 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 system, or bicycles and vehicles
passing through the mid-block alley north ofB Street. The use of the mid-block alley for east-west
passage is not a preferred route for vehicles, but is depicted on Figure 1 for illustrative purposes.
Finding 12: Pedestrian passage through the east-west mid-block alley north ofB Street can be
accommodated within the existing 14-foot wide paved surface. However, if it is determined that
additional pedestrian facilities are required for maintaining safe passage thr<?ugh this alley, this
requirement could be implemented at the time of Site Plan Modification for the Justice Center. A Type II
Major Site Plan Modification will be required upon vacation of the public right-of-way in order to
incorporate the former public right-of-way into the site plan area.
Finding 13: Provision of travel routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles would be via the existing
public street, alley and sidewalk system. The approximate travel distances shown on Figure I assume
travel around the perimeter of each route, and short-cutting through parking lots or similar open areas is
not considered.
Finding 14: There are existing situations in downtown Springfield and elsewhere throughout the City
where portions of the grid street system are not connected and out-of~direction travel is required for
cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Nearby examples include portions of A Street east of lth Street; A, C,
D and F Street east of 14th Street; 8th and 9th Streets north of G Street; and G Street west of 4th Street.
Finding 15: A Traffic Impact Analysis (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 examined the
existing and post-vacation street system in the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible
impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation to vehicle movements and the performance of nearby
intersections. The TIA concluded there would be minirnal impact on the downtown transportation system
with the proposed vacation of public right-of-way.
Finding 16: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation also concluded that no traffic
mitigation actions would be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the vicinity of the
Justice Center. Among the simplest and most effective measures to structure traffic movements in the
area will be strategic placement of directional signage for the Justice Center. The TIA suggests possible
measures to discourage traffic from traveling to and from the downtown core using nearby residential
streets, including placement of STOP signs at key intersections and installing curb extensions to prevent
undesirable turning movements.
Finding 17: Special vehicles, such as transit buses, can be accommodated on adjacent public streets
(primarily A Street). There is one transit stop for west-bound buses that is located within the segment of
B Street proposed for vacation. Relocation of the bus stop can be done in consultation with Lane Transit
District.
1-3
Figure 1 - Approximate Travel Distances
.... .
'-'.1:.-' :...;. -
I. '.:G) .
)! ... ....
~
.. .. :....
'i' i .'
...
.. . . .... .'..../' .
, ~ .......... . i....
..... . .. .. G) . ...... . G)
.:1 >., ..<i .....~. ...., .......; :.1.!!
'dl ;'l ". ......... in "1 .....1 ~~
Iii.. ..... ..c ..--}_~
I. I .. .. ...... . 1 li< .. ,........ :.
"'i. . ... ,...;.:
I.; ,......... .. .... ..... I. I:: ..........,. ....... r,
.... .... ........ . ..... . .. ... .:.: ..... ... .... .'.' :
....'......; .. ......... ....... ...:.... 'lii':.'</ """'<:...
. ..... .' ..G)/" ....... ..... ,'. : G)
..... " ... .... . .:G)
'i I.:.. .... ... g ....... '.' . ....., I :.. :;;
.i< ...1.. ,.........,.. ,'..... .,....... 7 I" .........\ .t~:ii..i.: -
, . :." ...,... .... ..' ..:: '.' .... :': . .'."./ .. ... >i :-....<. ... ..... ... i
/ . .....,. i: ....:.. ,i ......: .:':.. :...... ':..1'::; r. .'i.:;.: \/:.:.:-;,;:; I ...,..
i'. .. .........:..:.:-../~. .. ..... .
<.. ..../..... ........ .... -300 feet .... :......... ...,.... ...:.....- >= ..,:....
I ,. .... . . .... ........;. . ... .... ,. ....F' '-' LI 'i,.:::, :;
;.:'.i.d': .... i'<.;. .......:. ,.,......'...:..../: . .. ....... I. . ....... ..... :.,';"'
........ .... .'.:;::< d." .,.,.;" ...... ';':":.,. ......
.. .... ... .. .. .'.':" ..... ..... en '.. ... ........... .... .... ......... ... .
. ...... ..... ",' . .... .... ..:. . ....... ... .:-. ro..:' . .......... ... . ...... ... .. "':" ... . ...... ....: .'.:. ......... ...
.,.. ... ..' ......';;..,. .... ..../I~. ...,' ... ......:,'.....J .~ .'. ..::,........ ......'. <'. ;(.>. .... :......:......
i 1.1 I.' .:- ro I /..1 .:: ... -
,.r'i<I;' ......... ~... 1< ./1.1) I. ~ 1..1 .... J I.r <'.. r I' J.',
.." . ... ...'...... '",,'i .........8:. I ........ i.. ~: 1./ ....,...... .... ..... !:.. ,.
.' ...... ..,.... ...<:~. I.... ........ ,..':':; . ..... .' ",.. ........... .. .....1; ......... I
. .:' .. ~." .... ......... .... '.' t.1 ......... .........1 . ""1 :'.;.' ..........Ii'(...
liiii if I. ..~. ~~~;II · I I · .,~, ~,)C Main ,,,,..... ....... .",i.~
i
...
I ....... I.... J
.
..... c Street.....::....;.:..:.
.....'
I ...:....:
".:.::'. ..........
...:.., ...:...........:.:.::..., <
':I/il
.... . .ii:
'.,.'./..::'
. ""'.i .ii' I.
.....: ...;....
. ........ /. ..."'."
......
.....:.BStreet . ...:~.,
..... ...... ./.....<
.. ,......:............ '. .' ..............,. ....
:- "'; :-.';/ /
:' . </.i:. .... ::.. . " ..../ .' . '.... ....
:i'../, ............ .c-. ........ .....
.. ..
.......;\; .......:....
.,':'i"
WJ H :1 .
~""
.. . ..'d
. ", '.
.... ....,.
c
J ,
rc '-
I. _
.'!
~d
~:
~.~
, ~.
. .... ... ./..:..)
-~uu reel....
. .....
.... .,
i... ..
:- .... .......
I.
..
......
....
... ..
.....
...300 feet
...
.,
---
.
Right-ot-way proposed
tor vacation
.
~
Travel directions and
approximate distances
........
Out-of-direction travel
directions and distances
1-4
Conclusion: Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation will have no adverse effect on
safety, connectivity or maintaining reasonably direct travel routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
As proposed, the public right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (c).
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the
right-of-way in its present status; and
Finding 18: The right-of-way presently contains a two-lane collector street with sidewalks on both sides.
Upon vacation of the right-of-way, the subject area would be incorporated into the project area and used
for secure police parking and Justice Center ancillary facilities. The right-of-way would be closed to all
public travel. The Springfield Police Department advises that a secure parking lot - close to the Justice
Center building - protects public property (including police vehicles and case evidence stored in the
ancillary building) and enhances emergency response times as responding officers do not have to cross
public streets to reach their vehicles.
Finding 19: Jerry Smith, Springfield Chief of Police, submitted a memo in support of the proposed right-
of-way vacation (Attachment 3) which reads as follows:
Importance of B Street Closinf! to the Justice Facility Proiect
"The purpose of this memo is to summarize for the Planning Commission the importance of closing B
Street as part of the Justice Center project. As designed, the area currently occupied by B Street
would become part of a fenced and secured parking area.
. Closing B Street is necessary for the security of portions of the facility: The planned Justice
facility includes an ancillary building that will be a repository for evidence in criminal cases;
storage for police and court records; and storage for specialized police equipment and weaponry.
Closing B Street will allow the entire ancillary building and parking lot to be fenced in,
significantly improving the security of these records and evidentiary items. Without the security
fencing in place, the ancillary building as designed does not provide sufficient security for these
items.
. Closing B Street will provide secure fleet and employee parking: To date, Department vehicles
and employee parking has not been secured by fencing. While this does not cause significant
issues during normal working hours, the Department has experienced damage to fleet vehicles,
and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles, during late evening and early
morning hours. Damage has rangedfrom paint scratches to slashed tires and broken windows.
. Closing B Street will improve the safety of police officers and citizens: The street closure will
allow officers responding to emergency calls from in~ide the building to access their vehicles
without crossing a public right of way, thereby reducing the risk of an accident during an
emergency response.
. Closing B Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of municipal jail prisoners: The
fenced area will sr;rve as an outdoor holding areafor municipal jail prisoners in the event that
the jail must be evacuated. Without the street closure and fencing, there will not be an area
outside the municipal jail adequate and accessible for holding prisoners. Instead., an evacuation
event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all municipal jail prisoners. "
Finding 20: As described in the statement from the Police Chief, the vacated right-of-way will be used
for secure police parking and is also designed to provide a fenced-in area that is large enough for
evacuation of jail prisoners in the event of an emergency. Provision of a secure muster area for evacuated
1-5
prisoners provides a direct benefit to the jail staff, police personnel, and the public.
Finding 21: As noted in the Police Chiefs statement, ensuring responding police officers do not have to
cross a public street in order to reach their vehicles enhances safety for both Police Department personnel
and public users of the street system.
Finding 22: Passage of the Public Safety ballot measure in 2005 that secured public funding for the
Justice Center project demonstrates Springfield residents' commitment to the project. Comparatively few
people within the City regularly use the segment ofB Street proposed for vacation. However, all
Springfield residents (and visitors) benefit from a strong police presence within the community.
Conclusion: Staff have concluded that the proposed right-of-way vacation serves a greater benefit to the
public than retaining the one-block segment of right-of-way in its present status. The proposed vacation
also provides direct benefits to the City's Police Department, which ultimately benefits Springfield
residents. As proposed, the right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (d).
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public
ownership.
Finding 23: The vacated right-of-way is to be incorporated into the Justice Center development, which is
a publicly-funded project. Ownership of the Justice Center building and the land on which it is to reside
(which includes the portion of right-of-way proposed for vacation), is to remain with the City of
Springfield. .
Finding 24: Upon vacation of the right-of-way, the land ownership automatically reverts to the City as it
owns the abutting property. Because the ownership ofthe vacated right-of-way does not pass through a
third party (which could occur if there were privately-owned parcels fronting onto the right-of-way),
remaining in public ownership is. assured.
Finding 25: A clause has been added to the enacting ordinance (Attachment 9) providing 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.
Conclusion: The proposed right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion (e).
CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed right-of-way vacation: (a) allows construction of a publicly funded project
approved by a vote of the public; (b) increases law enforcement's public presence in the downtown core
through construction of a Police, Courts and Jail facility; and (c) provides construction features that
increase the security and safety to the City's Police Department and the general public during operations.
The loss of public good in terms of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity has been demonstrated to
be minimal and within State statutes for connectivity under Criterion 9.060(3)(c) of this report and can be
reasonably mitigated.
Based upon the above findings and testimony contained herein, Staff concludes that the proposed right-
of-way vacation for a Justice Center facility (including jail, courts and police station) serves a greater
benefit to the general public than retaining the one-block segment of right-of-way in its present status. As
proposed, the right-of-way vacation complies with Criterion 9.060(3)(a-e).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation.
1-6
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the requested right-of-way vacation by adoption of the attached Vacation Ordinance at the
Second Reading on July 16,2007.
