revised CUP that was submitted in early 2018 included increased setbacks from the river, and other <br />modifications, its central development features remained. <br />My concerns about process are particularly telling, given that over the years the University Senate has <br />passed a number of resolutions opposing development of the land north of the railroad tracks and south <br />of the river, most recently in 2010. And not just the UO Senate; during 2009 and 2010 many groups, <br />including the ASUO Student Senate, the UO Architecture and Landscape Architecture departments, the <br />Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation, and the Graduate students in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, <br />opposed this development. In 2011 the proposal to put new Oregon Research Institute buildings in this <br />area was eventually rejected by UO President Lariviere, and the new ORI buildings were instead built in a <br />less sensitive area. <br />Given this background, it is difficult to understand why campus planning did not include an effective way, <br />during the relatively high-use periods of spring, summer and early fall in 2017, of obtaining opinions <br />concerning these proposed uses from ordinary UO students, faculty and staff, as well as Eugene residents, <br />who may not be part of organized groups but who use the segment of the Ruth Bascom path, and <br />adjacent land, in the UO riverfront area for bicycling, walking, swimming or taking in the views from the <br />Frohnmayer footbridge. <br />Related to these concerns about process, I also note that the September 12 date for the City Public <br />Meeting is several weeks before the beginning of the UO Fall quarter. This is a week in which few students <br />are on campus and many faculty, like myself, are absent on research trips. The University was unwilling to <br />delay the City hearing until after the start of the Fall quarter, presumably because of the tight timeline in <br />connection with need for approval of a south-of- tracks parking garage in the CUP. For obtaining input <br />from the general UO community, however, this timing is extremely unfortunate. <br />A last concern regarding process is that 30 years is much too long for the CUP, particularly in regard to the <br />UO riverfront area. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how the University and the City will evolve <br />over time, and the uncertainty is greater the longer the time horizon. This uncertainty itself indicates that <br />30 years is too long. Furthermore, as I argue below, the benefits to ƓƚƷ developing this area with artificial- <br />turf recreation fields or office buildings will quite likely be seen to grow over time. This argues for a much <br />shorter expiration date. <br />I turn now to the content of the CUP. My remarks are directed at that part of the North Campus CUP <br />concerning the UO riverfront area, i.e. the area north of the railroad tracks and south of the Willamette <br />River. Consider first the interests of the University of Oregon community. This is a wonderful natural <br />space with the river to the north and open undeveloped fields to the south. The riverfront area is a great <br />draw attracting good students and faculty to the university. It is also an important part of the academic <br />process that students and faculty have an environment to aid contemplation and thought, and the <br />communication of ideas. When visiting faculty give seminars, or when we are recruiting new faculty, I <br />usually try to take them to see the riverfront area. Visitors are always stunned that we have this on our <br />doorstep. <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />