|Way more parking lot than building|
|Appeal at the Blind School|
LUBA found that the City's math on aggregating lots for parking minima or maxima is wrong.
Nothing in the SRC chapter 133 parking provisions suggests that multiple developed lots in common ownership can be aggregated into a single "lot" or "site" for purposes of locating parking or calculating...parking...
|The City doesn't get to "aggregate" lots into a giant parking lot|
Consequently, the Hearing Officer will need to reevaluate the site plan for 264 stalls, and it seems likely the Hospital will need to develop a new plan with only 189 stalls.
|189 stalls only looks likely|
|Tree removal based on faulty math|
It seems clear that without writing additional ordinances adopted into Salem Revised Code, policy language and goals in the Transportation System Plan are advisory and aspirational only. We will need to think about getting more plan language into city ordinance.
|SRC not TSP is binding|
|More attention to establishing|
"under improved" roads may be necessary
Once LUBA posts the decision this week, we'll update the post with a link to it. As others weigh in on the decision there may be more to say, too. (Decision link added above.)
In the meantime, this is great way to start the year. Thanks to Curt, Jon, Timothy, and Tyler as well as the entire Board of SCAN!
Is this an "oopsie"? This is a little bit of Whiskey Tango Froxtrot!
Trees being removed at Salem Hospital's Church St. (Formerly Blind School) property today. #sjnow #salemor pic.twitter.com/K6IDAZ89BuFrom the resulting piece in the paper:
— Saerom Yoo (@syoo) January 5, 2015
Although the hospital's tree removals — 17 on Dec. 22 and 15 on Monday — were legal, they came at a sensitive time when some neighborhood residents are trying to save the older white oaks on the property from being felled....Apparently the large firs, perhaps 250-300 years old, were not "significant."
Salem Health spokeswoman Sherryll Hoar said Monday the trees that have been cut down were not the ones included in the LUBA petition. Legally, the hospital can remove 15 percent of trees on its property per calendar year, as long as they're not what the city calls "significant" or "heritage" trees.
Update, Wednesday evening
People gather along Mission Street in Salem to protest the hospital cutting down trees. #SJNow pic.twitter.com/YZ1YvJQnasSee also SCV and here, SCAN, On the Way, and Hinessight for more on the tree-cutting and protest.
— Ashley Smith (@asmithpic) January 8, 2015
I am pleased on a couple of levles. Of course it is good to prevail in your opinion, but it is also wonderful that the neighbors did not roll over and give up. Even though Salem Health is a major entity in Salem, they should not get a free pass. Too often people think that they can't fight large corporations. This action should give people hope that the little guy can win.
Special thanks needs to go to those individuals like Curt Fisher and Jon Christiansen and Victor Dodier and many others I do not know by name, who worked on this issue.
I hope that a better plan can be reached and that SH will work with the neighbors. But even if they don't it should be considered a victory and inspiration for more appeals when something is just not right!
I'm in favor of the reduced parking but I think it should also be contained in one parking garbage. That would reduce the footprint even more.
This have been discussed earlier but how much bike parking will be available? It should be a lot more than the base recommendation. And the hospital should be charging staff to park at a rate that 1. subsidizes bus passes and discourages solo driving
Updated with several new bits.
As Mike says, paid parking solves the problems of misallocation and excess, and brings supply and demand into better alignment.
Hopefully the problem with parking won't get lost in the justifiable anger over the trees.
And! From the story about Rushing's notice to appeal the demolition decision:
"the city attorney has not attempted to persuade Rushing to drop the case or threatened to recover legal costs from her [as did the Hospital]. City Attorney Dan Atchison simply said that the city will respond to the appeal.
"I'd prefer that our decisions don't get appealed and that when the Land Use Board of Appeals agrees with our decision that the parties accept that move on, but that's not the case here and I understand that," he said."
So, presumably they will not appeal the tree and parking lot decision? I bet they come up with a new ordinance to permit the aggregation of lots.
What a shame. Trees should only be cut down when necessary.
Post a Comment