1-7
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND STAFF RESPONSES
Nine people provided testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed right-of-way
vacation, seven in favor and two opposed. Written testimony opposing the vacation was received from
Bob Foster (Attachment 4) and Scott Olson (Attachments 5 and 6). Mr. Olson has provided statements in
his testimony dat~d June 12, 2007 that staff wish to address here.
Statement I: "I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during
the project development process which considered tradeofft in the functional and space program with the
associated site constraints."
Staff Response: The site planning for the Justice Center project examined a wide variety of design
options including underground parking, orientation of the jail and police/courts building onto different
streets, expansion to adjacent (not city-owned) properties, and possible alternate sites in the downtown
area (again, not city-owned). About 15 possible site pIan options were initially developed in consultation
with public, stakeholders, staff and the Justice Center project team. The options were critically evaluated
and four alternatives were developed for City Council to select for a preferred design option. Mr. Olson
acknowledges that tradeoffs were made, but staff contend that the functional and space program was only
one factor examined during the preliminary site planning phase. '
Statement 2: "Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of$875, 000. The improvements to
the collector street were paid for with federal funds. If B Street is severed from the arterial at Pioneer
Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer function as a
collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for the federal investment in
the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of improvements and function has not been
considered in city decisions to pursue the street closure. The value of the investment the public made in
improving B Street in 2007 construction costs is over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city
could be obligated to repay the federal government if the street is indeed closed." .
Staff Response: A portion ofB Street from 14th Street to Pioneer Parkway East (approximately 4,400
lineal feet) was rehabilitated in 1997 at a total cost of$759,676.11 (Project #1-882). The apportioned
project cost for the subject one-block area (approximately 300 feet or 7% of the 4,400-foot long project
area) would be about $52,000.00. A funding transfer was arranged with Oregon Department- of
. Transportation (ODOT) that involved substitution of eligible federal funds with state funds. The city
used a $400,000 federal allocation to obtain more timely state funding ($376,000) for the entire project.
Based on the lineal footage, the state-funded portion of the one-block segment proposed for vacation is
less than $26,000. As a result of the funding transfer with ODOT (and because the funds were provided
to the city without "strings attached"), there is no direct federal involvement with the B Street upgrade
project and the city would not be required to repay any government agency - state or federal- if the one-
block segment of the street is closed to public traffic. Additionally, the remaining 13 blocks ofB Street
from the intersection of 4th Street to 14th Street are not affected by the proposed vacation and will remain
open to public travel.
Statement 3: "The city approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Developmen( to
Public Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the MUC/NDO
District. None of the staff reports reviewing the project['sJ history have mentioned the fact that several
months prior to making the zone change application the city added Justice Centers as an allowed use in
the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use at the site at the time the city asked voters to
fund the project."
Staff Response: This statement is not entirely true or false. The specific use of "Justice Center" was not
listed in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District at the time voters approved the concept of
having a large-scale facility combining police, law courts and municipal jail constructed in Springfield.
1-8
However, key components of the Justice Center, including courts, administrative offices and public
offices (including detention facilities) are individually listed in the PLO and Mixed Use Commercial
(MUC) Districts, and were already present on the site. It is notable that public offices are listed as a
Permitted Use in the MUC District.
Although there is provision in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) for interpreting new or
undefined uses that are similar to already-defmed uses (or that could be reasonably grouped into a
familiar category) the City logically deemed it desirable to have the Justice Center specifically defined
and listed in the applicable Development Code district. To this end, the City facilitated review and
approval of the Justice Center development by adopting necessary Development Code amendments once
the project funding was secured, and prior to selecting a preferred site option. The Code amendments
were adopted through standard, state-mandated public procedures that involve public notification, public
hearings and acceptance by the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (Case
LRP2005-00031). It also should be noted that a Justice Center is not an "allowed" use, but is listed as a
Discretionary Use which requires an additional public review and land use approval step. Approval of the
Discretionary Use - allowing for further consideration of a Justice Center at the selected location - was
granted by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 (Case DRC2006-00013) after a public hearing.
When the Justice Center site option was selected by City Council, the 14 City-owned tax lots within the
footprint ofthe Justice Center were zoned a combination of Mixed Use Commercial (eight lots) and
Public Land and Open Space (six lots). A rezoning of the eight MUC lots to PLO was completed to
create a uniform zoning for the entire project site (Case ZON2006-00007). The rezoning was approved
by the Planning Commission on Aprill8, 2006 after a public hearing.
Statement 4: "The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful way
throughout the planning process. A citizen advisory committee (CA C) was formed 'to provide input
throughout the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its relationship to downtown
Springfield'. I volunteered for the CAC and during mY interview for the position I informed the city
council of my opinion with respect to the street closure and indicated a desire to work on appropriate
alternatives. "
Staff Response: Mr. Olson is critical of the City's "failure to appropriately provide for public
involvement". Mr. Olson has served as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Justice
Center. The CAC has met over a dozen times since the project inception to discuss the various site
planning issues affecting the Justice Center. This does not necessarily mean, however, that all
recommendations ofthe CAC or its individual members have been adopted by the Justice Center Project
Team, the Planning Commission or City Council. In his testimony, Mr. Olson acknowledges that the
majority ofCAC members voted in favor of the site design option eventually selected by City Council.
In addition to the regular CAC meetings, there have been numerous public open house meetings,
information sessions, newspaper advertisements, media announcements, City website postings, and
neighborhood mail-outs over the 18+ month period since the Justice Center project was formally initiated.
A list of public meetings for the Justice Center project (from preliminary discussions through to final site
selection and building design) is attached to this staff report as information (Attachment 6).
The public meetings discussed above do not include at least seven formal land use actions undertaken to
facilitate the Justice Center project, all of which required public notification (see Table I below).
Additionally, at his request, Mr. Olson has been personally notified of public hearings pertaining to the
Justice Center, particularly the B Street vacation. Despite the numerous mailouts, advertised public
hearings and multiple land use actions that have occurred up to this point - all of which have made
overtures for public and stakeholder involvement - Mr. Olson is among the few individuals that have
submitted any testimony in opposition to the Justice Center project. None of the land use actions
approved to this point have been appealed.
1-9
Table J
Public Involvement for Justice Center (PlanninQ and Land Use Actions)
Planninq' Action Case Number . Public Involvement Opportunities
Development Code Amendment to LRP2005-00031 Public Hearings November 1,2005; November 28,
add "Justice Center" to Article 2:3 2005; January 4,2006 & January 17,2006
Zone Change ZON2006-000 12 Public Hearings March 21 & April 18, 2006
300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood
Discretionary Use DRC2006-000l3 Public Hearings March 21 & April18, 2006
300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood
Vacation of mid-block alley LRP2006-000 19 Public Hearings June 20, 2006; July 5, 2006;
July 17, 2006 & September 18, 2006
400-foot mailout notification to neighborhood
Site Plan Review DRC2006-00033 300-foot mailout notification to neighborhood
Development Code Amendment to LRP2007 -00002 Public Hearings March 13 & 19,2007
modify Article 9 Vacation criteria
Vacation of onecblock segment of LRP2007 -00019 Public Hearings June 5 & 19,2007
B Street Public Hearing July 2, 2007
400-foot mailout notification to neighborhood
Statement 5: "The city cannot ensure continue! d] public ownership! of the vacated portion of public
right-olway] because it does not own the property until it is vacated. Once vacated there is no way of
preventingfitture city councils from selling the property to a private party."
Staff Response: Again, this statement is not entirely true or false. The City has latitude in its use of
public right-of-way and could close the street to public travel temporarily or permanently without
vacating the right-of-way. The Justice Center project is intended to be a long-term (50+ year) occupant of
the selected site. However, to address this issue, a clause has been inserted in the enabling ordinance that
causes the vacated area to revert to public right-of-way in the event the vacated right-of-way ceases to be
used for Justice Center purposes (Attachment 9).
Statement 6: "The street vacation cannot meet any of the three criteria previously established in the
code. "
Staff Response: The "previous" criteria referred to by Mr. Olson have been superseded by Development
Code amendments to Article 9 (Vacations) criteria adopted April 2, 2007. The subject vacation request
was submitted after the criteria came into effect. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant to the subject
vacation request.
.1-10
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
)>
-I
-I
~)>
1(')
.......:::I:
3:
m
2:
-I
~~!!s.,~~:ff~ifik:ti~%t
SUBJ ECT AREA
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
IL--.J ,.--- II \ \ ~-A \ I i IH T iY
p,\ i !IJi \\\b RiA"-;
,\\ _.---1 Il, "'." ,
L ; 1 > i 1 \ \ \ i i l
I I !;~ \ \ U-1 I
'''-__-...:-..0 ~\ \,1 ------.J
i.--.-i " or""-"
I \ \ I j.......
! \ \ i
i'~-~ \ i-r
L_ 1 \ i-I
rr-Tli \
i : I . I ;
~-:-.~ 1
I Ii' I
c. -'-_~ j
/-TTJ-1/ ,Till '''- I I
LL..t_d" I . . I
r"r-/-rl il r-!~'i I J .
L-..L..L-_-I L-L..1__ I
i i IT II 1 r'''-~'-,...J ! -, CST
\1 ! I I I I i1lm;-ii"1
LLJ i I ;' I ! I ' ! bd_JtLt~j
Ii I \_-11 1 ,-......:r......, I.L....._..... . "- ....:::.L ' . 1 .1
Ii,' .r I ,..-.....,. "1-'1 __..7:::::;=:=
j! i iI 1 i J II! 1
\81 I BSTU ii!~ I__~~j I...... L-L--1
. >-1 j Ii f i ! j r-r--~-- :~]]:[J
~i I ,f-j Iii __ I l !~ 11 '
! 1€ ~..--=---:-.:.=--:! in I J--Lf--r.'. 1-_1 in ---- . in;--.l-Htj l I
t i I ! Ul iI I ;1 I' '~I I ~~.- ,..--------;
I a: I i 1>- ; i I I I. !....I .,." Iii
---" w=----J.-,--.~< !~. ; 1 I ! ~ . 1 I
___..~~ w I~ . --~- L --LL...--l
\ ... I I ' '-1 ~;--- -:,i~ 'itmfEJ rin~--'
r'4 \ i i I I a., I '0.1' I II I I
~-==-' L-1-~a:' I ',UJI i I ~
~ I r-y-"'- W 'r--- .,.~-.~ '^
\ Iii I' 1 ; i '~ !: I I 1r-r-'nTTT'! I r:r
J._.J \ i I I I ,,10'1 iii II Illi' I i f- r
L........ ---1--_._: -.-\-..L...LLJ.K.J LJLl Ll..J.LLill J co
.~:;7- ".---1 ..------., ~'_, MAIN ST .
;?::'/ i~ ~~L,_.1 I r T 1 '[1m lll-rrlTTl i~1
'"//-::~~:'L-~ ~.~~2- .ell "~~-.L... I I
,~/<:// i i i ~.I ~---~.' '-=-=':::'------.' --...l, I
~ (i i ; '\; '\ l 1 ;! i ----"'""-...-__.. -~-'--"""--J
r-._..:L........j ! '-, !! ill ---.---
l~J;:::r:::( I I H "" Iii I I -..--------
-_., -. I II '<..-.f------l i ! T-,_.
