State appeals board backs Springfield street closure.

Byline: Jack Moran The Register-Guard

SPRINGFIELD - The City Council did nothing wrong in approving the permanent closure of a downtown street to make room for a police parking lot, a state appeals panel has ruled.

The Land Use Board of Appeals concluded this week that Springfield councilors followed appropriate rules when they voted to close a blocklong stretch of B Street between Pioneer Parkway and Fourth Street as part of the city's justice center project.

Closing the street will allow the city to build a secure parking lot for police vehicles on land that now includes the downtown thoroughfare. The street is next to the under-construction, $30million justice center that will include a new police department and 100-bed jail. A building designed to store police evidence, records and equipment will be inside the fenced parking area.

The appeals board reviewed the case at the request of Springfield resident Scott Olson, who filed a formal challenge to the City Council's street closure vote.

Olson argued that the city manipulated the public process and ignored established local land use plans that emphasize street connectivity and easy travel for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

But the three-member appeals board said the council's decision was appropriately based on a Springfield Development Code provision that allows closing a street for a public project if officials conclude that the benefits of doing so outweigh the advantages of keeping it open.

"The city argues it correctly applied" the code, the board's written ruling states. "We agree with the city."

The City Council added the street closure rule to the development code five months before voting in favor of blocking off B Street.

Although he disagreed with it, Olson did not appeal the council's decision to amend the code. That meant the appeals board could not consider whether the earlier action was proper.

The code change "is not before us in this appeal, and any errors the city may have committed in adopting those amendments are beyond our scope of review," the board concluded.

The state panel did recognize that the code change adopting "far less stringent standards" for closing a street "suggests that the city recognized that approval of the (street) vacation might be difficult if the city was required to apply its comprehensive plan and land use regulation transportation policies and standards directly as approval criteria."

Olson, a civil engineer who did not hire an attorney to represent him in the appeal, said he did not have the time or money to seek further review of several city decisions that led to the council's street closure vote last September.

"I went to the extent that could be considered reasonable to request that the city abide by its own rules," Olson said. "I put enough dots out there that (appeals board members) could have connected them if they wanted to. They chose not to."

Still, Olson said he was "disappointed, obviously, but not surprised" by the ruling.

Springfield City Attorney Joe Leahy said officials are pleased with the decision.

"Mr. Olson had a concern for the transportation pattern in downtown Springfield, and he is entitled to that concern," Leahy said.

"However, that concern was not shared or validated by the City Council, and the council made the decision that that portion of B Street should be closed for a purpose other than transportation. (The appeals board) recognized the right of the council to make that decision."

Olson said he will speak with others who might be interested in asking a state court judge to review the city process that led to the B Street closure vote.

"I'm going to see if there's interest by anyone else in picking this up," he said.