.........."--.........., / 1 -........--..........,-. i [ ! . 1--
;, ....."'__...! I _'Wi I . '--.......... 1_____
I '"'''>.. -../ ---~~-- ~--- ----.
i .i----.. r----.,,---------.. -.-- '-,
r-l I I 1 ....--r----;:;r-----_______ l. "--~
i LJ ilL I v/ /------....-'~ . -"--..
--J.__~ -_,.~ /- ------_____-..............-__...
I ! '/ !: -----, ' -- '-
'~f)]+:j>"i' ... . are;'" wa,.;.ande1that
'<>-;- :c, ',:::;:/f.k~,!'os;'_ume.,49,reJPfl~ii]ai,l)~.(or.a~v:
~:;:rf.[.~~10're;~fi0~fr.g Cjif -- :::-,--
SUBJ ECT SITE
\ \
l~\\ II
~= :=j \
I~
i
t__ I
EI'--r- =
I, I
L.. I
! i f--
l I
i
L_
~'-'n
I I I' !
n (--I
'-_L,_L_..1
r-"rTlTi
I I i I I i
L---L.J..lu
EST
p=rp
!--__Lu
!"m--I
I I I U'
L..l-l._ I
DST
iT"!~ f--.
I I I H
1 l' i ! I
will
L.J..J-L11 I
1-.--
\ \
\ _\;'1..-'1.'. --T-I.r-y-TTl
_, ,! i.! I I I
\=-' i i I II! i I
--r\ ~ w_.....L~.____. 'I 1
~L I-j-" j -i)
\ I I 1
L_-L-l__J_....J
2-2
Springfield, OR
1[1
+ir-r
I !
~ Ii rf
'-..1--
.--..,.-
l-J
~
! ; I
I I i
L' .
....!.....-l
HifF
F=
F1'
,.-----,.-.,
Ii:
I ! ;
f- ='T"
I I
L._L...
T-
,....---,--
-.-
=~TT'-1 [IT
'-'1! i-j L I i
-_J I r I 1'-
I : ,
~.L,-L...
~-=i i
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007 -00019
SUBJ ECT SITE
Springfield, OR
13900
r----.-;----,-----.-l
17-03-35-24 I '
I i I
14000 I I !
! 141 00 14300
I
I-
CI)
~
w
~
~
~
~
0:::
~
Cl.
0:::
w
w
Z
o
Cl.
0>
IX:!
:g B STREET
264100'
. I
'1'-.--1 1700
I I
I! i
I 1900 ! 17-03+35-31 I
, I I I
~------1____. I j
! ! '---7-..-,-----1
. I I" !
j , I I I I
I ' i
, i
! I
I I
ii,
I ! i I I I
l___-L .1 Ii!
-.----L_--L- j ;
-----___1
1600
1500
I
i
I
I
i
t
1800
,
I
. I
i
I-
CI)
J:
l-
v
A STREET
r--.._,,-.
Ii.... -;'"
ii'
I ' i
.j 1 I I
2-3
PROPOSED STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION
PORTION OF B STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST
CASE LRP2007-00019
SUBJ Eel SITE
Springfield. OR
i
1
i -
I
L___-L
r-----...-T.--.--.-T.-----I~.-.'-.-,
I .' .
i i 17-03b5-24 I i
, I I
I .!
13900
14000
14100
14300
!
'I
I
I ,
264.00
~ ---- ---00---- - --- - 'u-----rn;;;;;;;;;9 ---000000_ 00____ ___n__:___u__u u___ __u ;:...
. 0 .."
~. J. 0.40 acre ~
____u_n___ __u__ ____u___ --~?~_uu__n __00_____ -____u__u___uu_ ____ _. co
B STRE ET
I-
en
<(
w
>-
<(
s:
~
a:::
<(
c..
a:::
w
w
z
Q
c..
1800
264100'
.1
,
1700
1600
I
I
I
i
i
i
i .
j (
r~~-.-----i
1500
I
!
I
I
, I 17 -o3L35-31 i I i
i i i I I
r.------t-.----+---r---+--.--~
, i 'I' I I'
I ' 'I .
II i I
I !
I I
i i
i I
. I I
Ii, j
. I i I' .
L.__I i i
,..~---.--J...-_~_,~""_~~...........J:__
j
1900 _ i
I-
en
I
I-
'V
i
i
i
I
__..--1
A STREET
---'.
I r .. .,-----r-
. i .
i . i
! ! ;
i "I
. ;' r
2-4
en
::r:
f-
f-
U)
o
z
~
f-
U)
f- f- f- ::r: f-
U) U) f- f- f- U)
~ U) U)
:r:
E :r
f-
:r: ~
f-
~
:N
t.
1
\
j
!
;
i
i-
Total Length of B Street . )
From Mill Street to 16th Street: 6117.83 Feet (1.16 miles
o 250 500 Feet
I I
ME M 0 RAN DUM_CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
May 16, 2007
TO: Andy Limbird
FROM: Jerry Smith, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Importance ofB Street Closing to the Justice Facility Project
The purpose of this memo is to summarize for the Planning Commis~ion the importance closing
B Street as part of the Justice Center project. As designed, the area currently occupied by B
Street would become part of a fenced and secured parking area.
. Closing B Street is necessary for the security of portions of the facility: The planned
Justice facility includes an ancillary building that will be a repository for evidence in
criminal cases; storage for police and court records; and storage for specialized police
equipment and weaponry. Closing B Street will allow the entire ancillary building and
parking lot to be fenced in, significantly improving the security of these records and
evidentiary items. Without the security fencing in place, the ancillary building as
designed does not provide sufficient security for these items.
. Closing B Street will provide secure fleet and employee parking: To date, Department
vehicles and employee parking has not been secured by fencing. While this does not
cause significant issues during normal working hours, the Department has experienced
damage to fleet vehicles, and employees have suffered damage to their personal vehicles,
during late evening and early morning hours. Damage has ranged from paint scratches to
slashed tires and broken windows.
. Closing B Street will improve the safety of police officers and citizens: The street
closure will allow officers responding to emergency calls from inside the building to
access their vehicles without crossing a public right of way, thereby reducing the risk of
an accident during an emergency response.
. Closing B 'Street will provide a secure area for evacuation of municipal jail prisoners:
The fenced area will serve as an outdoor holding area for municipal jail prisoners in the
event that the jail must be evacuated. Without the street closure and fencing, there will
not be an area outside the municipal jail adequate and accessible for holding prisoners.
Instead, an evacuation event would necessitate the uncontrolled release of all municipal
jail prisoners.
ATTACHMENT
3-1
$Jt2 C{r SfJrt'''l-Be-kl ('(~ f7k-, ;iW~!~:;:'9G
/. l/ /-IC!/1I1PrJ I ....----...--.
--..
r 'p..il1l<. ~ A~{;-e a prc6{PflL1 - -
610 C!2)117o. o-f-f- B s+ a--s.I.k.~.' Q':7 c<rf-€{/'/~'q:/'
, ,,' ~<<7 /;t{/~.." /
-fo ~u;(d '~ f1r)stTr'j5;oG)I!c:e~ s)cn-r /s'
not a JDCJ4 ;~ C'(f cf// po~ S'<<r
~ a /61 /-v1W<<( €?
t ~ S~ I\-fr~ -p Cr~~
~c?l! oIaWI1 ;f sfl &7~k C S-f. cq
res//,tl/? ..L -'"' -L ~_,~) J'. -L .~~... //
~ s{~/ c< oc<s-/-er 0'{r-~_
c/~d~.)/~~Jncfled~~ ~ ~
~~. t:J/.</(~, 'ur jJNSC-Z"'i/ ~ /"/1<?tft~
fU/t er{? Sp,JI1 /~6(_. /7DT- .6kk q MC(jr,., '7
sfN?d' lode? -f!1l5" A4~ ~ ~ ?u.-R
1 to ~ ~--(V;zd;Pf.. .T~/S ~~;v, ~~'t4j~
, Ud- hi fU ~/-:I(I/~ ;I- ~ ~ .
6 tL//f; ~ wfEP5' 1/ ~ 'Ju-e" 0/ II U~ ~
iT ~ r &uti! -6tdi2 qnr8 -f~
fi07&2J r!1;-R~, 'k {;Ot j/ .r c(~~ sh;:~ w I
'~~ ut:7fr~ 11~-C:ir ~/S f7h<-R'P-<.e
.;r s/r41JIJ .5~ ?h5c>1vJ" .tr- More: ~~-~
" ;r~ ~ //1 ~uor o-f' -t~ CV(rr?h-r,
C{)t1s-fl/ud/~ I~ ..h~~6'7 c:cC'ces5" 10_ (' ~
1ftZJ!il1 ped of{iCR-i1<-< c:O}/M,Q;; Gd~ :f y~ .
-T lU&;c&/f In-t(.M 1Ayj,~/...e ~ ~ '
4houI' Y/i15~r~rIr/mzI h1€eII/~ ~-
::TT4-lf7~ ~..7 d4~
;<4u-<<J 63~vr- '~'1'
~ -tf~ -to? c7 I?(cu~~ d'r:f/ k or
COnJ/dr4 ~ ~ Ilk.!/U--R ~
OJpsR (tvU'l;~ 0 ... . /~
.:;::--f -fuue UJdL4 C< ~ ~/
:1 lj) ov-d {)fie ~ 0 . 1
. ". ff ../'/'-I./7.tr!- re;G'f!:2LLe -ft/"ot~
-r ~ { It:-k"- r ...:. ~
ji-e4~ 4~&rt~~oCHl //
" CU!-q. ~ . /)1'/
-r." ..erfr4 ~...
p50 1 ~ --{J(rv! .. .A~ -f-~
ti)CVJ 0 CJ r'= '1;
wol~ " (, " dJ c/l &xI ~~
... ..... ~I ~.o ".
f-,tl& eo- pt5 . (7Lh-3~o1J
I RECEIVED J
JUN 0 5 2006
BY: ac;z
4-2
if JZcvt S) rf)
(J lea~ 0( ()l1of [/a cede
B ~~ W 7'4 Jj?/ \
J::i ' ({ , v ,~ RE(;FTI/ED
-r / -II /:' d' J--; . FEB Z 200-
j tJcJff!vr -r/f1 /' 'k /'3 B:' I I
,r' (
/1II1:/cr ;ACC)/l/Jet1/eflcp- dfiulltl
-ftJ ~ ell; Irq//.-- elkJ1 . tda(/1~J ~
(At J;b riff- "
P!~45! recc;tJ7~ parfJfll r
C/fr5 d 5~ 1()~;/1 C/&r~
/flsfd-lfr W~ -eSf- ~ ...OJ
~ d- 32MI-.IA:v,""', ~- '~tJ" j},J) :.-,.t2/
1M sure . ',' ',' ~ ~
(Us# ~J (j:)e ~ ~jJ ---, &J--
W.fV1e KI1[JUJ rW < .,- ~~
~ ~ ~c6s/Kf. If:s;f '. . ~
per;:! t:!11~ J. t.-jiJHg~ef7l~ _...~
: -r~~'dIO/R ;11 ~: :.c:f1~~ ~,~ '
f'ltv,flC!tJ5tfre. 5~ . . ,~
4-3 ?1 b a ({)eff' ])5-/,# I ~
%- /J y)~ Ci -f/,~!'It;/)f>)~ 97.1/77
4-4
g-p
.,~
. '::,,-~l;
"UN/I::_ G
,,,, " Z
- . '.....,
\ ~ ~ '10",:,. \I\~.'_ a -<
U . , 'tn
~ ~<~.~ . ~
"'""\ \)" ~ UJ
'-- ~ ~ :H
'1t ~ r~t
l~ it~'!\.b...
~ ~ 7 \:;;0
~. . ~~ "". )~~.' 1m. ..
~ ) I~ ~ GJ
~.' \. . t;Y8';. b
~ \ ~g~,~,
~~.
':~.f~.. '
~:~l ~.' ~ ~~~. ..
:~l ~_ ' ~
....1 .,.. -.,.~
-+ ~ ::,
~~~; 1: ':\ ~ \...
.", ~}[1~
- \:y ~.~~
~ L/,\ ~.~
1\ ~: ,Gs1 ~
"v, ~\ ~
:i. ~ ~
". ~ ~
. ""-j
""~
M
<.J.
[..i.
~T)
rtl m
tt c:
iJ C'J
~~f ~
~~. rn ,
. ~t ....,~
,;). .,.~
,.....':; 4~
.. ~~,,:;:
, .~
'S\ ~
........,~.:.~
:.~.~':;~
~~\~
~~] ~
( . """."-?
~~: l\'J .
c,\ ~: .
-:t.:. ~\ f.A.: ~i
i.~ -\'R.~ . :..
~ ~ 'f ~~;
~ i
i ~ . .j. .
"c;' ~ ~ . i
~ ~ ~i~~.. .~ 1
~ ~ i. 1
'. , j
....... ~'i,;
~~ ~ 1:1
~ '., !
. ~~. ~ "1
~ 0\, ~ ~.
~.~. ~'~~,
~ 11. J
''-'\' ~ ~ ;
~.l~.r~
H\ J
., ~~ 'r"
z: ~ .
~~i .
. i...,..,.,.. k
~ u::.~
, ,,~.~~.
~~,
~
if rJ."','
".t (
· I 1
.i
:f \. .
:\: \ \\\ '\
,j)..A:M. ;4~ar ~e/*el1 J dttcX C/(Y ~cil N~~ .
.cJ ,~ ~ ~ cc ~ :
~sd Yo..JJ/od: 1ffP ~ . ~ rr-
4iA- f)ti J>I .e'fTM<?I1€Pl/'fj- ,-~~
7tJ -{!rw If C?CM?? ~~
) q dlI1tJm/euce 10 6.e.. 10 ~..
~ k!J7 C yf :+0 yr (t; ...~
Hd!; tllrU</j I az ~ II ~ ,~ .
IL~~/~ 51 ~ lu~/.
~ c(e5d. _ . ._..... ......Ip-",,,, // ..-pt
~-f ~/S ... ~
L; TM- ~ ..tff ft--e ~ /A _
.jIJ~/. ~ ~ ...u-zKi; ~
-/1d- iJ~~;CftU3w~ . . /~,.
~ -:T ?J- ~~
fi4o/ fCJ2 4d)L :T CljM vePy
~. 'h ~13S1-6~
006 ~. .. , ~
;p u~ ~ 5)7fu:rGefiI !/~~
'.J- ~/1A. dh/A~ ~~,-.J1~ J-~
4-6
fA,~-
{AJ~ be~ -fir a:r ~teJ)"-71
v~(o~'~~
~ tr:J cMd {{Sf? a..rqrt~.
. ~ 1_r/;,<
~ .5Or7Irl;;~ n p j;Jr1.~. ..:17. ~ ~ . ~ ' AI J ~
r; ~~'~.Jh ..,. - I
~~~~~~/l1
~. ' .. eO; C hS'~. fjf, {3~ 2/? ,;16 ~
iv~' "'~ -- ~ ~ ~
, , "'" / ~'Io~~' ',,"
~ ~ vZ? ( !Iffi~ ~,~A---c
!5J' ~ /t!:e ~ ~ ,~
1M- ;0 1$/ ~ ()~ ))::;-f%o)
wefJ~ ~ ~tJ7~~ ~
~4; ',I-/j9-~- &(
C; n -'a..., -:. /J. t? /JI'/(~p.a / ~ /:;;..::1 $~u1
~1W~~ ~ ~ .J/f1~l/EJ'Cf ~
f~ ,fd/ ' ~~u(;v~-
~ ' !MgV! O~j)fi.ff-;ta.~ , ~ 6Yt'ff~
~ ~~ 11il~tiJe (b ~e~ ~-' -,~
6i11t5.~ l:f:;t;' No.'~ rg Co~ iq.. ~C:ltb//ze ~ ~~
~ 1<ffI!7r-n" '7' ,I'. :/ 5t~'r(;;Jf{:^ - R~WdtI. ~ ,,'
,/._ ~n'-jV {.L{y-ztv'~ .... A _.. JA. ..1 };W1n1J ~~ ~Jd))~:"U..
-X-t.?Lfb---38cYt) ~!J'rt~ &J?~s;f-=#( C()LpJ
;jJ~ AV1J~ L;~+ fIQ~~~tl:;siClt(
J req[;& -rh- do5.tUQ -tfr7 Jj SIted-
a:1 %cJ7~ is 11f4<t -hA~jle/l
~ -r ~ ~ /VlO/onsls woqld~
s~ ~4rrqt/l/~11d2Id~~ ,~__ .
dec1c!:-ed. . 7;.JrtR~ ~ <:/iM f, _ -01 I~
vtA ~~tt~ I '>'>1~ C<.~-!~~~/-(~0~ r/nlY-<
HJ~~~ 71<-A ~. . l--fl~~'
~(}.,<A ~~'~~
~ ~ -<2A~.~ ~ ~ a-_(J~ .
lJ l^-t"^~ B S'ireZ:I h ~ ~ -;-~
--:;e- (( . des) .(.Sf 0) JJ3~
, . ~/+~ t:s ofc:r710'~
-~~:-:~~~ ~:ft;:;13~~z
. I ~ //. /'A'O~ Vyv; Jr~ ~ -r-
~ ~;::;;z;, ~--G ~ ' ~
~.~6z5.~~ -/6..~ . fv7&~~'. . - .
~J#! fWc p6SfOff,C:Z . B ~ ~ .
b ~ ~ -fen Y<<5'1 ~ I ( P<. lA..U2 ~
(;W.e(f-11 ~e:J-r psi. - .
:]: u.rzrz.A. 0.<:J ex.. vCJ/~ o:::rSyJn'rt';(}e4,
tihVd./V.JJ 50 ~ ~/~i Sd ,:;-~
~ ~ ~ SS1_ {I'~ kg
~.~
. 11~ ;;}!J~fa~~'131-
'~. ..
I ~ ' ~~Jv.-X)ot-~ cd?
jJ5f.~~ sf--rei;foff~q
4-8
. 5~ '3'- ~ A~ fJqy~~~y-
et(V1A/v~.cW- S~-p~ Sf- f~
fE:.rC?Zl;Jtj.~ :r;[/~$ ~.C<Sl[)~
-J '~~-eC;~ ~~ ~~.
i1JLfl!a/'vl1/~ ~ r~ V&t.N-Q ~~
JIM..- 7~~~ia
~I v-SVA fLo ;J: dc7;;t~ !BS1.
~~~~qjd~~
0] ~ tv-&P.IJ~ ft-Z ~ GV{ BJ$--
-Gn~ -fo~~. '.
:;PI I S.~ ~~ a 'C0/{U~hc:z
.~) .//kR- .G~ ~~ ~ .
CC( ~~)c.~ - ~
!Tt:~ w~ 1J01~r--Ah. J., V(/,;..p.~.C?L.. -'
I / .0-= v - -/~ } ceJ . '1' c:;~
~ (~ tt:~ ...; /T-~ Q -
ffa.Qf ~-)JO'W IT .lso;ao'- -fc:, ~ Q . . ::u
.:FT ~ 3ec>,..r) (d-: }-t1o--;c,n'S6 ~ ~
hlo~/~-ft--o-~~~~ ~
~ I -. ~ ~-/~c-~?4a
to c:lo ~ s . ~ 0 7U2j-'
. ::r r<e][d, ~ -rJ//S '/':5' .'
a:r- ~fT!3 %~llkti.s?cP~4-A · QO, .
. DI1Cf2 ~'- ~ cy; ~eaJ) to ~," /<t~...c:& .
~ ~ f3 S:f. .!40~ J~,-~ s~yr/I ~
[JL~ ~Di~XJV1 ~~.. -jp~~~ (2./....'.... .'~~J
_ . (}:rW' <?; A-! Ze.J:4 :, Il - G(;:tr 'j~. ~._?fl: A ~.PM. . ~ ;fY<
Ic~ ~~ I/~( I~ :'-fle! ';F~-8os J 'Sit-
rit:;E5J b- ~ ~ -tt--sz ;L(~J . . ~.
r .fcJvD~ 6->~ ~ ~ sf+- ~ k..e 3-
-<I ~c:-tfdo-c.t.n1...5eg;.i5' (Ik CZ. -{-err;. (/J~.LV~~
6e~ h>J~5. · ;k> ~ :?ot3 ~ rb gs;:f- f6
. I ~f-fe fk:?!fn -H-OJf')~~'-
Submittal to the record of the city of Springfield
Planning Commission
Discretionary Use and Zone Change Request (Justice Center)
Case Numbers
DRC2006-00013 (Discretionary Use Application)
ZON2006-00007 (Zo~e Change Request)
March 28, 2006
Submitted by:
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Comments and assertions of error in the staff report finding.s and' conclusion are
presented below. Portions of the staff report are replicated with my comments in arial
font following. The staff report identifies the criteria for approval with summary
conclusionary findings with little or no discussion of how the application supports the
findings. No indication that the applicant has addressed any of the approval criteria in
the application is presented in the staff report;
The staff report includes;
Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval
Criterion (I): The proposed use conforms with the applicable:
(a) Provisions of the Metro Plan;
Finding: The Metro Plan speaks in broad terms about development in the greater
Eugene/Springfield urban area, and there are no policies specifically related to Justice
Center or correction facility projects. However, the proposal is consistent with the Metro
Plan objectives for siting public/government buildings and services in nodal development
areas such that population and employment are concentrated in well-defined areas with
good transit service and a mixture of compatible land uses (Metro Plan Chapter II-E(4)).
Finding: The Metro Plan's Public and Semi Public plan designation provides for the
accommodation of major government facilities and office complexes. Springfield's
Public Land and Open Space zoning district implements this plan designation in the City.
The Justice Center, a large public facility, is proposed to be located within this plan
designation and, therefore, is consistent with the Metro Plan Chapter II.
Comments:
The staff r~port fails to identify that the TransPlan Goals, Objectives, and Policies have
been adopted into the Metro Plan. The following is extracted from TransPlan:
Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan is the
official long-range general plan (public policy document) for the region comprised of the
1 Of 16
ATTACHMENT
5-l
cities of Eugene and Springfield imd metropolitan Lane County. The Metro Plan
establishes the broad framework upon which Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make
coordinated land use decisions. As a functional plan, TransPlan must be consistent with
the Metro Plan. Metro Plan amendments required for consistency will be adopted by the
elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan.
TransPlan strategies include nodal development and transit-supportive land use patterns,
new and expanded TDM programs, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), in addition to roadway
projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. All of these strategies can
increase the attractiveness of transportation modes other than the single-occupant vehicle
(SOV). The integration of transportation and land use planning is especially important to
support compact urban growth, which provides for more pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-
friendly environments, rather than urban sprawl that .supports auto dependency.
The TransPlan policy framework (Chapter Two) and implementation actions (Chapter
Three) are structured around three fundamental components of transportation planning:
1. Land use,
2. Transportation demand management, and
3. Transportation system improvements.
The land use component of transportation planning is addressed by TransPlanpolicies
and implementation actions that encourage meeting the need for transportation-efficient
development patterns, such as nodal development and transit-supportive land use
pa~erns. These development patterns reduce trip lengths and auto dependency and
support transit, bicycling, and walking.
Clearly I The first criteria of "The proposed use conforms with the applicable:
(a) Provisions of the Metro Plan;" includes consistency with the applicable elements of
TransPlan. Again from TransPlan:
Goal #1: Integrated Transportation and Land Use System,
Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in
modes of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the auto and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
Definition/Intent: This goal recognizes the need to .integrate transportation and land use
planning to enhance livability, economic opportunity, and quality of life. Integration
supports transportation-efficient development patterns and choices in transportation
modes that reduce reliance on the auto.
Closing off a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and bicylce public ways,
seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal
development overlay zone is not consistent with this goal.
2 Of 16
5-2
Goal #2: Transportation System Characteristics
Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
a} Balanced,
b) Accessible,
c) Efficient,
d) Safe,
e) Interconnected,
f) Environmentally responsible,
g) Supportive of responsible and sustainable development,
h) Responsive to communitY needs and neighborhood impacts, and
i) Economically viable and financially stable.
Definition/Intent: The goal is to provide an overall transportation system that provides
for all of these needs. Transportation decisions on specific facilities and services will
require balancing some characteristics with others. . .
a) A balanced transportation system is one that provides a range of transportation
options and takes advantage of the inherent efficiencies of each mode.
b) An accessible transportation system is one that serves all areas of the community and
offers both residents and visitors convenient and reliable transportation options.
c) An efficient transportation system is one that is fast and economic for the user,
maximizes the mobility available through existing facilities, and leverages as much
benefit as possible from new transportation facilities.
d) A safe transportation system is one that is designed, built, and operated to minimize
risk of harm to people and property and allows people to feel confident and secure in
and around all modes of travel.
e) An interconnected transportation system is one that provides for ease of transfer
between different modes of travel, such as auto to bus or bicycle to rail. .
f) An environmentally responsible transportation system is one that reduces
transportation-related environmental impact and energy consumption.
g) A transportation system that is supportive of responsible and sustainable
development integrates transportation and land use planning in support of
transportation-efficient development. .
h) A transportation system that is responsive to community needs and neighborhood
impacts is flexible and adaptable, and addresses transportation-related impacts in
residential areas.
i) An economically viable and financially stable transportation system is one that is
cost efficient; financially feasible; and has sufficient, ongoing financial support to
ensure transportation system investments can be operated and maintained as desired.
Closing off a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street, diverting collector
street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and bicylce public ways,
seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards in a nodal
development overlay zone is not consistent with this goal.
3 Of 16
5-3
TransPlan Objectives
Consistent with the Metro Plan, the following definition is used for TransPlan
objectives:
An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving
to meet a goal. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that
will help fulfill the overall goal.
Objective #1: Accessibility and Mobility
Provide adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of
people, goods, and services within the region.
Definition/Intent: Accessibility refers to physical proximity and ease of reaching
destinations throughout the urban metropolitan area. This objective supports the need for
multimodal accessibility to employment, shopping, other commerce, medical care,
housing, and leisure, including adequate public transit access for people who are
transportation disadvantaged. This objective also supports the need for improved access
for tourists to destinations. Mobilityis the ease with which a person is able to travel
from place to place. It can be measured in terms of travel time. Access and mobility are
provided at different levels on different classes of transportation facilities. For example, a
local street has a high level of accessibility for adjacent residences and businesses, with a
low level of mobility for non-local traffic. An arterial street has a lower level of
accessibility, with a higher level of mobility for through movement of travelers. Local
jurisdictions will determine what constitutes adequate levels of accessibility and mobility
. and what is efficient movement of people, goods, and services within the region. Provide
adequate levels of accessibility and mobility for the efficient movement of people, goods,
and services within the region.
Closing off streets, rerouting a collector street at it's intersection with an arterial street,
diverting collector street traffic to adjacent local street, shutting off pedestrian and
bicylce public ways, seeking variances to street connectivity and block length standards
in a nodal development overlay zone is not consistent with this objective.
Objective #2:'-'Safety
Improve transportation system safety through design, operations and maintenance,
system improvements, support facilities, public information, and law enforcement
efforts.
Definition/Intent: TransPlan Goal 2 sets forth safety as a key characteristic of the
desired transportation system. This objective supports the need for taking a
comprehensive approach to building, operating, and regulating the transportation system
so that travelers feel safe and secure.
This objective did not intend to result in street closure because it is unsafe for the police.
to need to cross a public street to get to the secured vehicle parking area. The
objective is aimed at making the street a safe place for all of us.
Objective #3: Environment
4 Of 16
5-4
Provide transportation systems that are environmentally responsible.
Definition/Intent: This objective places a priority on fulfilling the need to protect the
region's natural environment and conserving energy in all aspects of transportation
planning processes. The primary intent of this objective can be met through compliance
with all federal and state regulations relevant to environmental impact and consideration
of applicable environmental impact analyses and practicable mitigation measures in
transportation decision-making processes. Significant benefits can be achieved from
coordinating the environmental process with the transportation planning process, such as
early identification of issues and resources, development of alternatives that avoid or
minimize impacts early in the pmject development process, and more rapid project
delivery. The region's need to reduce transportation-related energy consumption can be
met through increased use of transit, telecommuting, zero-emissions vehicles,
ridesharing, bicycles and walking, and through incre~sed efficiency of the transportation
network to diminish delay and corresponding fuel consumption.
This proposals street closures do not support this objective because it limits access to
the transit station, inhibits walking, bicycling, and created out of direction auto travel.
Objective #5: Public Involvement
Provide citizens with information to increase their awareness of transportation
issues, encourage their involvement in resolving the issues, and assist them in
making informed transportation choices.
The applicant created a citizen advisory committee to assist with siting issues but has
refused to consider project alternatives that are within the financial limitations of the
project and keep the streets open. The advisory committee recommendation to the City
Council was to consider alternatives to the closure of B Street but the Council voted to
proceed with street closures. The applicants testimony at hearing was inaccurate with
repect to the consitency with the committee's recommendation and the subsequent City
Council action and direction to staff. This application also inappropriately ties the street
vacation to the discretionary use approval through the proposed conditions of approval
yet has not addressed the vacation approval criteria or done the necessary public notice
for a street vacation.
Objective #7: Policy Implementation
Implement a range of actions as determined by local governments, including lan~
use, demand management, and system improvement strategies, to carry out
transportation policies.
The land use policies in, this area were derived from this objective of TransPlan and it's
dependance upon Nodal Development and creation of attractive modal choices. The
proposed use is inconsistent with the following policies of TransPlan.
Land Use Policy #1: Nodal Development
Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that
have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.
5 Of 16
5-5
The nodes will be pedestrian-friendly environments with a mix of
land uses, including public open spaces that are pedestrian-, transit-, and bicycle-oriented.
Land Use Policy #2: Support for Nodal Development
Support application of the nodal development strategy in designated areas through
information, technical assistance, or incentives.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage nodal development
through public support and incentives, recognizing that there is public benefit to the
transportation and land use efficiencies of nodal development.
Land Use Policy #3: Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns
Provide for transit-supportive land' use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit
stations; medium- and high-density residential development within V4 mile of transit
stations, major transit corridors, employment centers; and downtown areas; and
development and redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by
existing or planned transit.
Policy Definition/Intent: The intent of this policy is to encourage more concentrated
development and higher density housing in locations that are or could be served by high
levels of transit service. By doing so, transit will be more convenient for a greater
number of businesses and people and, in turn, the higher levels of transit will be
supported by more riders.
Land Use Policy #4: Multi-Modal Improvements in New Development
Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports efforts to improve the convenience of
using transit, biking, or walking to travel to, from, and within newly developed and
redeveloped areas. This policy recognizes the importance of providing pedestrian and
bikeway connections within the confines of individual developments to provide direct,
safe, and convenient internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Land Use Policy #5: Implementation of Nodal Development
Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to
protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for
completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy was added at the request of the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. The nodal development strategy anticipates a
significant change in development patterns within proposed nodes. Development of
theseareas under existing plan designations and zoning provisions could result in
development patterns inconsistent with nodal development. This policy documents a
commitment by the elected officials to apply the newlND nodal development Metro Plan
designation and new zoning regulations to priority nodal development areas within three
years of TransPlan adoption, subject to available funding.
6 Of 16
5-6
TDM Policy #2: Parking Management
Increase the use of motor vehicle parking management strategies in selected areas
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
Policy Definition/Intent: Parking management strategies address both the supply and
demand for vehicle parking. They contribute to balancing travel demand within the
region among the various modes of transportation available. To promote parking equity
in the region, consideration should be given to applying parking management strategies at
a region-wide leve"t, in addition to downtown centers.
The proposed use will sprawl surface parking thoughout a significant portiqn of the
property within the Nodal Development zone, eliminating potential for development
more consistent with the objectives of the zone.
TSI System-Wide Policy #1: Transportation Infrastructure Protection and
Management '
Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This. policy calls for the protection and management of
transportation facilities for all modes, within the limits of available funding, in a way that
sustains their long-term capacity and function. Given the limited funding for future
transportation projects and operations, maintenance and preservation activities, the need
to protect and manage existing and future transportation investments and facilities is
crucial. Strategies related to access management, TDM, and land use can be
implemented to reduce trips and impacts to major transportation facilities, such as
freeway interchanges, thereby postponing the need for investments in capacity-increasing
projects.
Closing B Street, a collector street of recent reconstruction with federal funding
assistance, and diNerting traffic to local streets not constructed to the same standard is
inconsitent with this policy.
TSI System- Wide Policy #2: Intermodal Connectivity
Develop or promote intermodallinkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among
all transportation modes.
Policy Definition/Intent: An intermodal transportation system is one that includes all
forms of transportation in a unified, connected manner. An intermodal trip is one that
involves two or more modes between the trip origin and destination. Intermodallinkages
are the transfer points along the way, such as Park-and-Ride lots. In transit, intermodal
transfers allow providers to serve a greater segment of the population. For freight,
intermodal transfers allow shippers to take advantage of the economies of each mode,
such as truck and rail, to achieve the most cost-effective and timely deliveries of goods.'
TSI System-Wide Policy #3: Corridor Preservation
Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements of
regional significance, that are i~entified for future transportation-related uses.
7 Of 16
5-7
Elimination of existing improved public corridors to avoid walking across the street is not
consistent with this policy.
TSI System-Wide Policy #4: Neighborhood Livability
Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability.
. Definition/Intent: Transportation-related impacts on neighborhood livability include
excessive intrusion of regional vehicle movement on local residential streets, excessive
vehicle speeds, and excessive traffic noise. Strategies aimed at improving flow on
arterials, such as access management measures, may draw traffic from neighborhood
streets that, based on travel characteristics, should be properly using the arterial.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy.
TSI Roadway Policy #1: Mobility and Safety for all Modes
Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing
roadway system improvements.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports the design and construction of systems
and facilities that accommodate multiple modes. It also supports consideration of the
needs of emergency vehicles in the design and construction of system improvements.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy.
TSI Roadway Policy #3: Coordinated Roadway Network
In conjunction with the overall transportation system,. recognizing the needs of
other transportation modes, promote or develop a regional roadway system that
meets combined needs for travel through, within, and outside the region.
Policy Definition/Intent: The regional roadway system must meet the travel needs of
motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and commercial vehicles. Characteristics
of such a roadway system include adequate capacity and conriections to roads entering
the region. TransPlan roadways will be coordinated with the Lane County Transportation
System Plan (TSP) roadways and ODOT corridor studies. All roadway system
improvements will also be consistent with other adopted policies in TransPlan.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy. -
TSI Transit Policy #1: Transit Improvements
Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility;
attractiveness, and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population.
Policy Definition/Intent: Continued improvements to the transit system, including
enhancements to the existing transit service, exploration of transit fare alternatives that
increase ridership and new and improved transit facilities for passengers, will make
transit a more attractive transportation alternative and encourage increased use of transit.
8 Of 16
5-8
This policy also supports maintaining existing facilities in good condition.
By restricting pedestrian accessibility the proposed use is not constent with this policy.
TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit .
Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fast transit service along major
corridors and neighborhood feeder service that connects with the corridor service
and with activity centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along
BRT corridors, if local governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the
system is feasible.
BRT, when combined with other system improvement, land use, and demand
management strategies, is expected to increase the share.ofriders who use public
transportation. BRTis also expected to help the region maintain conformity with federal
air quality standards. BRT, combined with nodal development, is a key strategy in the
region's compliance with alternative performance measures for th~ TPR.
Closure of streets within the neighborhood of the transit station is not constent with this
policy or the very signifcant investment the public is making the BRT system.
TSI Bicycle Policy #2: Bikeways on Arterials and Collectors
Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
Closing collector streets is not consist with this policy.
TSI Bicycle Policy #3: Bikeway Connections to New Development
Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity
centers and major destinations.
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy recognizes the importance of providing bicycle
connectivity between new development, neighborhood activity centers, and major
destinations. When new development occurs, connectivity to the regional bikeway
system must be provided. In cases where the existing or planned street network does not
adequately provide bicycle connectivity, paved bikeways should be provided within
residential developments and should extend to neighborhood activity centers or to an
existing bikeway system within one-half mile of residential developments. Major
destinations may include, but are not limited to, nodal development centers, schools,
shopping centers, employment centers, transit stations, and parks. This policy does not
imply that a developer would be required to provide bikeways through undeveloped
adjoining properties.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy.
TSI Pedestrian Polky #1: Pedestrian Environment
Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
9 Of 16
5-9
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports the provision of pedestrian connections
between adjacent land uses, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and stations, safe
and convenient pedestrian street crossings, and pedestrian amenities, including lighting.
In more developed areas, such as downtowns, pedestrian design features improve the
accessibility of destinations.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy.
TSI Pedestrian Policy #2: Continuous and Direct Routes
Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes
between destination points.
Policy DefinitionlIntent: This policy supports an active program to develop pedestrian
pathways (e.g., sidewalks), especially in proximity t() major activity centers. A
continuous pedestrian network is free of gaps and deadends and overcomes physical
barriers that inhibit walking. Direct routes between destination points are important
because out-of-direction travel discourages walking. "Reasonably 'direct" means either a
route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not
involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy.
Finance Policy #2: Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation
Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way that reduces the need for more
expensive future repair.
Removal of a streetin excellent condition is not consistent with this policy.
Finance Policy #5: Short-Term Project Priorities
Consider and include among short-term project priorities, those facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly nodal development and
increased use of alternative modes. .
Policy Definition/Intent: This policy supports consideration and programming of
facilities and improvements that support nodal development and the increased use of
alternative modes. Examples of such investments include funding incentives for
implementation of nodal development, funding ofTDM programs, and improvements
made to the transit and bike systems.
The proposed use is not constent with this policy. The city's approval criteria and staff
report continue below.
(b) Refinement plans;
Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Downtown Refinement
Plan, including recent amendments made to allow consideration of Justice Center
proposals within the Plan area. The Downtown Refinement Plan - Land Use
Element, General Policy #2 contains the following enabling policy in support of the
proposed Justice Center development: "Civic and governmental uses serving the
10 Of 16
5-10
Springfield community shall be encouraged to locate in the downtown area. Within
the downtown, governmental uses, including City Hall, the Justice Center and jail,
the library, WilIamalane and SUB offices, shall be encouraged to locate and expand
along A Street."
'"l
Along the street not in it.
(c) Plan District standards;
Finding: The proposal is consistent with provisions of the Public Land and Open
Space District (PLO), as Justice Centers are listed as a Discretionary Use in the
d istri ct.
What are the standards? How can it be determined if it is consitent without discussion
about what they are? What does the NOD designation mean? This criteria has not
been addressed by the applicant or staff.
(d) Conceptual Development Plans; or
Finding: There are no conceptual development plans for the subject development
area.
(e)Special use standards in this Code;
Finding: In accordance with SDC 23.100(a-b), the applicant would be required to
address special use standards applicable to this proposal at the time of Site Plan
Review application.
This criteria applies to this application of discretionary use approval. There need to be
findings that this application is consistent with the Special use standards in this Code.
The staff report continues;
Criterion (2): The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering:
(a) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating
characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration,
emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations,
where applicable);
Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be oriented to streets that already serve
the downtown commercial area, and will occupy City-owned land already used for
municipal police and court functions within Springfield. Conceptual site design has
provided for separation from residential uses to the north, and the operational
characteristics of the Justice Center will be compatible with existing office,
commercial and institutional uses in the immediate vicinity.
The public street is not suitable for the proposed use as a secured police compound and
is not compatable with the neighborhood or the existing public use of the street. The
applicant nor staff have addressed the location size or operating characteristics of a jail
in addressing this criterja. The relationship of the jail and the church entrances should
be addressed. A jail is not an office.
11 Of 16
5-11
(b) Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed
site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle
and transit circulation;
Finding: The proposed Justice Center will be served by the existing grid street
system of downtown Springfield, including Pioneer Parkway East which is
classified as a minor arterial. Sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes already exist
to provide non-motorized access to the site. The site will be designed such that
access points and on-site circulation patterns are safe, effective, and recognize the
operational characteristics of the surrounding street system.
Finding: The secure parking lot located on the north side of the facility will
provide a secure area for jail inmates in the event that the facility is evacuated
providing for public safety in the event of an emergency response.
Bicycle, pedestrian, and trasit circualtion will be impeded by the proposed use. A traffic
impact analysis typically required by the city for this type of application was not
submitted with the application. The project architects have stated that the secure
parking area is not required for emergency evacuation and is not likey the primary
evacuation route.
(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;
Finding: There are no existing natural and/or physical features that will be affected
by the proposed Justice Center.
(d) Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to,
utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public
infrastructure.
Finding: The Development Review Committee 1 held a meeting to review the
proposed conceptual site plan, Discretionary Use, and Zone Change requests. Staff
and Springfield Utility Board representatives have determined that sufficient
capacity exists in the adjacent street and utility system to allow consideration of
Discretionary Use and Zone Change requests. Specific details on utility servicing
and other potential effects on public facilities would be finalized with a Site Plan
Review application.
The traffic analysis had not yet been reviewed by city staff at the time this finding was
prepared. The testimony at the hearing which indicated that the reported increased
traffic volumes on C Street would not require mitigation is not consistent with city
imposed requirements on other recent developments in the city with over 1,000 vehicles
per day on a local street. '
Criterion (3): Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the
public can be mitigated through the:
(a) Application of other Code standards, for example bufferingfrom less intensive uses,
12 Of 16
5-12
increased setbacks, etc.;
Finding: The proposed Justice Center has been intentionally sited on the block between
A Street and B Street to increase separation from existing residential uses on C Street.
Site design strategies also will include building entrance orientation, landscaping,
screening and other mechanisms to minimize the impact to nearby residen~ial and.
institutional uses.
Other than avoiding any improved use at all of the property abutting the residential
neighbors, the application does not address how entrances, (which the architect
discribed as akward) landscaping, (which there may not be any room for) screening or
other mechanisms are being proposed to address this criteria.
(b) Site Plan Review conditions of approval, where applicable;
Finding: Conditions of approval may be applied to the Site Plan Review for the proposed
Justice Center to address specific site development issues if the Discretionary Use and
Zone Change requests are approved. .
What does where applicable mean? If it means during site plan review then that is
where this criteria would be located not under discretionary use approval criteria. There
should be evidence and findings that is seems likely or at least possible that this
proposal can comply with the code requirements.
(c) Other conditions of approval that may be required by the Approval Authority;
Finding: The use of public right-of-way is necessary to implement the site design, as
proposed, and additional conditions may be part of the decision if deemed appropriate by
the Approval Authority.
(d) A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or
conditions of approval.
Finding: The Justice Center proposal will meet or exceed all relevant Code standards
required for approval of the Discretionary Use.and Zone Change.
How can the adverse affects be mitigated through future conditions or code standards?
The staff finding fails to address how the proposed street vaction can meet the
standards for a street vacation or any of the PLO/NDO zone standards.
Conclusion: The staff has reviewed the application and supporting evidence submitted
for the Justice Center Discretionary Use approval. The staff recommends support for the
request as the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval as listed
above. In the event that new or contradictory representation that could lead to a different
conclusion is introduced at the public hearing for the Discretionary Use request, staffwill
undertake additional analysis and prepare findings to address this testimony. '
As proposed, the Discretionary Use application will require the vacation ofB Street so
that the right-of-way can be developed with a secure parking lot. A secure parking area is
integral to the normal functions of the jail and police station, and also serves an important
13 Of 16
5-13
role as emergency evacuation space for jail detainees in accordance with standards of the
National Pire Protection Association (NPPA) 101 Life Safety Code.
The segment of 4 th Street between A Street and B Street also will require vacation as it is
part of the dedicated parking area for the complex. To allow this to occur, staff
recommends that the following conditions of approval are endorsed by the Commission:
Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval:
I. Prior to Final Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the B
Street right-of-way between 4 th Street and Pioneer Parkway East shall be vacated.
2. Prior to Pinal Site Plan Review approval for development of the Justice Center, the 4 th
Street right-of-way between A Street and B Street shall be vacated. The Planning
Commission may choose to apply additional conditions of approval as necessary to
comply with the Discretionary Use and/or Zone Change criteria.
Additional Approvals
The subject applications are the first steps in a series of development applications for
Planning Commission and Council consideration in order to allow development 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
collector street network. Application also would be required to have the affected portions
of B Street, 4 th 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 4 th Street, as the perimeter travel
distance would exceed the parameters established by the SDC.
The following is taken from the city's Site Plan Review Package Submittal Requirements
and the Springfield Development Code.
4. Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued within the past 60 days documenting ownership
and listing all encumbrances. Ifthe applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the
property owner is required.
5. Right-of-Way Approach Permit application must be provided where the property has frontage on an
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility.
6. Traffic Impact Study must provide four (4) copies of the study prepared by a Traffic Engineer where the
proposed development will produce more than 250 vehicle trips per day in accordance with the current
version of the Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Information Report.
Before the Planning Commission or Hearings Official can approve a Discretionary Use request,'
there must be information submitted by the applicant which adequately supports the request. In
reviewing a request, the City must consider both the positive and negative elements of a
Discretionary Use request. All of the Discretionary Use Criteria must be addressed by the
applicant. If insufficient or unclear data is submitted by the applicant, there is a good chance the
14 Of 16
5-14
request will be denied or delayed. It is recommended you hire a professional planner or land use
attomey to prepare your findings:
Discretionary Use Criteria Checklist (SDC 10.030)
1. Except for private/public elementary and middle schools and certain wireless
telecommunications systems facilities, a Discretionary Use may only be allowed if the Planning
Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the following criteria:
a. The proposed use shall conform with existing uses in terms of scale, lot coverage, design,
intensity of use and operating characteristics.
b. The proposed use shall not generate more traffic on local streets or more demand for public
facilities than would permitted uses in the same zoning district.
c. The proposed use conforms with applicable Metro Plan policies and applicable descriptions
of Land Use Designations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram. Expansion of an existing
Discretionary Use shall be exempt from conformance with Metro Plan land use designations.
3.050 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL.
(3) An application shall consist of items required by this Code and the following:
(a) An explanation stating the nature of the proposal and information that may have a
bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating
compliance with applicable approval criteria.
(b) Evidence that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership or
control of the applicant, or that the applicant has the consent of all owners of the affected
property to act on their behalf.
The city proposal depends upon the use of considerable property for which they do not
yet have control. The proposed use depends upon the use of parking facilities north of
Fourth Street which are not city owned. The city also need to complete street vacations
prior to having a building right to the street. This proposal can not comply with the
street vacation criteria which include no loss of any benefical use. Until the city can
demonstrate their ability to effect the street vacation they do not have control of the
street for their facility.
(c) The legal description and assessor map and tax lot number of the property affected by
the application.
(d) Additional information including maps, site plans, sketches and calculations as .
required
by applicable Sections ofthis'Codeor in information' packets provided by the
Development Services Department.
(e) The required number of copies of the application.
(t) Payment of the applicable application fee at. the time of application submittal. No
application will be accepted without payment of the appropriate fee in full, unless the
applicant qualifies for a fee waiver.
10.020 REVIEW.
(3)A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the
15 Of 16
5-15
Director prior to the review of the request as specified in Section 3.050, Application
Submittal.
ARTICLE 9, VACATIONS
9.060 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
(2) Where the proposed 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 provisiops of Springfield Municipal Code
1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block
lengths; and
(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation; emergency service
protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned
land or Partition or Subdivision Plat.
ARTICLE 11, VARIANCES
11.013 APPLICABILITY.
The Variance provisions apply:
(I)To buildings, structures and lots/parcels;
The variance provisions of the city code do not apply to the vacation of streets. The
vacation criteria refer specifically to the street conectivity and block length standards.
Respectfully submitted to the city,
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
1127 B Street
16 Of 16
5-16
Submittal to the Record
City of Springfield
Street Vacation Request .
Case No. LRP 2007-00019
Testimony in opposition
June 12, 2007
\f7.~:-'('" --.'" \.7 .~'C-;~.'_: \ .
\ illlo..i 1 2 2007 JI
I .,' , ri
I
j'Bv, 8e-K.
~-_._,..:~~
Submitted by: Scott E. Olson, P .E.
1127 B Street .
Springfield Oregon
I have been involved with the planning and development of the urban fonn for more than 30 years. I
feel privileged to live and work within six blocks of Springfield's City Hall. I am attracted here in part
by the potential we have to make Springfield even better thsin it already is. The fact that our street
grid is still largely intact is essential to my feelings about this area and its future.
We are considering development of a Justice Center in a highly sensitive location at the interface
between our prized historical neighborhood, the town's commercial center and the Willamette River.
We can not create new historical town centers. The ones we have are special places and deserve
careful consideration of any plans to significantly change their character. The street grid and open
public ways are the underlying fabric from which we create the sense of place and vitality we seek:
Achieving the kind of place we desire requires that we carefully consider both what activities we place
there and how those activities are located and interrelated with each other. Success demands both
the right mix of functions and the right facilities. In fact it is our insistence upon developing a
compatible mix of activities and their interrelationships that must guide the decision making process.
We must not compromise the larger area for the functionality of any single element. If a
function can not be made to fit within the larger context of the area, then it belongs in a
different place. Our land use planning process requires that we work our way down
from macro broad state wide goals, down to comprehensive plan policies, to development codes,
refinement plans, and finally site specific developments. This is the context in
which we must proceed with all new development proposals. I believe this is particularly
true when we are working on the development of a public facility.
It seems to me that the Justice Center planning has somehow become reversed and is asking us how
we need to modify our planning framework to accommodate the project instead of how can the project
be developed to fit the area's plans. .
I am disappointed that the city has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives during the project
development process which considered tradeoffs in the functional and space program with the
associated site constraints. Placement of a lower cost ancillary building within a street right of way is
an ~xample. I do not see how this project can be made feasible at the selected site unless the
elements that have been lumped into the building program can be open to discussion and
reconsideration.
ATTACHMENT
6-1
\Nhen considering the siting of a justice center in downtown Springfield' we should ask two questions;
1) How does including this activity contribute to the desired vitality of the area? And 2) How does the
facility contribute to our overall sense of place? If this project requires a three blOck area without
intervening streets then we are looking in the wrong place. I am totally convinced that we are far better
off doing nothing in this situation then we are to proceed with the wrong project. .
If the functional demands of a justice center can not fit harmoniously within the requirements for' a
healthy town center and preserve the integrity of our public ways and spaces, then it simply needs to
be located elsewhere. If concessions need to be made they should to be in the functional
requirements of the new facility, not the function of the neighborhood and greater community.
This area is evolving and the right things will happen if we are patient and respOnsive when
opportunity presents its self. We may have -an opportunity before us now. We must not be short sited
and sacrifice the integrity of the greater community to accommodate the inflexible requirements of city
staff. The public has very narrowly supported the project in bOth bond and jail operations elections.
The projects approval can hardly be considered a mandate to ignore our I;:md use policy and give the
police anything they ask for including a collector street so they can park next to the door and store paper
records and stolen bicycles in what is now the city street
I along with many others worry that our local efforts to solve what has become a crisis in the Lane
County criminal justice system may be confounding the problems and aggravating a more holistic
regional solution. I wonder how many others of the 53% of voters that supported the bond measure
were unaware as I was that the new jail would not do anything with the felony offenders accounting for
85% of Springfield's 2004 charges. The felony criminals will continue through the Lane County
revolving door while Springfield locks up the misdemeanor offenders. How many of my neighbors
understood that the closed 3m floor of the Lane County Jail is empty and available for 100 additional jail
beds if we can only find a way to staff it.
I believe it is past time for the city to provide its police and court with decent facilities. I also believe
that those activities could contribute to the vitality of the downtown if sited with sensitivity to the
'requirements of the larger community and neighborhood.
If the Justice Center is to be built in the downtown area, we need to find a way to have it fit in and to
contribute to the greater function of the area while respecting the historical framework of its public
ways. If that can not be achieved, then we must locate a site better suited to the security and space
requirements which were imposed upon all of the alternatives considered in the project development
process.
The city inappropriately presumed in the development of the preliminary planning and cost
estimating that the street right of ways were available for incorporating into the new Justice
Center Facility. The fact that the possibility of street closures was mentioned in the ballot
measure does not have any meaning in the context of the land use approval for this project, or
exempt the city from adhering to their own land use policies and code requirements. The '
police chief has testified that plan to build across B Street was based upon the lower cost to
build into the street.
Twelve years ago the city improved B Street at a cost of $875,000. The improvements to the
collector street were paid for with federal funds. If B Street is severed from the arterial at
B Street Vacation, Testimony Oppci;ing
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
2
6-2
Pioneer Parkway, immediately adjacent to the proposed street closure, B Street will no longer
function as a collector. As a local street, the improvements would not have been eligible for
the federal investment in the street improvements. The value of B Street both in terms of
improvements and function has not been considered in city decisions to pursue the street
closure. The value of the investment the public made in improving B Street in 2007
construction costs is over $1.2 million. It has been suggested that the city could be obligated
to repay the federal government if the street is indeed closed.
The city contracted for a traffic study of the impacts of the proposed closure of B Street. The
study is appropriately focused on the capacity of the adjacent streets to absorb the diverted
traffic. Street capacity has never been the issue related to the closure of B Street. A local
street and a collector can and often do look the same. Two travel lanes with parking on both
sides of the street. The ability of A and or C Streets to handle the increased traffic should
never have been questioned. The issue-is about the function of the streets, and maintaining
the effectiveness of the collector and arterial street system which has been designed to
accommodate through travel as opposed to access to abutting property as local streets do.
Further, the street grid is almost entirely intact in this area of Springfield. No other
neighborhood has developed the degree of street connectivity as exists in this historical core
of the Springfield community. The traditional street system has become increasingly valued
by urban planners as we struggle with how to reduce our impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions and global warming. Closure of B Street in a Nodal Oevelopment Overlay Zone
which emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle mobility is clearly moving in the wrong direction and
is inconsistent with all of the adopted land use policy in the City of Springfield.
The city approved a zone change from Mixed Use Commercial/Nodal Development to Public
Land and Open Space/Nodal Development because a Justice Center is not listed in the
MUC/NDO District. None of the staff reports reviewing the projects history have mentioned
the fact that several months prior to making the zone change application the city added
Justice Centers as an allowed use in the PLO/NDO zone. The project was not an allowed use
at the site at the time the city asked voters to fund the project.
The city has failed to appropriately provide for public involvement in a meaningful way
throughout the planning process. A citizen advisory committee, (CAC) was formed "to provide
input throughout the design process in regard to outward design of the facility and its
relationship to downtown Springfield". I volunteered for the CAC and during my interview for
the position I informed the city council of my opinion with respect to the street closure and
indicated a desire to work on appropriate alternatives.
City staff and their consultant developed a Functional and Space Program prior to formation of
the CAC. The draft document was presented to the CAe. However the committee was told it
was for their information only and they would have no input on the contents of the space
program. The Functional and Space Program was adopted by the city council without public
hearing or any changes to the consultant's recommendations. The public was not provided
any opportunity to participate in what was being included in the project.
Later in the process every alternative considered incorporated all of the elements of the space
program. Ultimately all of the alternatives exceeded the project available funds but the
closure of B Street was the lowest cost alternative considered. That alternative was
supported by a majority of the CAC and ultimately adopted by the city council.
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
3
6-3
No attempt was ever made to develop an alternative that was within the available funds and
respected the land use requirement for new development in this zone including the closure of
streets. City staff has orchestrated a planning process from the very beginnings of this project
in which no meaningful consideration has been given to alternatives to closing B Street. This
effort has resulted in a failure to comply with Goal 1 requirements for the entire Justice Center
Planning process.
Staff has consistently refused to even discuss alternatives to closing B Street and steadfastly
argues, often in absurd ways why the street should be closed. In last weeks hearing the
police chi~f stated more than once that if officers responding to an emergency must cross the
street to reach their vehicles, ultimately one is going to be so distracted with responding that
they will run in front of a car and be hit. One must question the wisdom of such statements
when we are trusting that same individual to get in a police cruiser and drive 50 miles per hour
down my residential street and appropriately handle deadly weapons. Such arguments
demonstrate the desperation with which supporting arguments for the street closure have
been constructed.
Other absurd arguments have been constructed throughout the planning process. On at least
two separate occasions suggestions to construct a pedestrian over-crossing of B Street have
been rebuffed by police statements that such a facility would be vulnerable to driving under it
with a bomb. We also need secure parking for the police to prevent keying of their personal
vehicles or slashing tires which hardly seem to justify sacrificing the functionality of a million .
dollar collector street. Arguments about police response times seem equally absurd from my
perspective.
Statements about the need to evacuate inmates to the secure parking area in B Street are
inconsistent with what the CAC was told about jail evacuations. The secure parking area is
adjacent to the Police Courts building not the jail on the opposite side of the block from B
Street. The need for this function in B Street is not part of the Functional and Space Program
and is not the primary evacuation plan.
The city has modified the code criteria for a street vacation in an attempt to avoid the
inconsistency with this project and the adopted land use policy. The criteria tailored
specifically to get this project around the land use policy impediments to desired street closure
are not grounded in any adopted land use policy and are vague and misleading in the intent.
Ensuring that the vacated property will remain in public ownership inappropriately assumes
that the public interest is better served by maximizing public property ownership of opposed to
protecting the publiCS legitimate interests the function of the right of way. Technically the
public does not own the right of way, but has an interest in the use for street purposes. The
city can not ensure continues public ownership because it does not own the property until it is
vacated. Once vacated there is no way of preventing future city councils from selling the
property to a private party.
Substituting pedestrian and bicycle connection criteria from the states OAR, the minimum
required anywhere in the entire state for the specifics of the local Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, Refinement Plans, Zoning Requirements and other local code'
requirements is an obvious attempt to avoid compiling with the local adopted policy and code
requirements. Additionally staffs findings that adding 46% to the length of the desirable 'XI
mile pedestrian trip length is not consistent with accepted pedestrian planning principles. .
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
4
6-4
Further "Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from
retaining the right-of-way in its present status" lacks any criteria or measures grounded in any
adopted public policy and are purposefully vague and amorphous. It is clearly a relatively
crude attempt to avoid complying with the land use policies of the city.
. The street vacation can not meet any of the three criteria previously established in the code.
The city's process has attempted to skirt or bypass addressing the street closure
inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation System Plan; the Zoning
District, the Nodal Development Overlay, and the Code Criteria. The criteria related to the
street closure have not been addressed during the zone change, the discretionary use
approval, the site review, and now the street vacation. Somewhere in the approval process
the city must confront these issues. There is no variance that makes these policies go away.
The city staff has the hierarchy of the project planning criteria reversed. The community has
planned for the development desired in the downtown area. Those plans are embodied in the
adopted public policy documents. The approach to this' project has been how we can change
the code to accommodate everything the police are asking for instead of how we can build
consistent with our community plan and vision.
We can have both a jail and a livable community. This project must conform to block and
connectivity standards. Particularly since this is a Nodal Development Overlay zone which
relies on enhanced connectivity and pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
B Street Vacation, Testimony Opposing
Scott E. Olson, P.E.
5
6-5
City of Springfield Justice Center Project Public Meetings
Date Public Input Opportunities Including Land Use Actions
2005-01-18 City Council- JC Facility Planning
2005-04-18 City Council- JC Construction Contract Options
2005-06-13 City Council- JC Programming Consultant Contract
2005-06-20 City Council - Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate JC Programming Consultant Contract
2005-08-01 City Council - Requests for Proposal for JC Architect
2005-09-26 City Council - JC Citizen Advisory Committee Application Interviews
2005-10-03' City Council- JC Recommended Architect
2005-10-24 Advertise Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption Request
2005-10-25 City Wide Inforum: Update on Project
2005-10-25 Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting
2005-11,..01 Planning Commission - Citizen Involvement Program
2005-11-01 Planning Commission - Public Hearing for Public Land and Open Space District Amendments
2005-11-07 City Council Regular Session: Public Hearing for CM/GC Exemption
2005-11-14 Report from Jail Operations Funding Task Force
2005-11-21 City Council Regular Session: Review & Approval of Contract with, Architect
2005-11-28 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2005-11-28 Justice Center Functional and Space Program
City Council Regular Session Council Authorizes Contract negotiations wI CM/GC Firm & Request
2005-11-28 to approve JC Functional & Space Program
2005-11-29 CAC Meeting
2005-11-30 CAC Meeting
2005-12-05 Springfield Justice Center - Recommended Construction Manager/General Contractor
2005-12-20 CAC Meeting
2006-01-04 Planning Commission Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2006-01-17 City Council Public Hearing for PLO District Amendments
2006-01-17 Justice Center Consultant Contract
2006-01-18 CAC Meeting
2006-01-23 Property Tax Levyfor Municipal Jail Operations
2006-01-26 Justice Center Site Design Options
2006-02-09 CAC Meeting
2006-02-09 Justice Center Public Forum Invitation
2006-02-13 CAC Meeting
2006-02-21 City Council Regular Session: Selects Schematic Design Program
2006-03-21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zone Change.
2006-03.:.21 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Discretionary Use
2006-03-22 CAC Meeting
2006-04-18 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Zone Change
2006-04-18 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Discretionary Use
2006-04-26 CAC Meeting
2006-05-24 CAC Meeting
2006-06-14 CAC Meeting
2006-06-14 JusticeCenter Open House Invitation
2006-06-20 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
2006-06-20 Planning Commission - Review of Justice Center Site Plans .
2006-07 -05 CAC Meeting
2006-07-05 Planning Commission' Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
2006-07-17 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
2006-07 -17 City Council Regular Session: Approve/Not Approve Schematic Design & Cost Estimate
2006-08-23 CAC Meeting
2006-09-18 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request (Public Alley)
ATTACHMENT
7-1
2006-09-20 CAC Meeting
2006-10-18 Justice Center Open House Invitation
2006-11-15 CAC Meeting
2006-11-27 City Council Work Session: Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007-01-10 CAC Meeting
2007-01-16 City Council Regular Session: Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007-01-22 City Council Regular Session: Approval of Design Development Phase & Cost Estimate
2007 -02-12 Discuss Options for Naming of the Springfield Ju'stice Center
2007-03-13 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments
2007-03-19 City Council Public Hearing for Article 9 (Vacations) Code Amendments
2007-04-16 City Council Regular Session: Accept/Not Accept Memeorandum of Understanding
2007 -06-05 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
2007 -06-19 Planning C,ommission Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
2007-07-02 City Council Public Hearing for Vacation Request - Public Right-of-Way
7-2
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CASE NO. LRP2007-00019
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
Vacation of a one-block segment of B Street located between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East.
1. On May 7, 2007, the Springfield City Council initiated the vacation action in accordance with Springfield
Development Code 9.060(3)(a), Planning Case No. LRP2007-000l9 - City of Springfield Police Department,
applicant.
2. The application was initiated in accordance with Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Tim~ly
and sufficient notice of public hearing, pursuant to Sections 14.030 and 9.050 of the Springfield Development
Code, has been provided. .
3. On June 5, 2007, a public hearing on the vacation request was held and the written record for submittal of
public testimony was held open to June 12, 2007. The Development Services Department staff notes and
recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been
considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Based on this record, the requested vacation application is consistent with the criteria of SDC 9.030. This general
finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in Attachment A, Vacation Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve the vacation request at a public hearing.
ATTEST
AYES: tf-
NOES: j"
ABSENT: I
ABSTAIN: 0
A TT ACHMENT
.8-1
VACATION
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE, 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF B STREET IN
BLOCK 1 OF THE MAP OF SPRINGFIELD, BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE
COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872
WHEREAS, the Springfield City 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 ACA tIONS ofthe 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 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
WHEREAS, lawful notice of the proposed vacation was published and posted; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission 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
(LRP2007-00019); and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street, on
Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Reading) and on , the _ day of ,
2007, (Second Reading) at the hour of7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the proposed vacation
and _ persons appeared to object;
(Bar Code Sticker)
Return to: City of Springfield - City Recorder, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Ordinance
-ATTACHMENT
9-1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE 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 _ objections were made at the vacation hearing held; that the public interest will not
be impaired by the vacation of the alley right-of-way, and that vacation of said alley 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: The findings adopted by the City Council in support of the alley 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 oftemporary
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 of this ordinance with the
Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane ComIty Surveyor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _ day of
2007, by a vote of _ for and _ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor ofthe City of Springfield this
day of
,2007.
Mayor
, ,,:!.: '''1 I'j '1111"q-. 'i'1
~,{ :.::. ~_I. ~t IJ V ti.Y
I',:\.;U ru;:;:';: ' .
__.~~~~~.d__\.~~
D AT F:: ._"'-2.._~_.L~::J._._
Or-Fief UF hiI' 1\i TOiii\JEY
Ordinance
- 2 -
9-2
ATTEST:
City Recorder
State of Oregon )
) ss.
County of Lane )
Ordinance
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
as
by
(Name)
of the City of Springfield.
(Position)
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON
My commission expires:
- 3 -
9-3
EXHIBIT A
t- 13800 ,S
tn
<C-
w 4
~
~ . t 17-03-35-24 ....
~ W
0:: 14100 1-4200 w
<C ~
a.. <I ~
1/1 ....
0:: 13900 14000 ~ 4300 en
w .
0
w ~ J:
Z 5 6 I-
0 0 ~
<#
-
a.. '-6 .n 7 &f: '8 "0'
33' I 33'
\
66' 4
, 1800
o
-D
66'
66'
66'
, 1700
o
~
1500 .
Cl
~
1600
1900
3
2
1
<:,
..r>
4
~ 17-03-35- 1
:!
2' 34'
, 2000
o
(\)
2100
o 0
o 0
C"I t"1
NA@
o
~
2400
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
13
14
5
1
,n
......
in t
.... .
4
::;
~
<::)
~
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, filed and recorded i,n Book I
Page 1, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon, said point beirig the Northeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B
Street in Springfield, Oregon; thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet, more or less,
to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, which is the Northwest corner of B street and
Fourth Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Southerly projection of the Fourth street right
of way, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1 , Block 1 of the Map of Springfield,
said point being the Northeast corner of B Street and Fourth Street; thence along the Southerly right of way of B
Street, 264 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of Lot.4, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being
the So~theast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the .
Northerly projection of the easterly right 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. .
Ordinance
- 4-
9-4