Public Testimony (9-8-18 to 9-12-18 as of 10:00 AM)

The University should capitalize on the unique natural resource of having a major river running through the campus. In their statements to the UO Senate, Professors Bart Johnson (Landscape Architecture) and Bitty Roy (Biology) have outlined a vision of the use of the area that does exactly that. The UO is already known for its commitment to environmental sustainability, a theme that runs through various departments and academic units. Numerous departments, including Biology, Geology and Botany, already use the riverfront area as an outdoor classroom involving thousands of students per year. The UO riverfront area could provide the platform for a riverfront campus emphasizing environmental education, including a center for environmental and sustainability studies and ecosystem restoration. The North Campus CUP does include increased setbacks from the river and building height limits that are more stringent than required by the City; and, in their Riverfront Conceptual Design Example, campus planning has impressive plans for well as at the Millrace outfall. Campus Planning should be commended for these endeavors as well as improved paths and river access. However, these plans are undercut by the inclusion, in the Conceptual Design Example, of three large recreation fields. In theNovember and January open houses and in discussions with campus planning, it is clear that they have in mind several large artificial turf playing fields, with floodlights, in the north of the tracks, riverfront area. This is the type of development that the UO Senate and the UO community have long opposed. Currently there is a large grass field (considered two playing fields) near the river and west of the Frohnmayer/Autzen footbridge. In the plan these would be relocated further away from the river, but the area devoted to them would be increased to accommodate three recreation fields, and these would become artificial turf. In addition, there is the intention, in line with standard practice, that the artificial turf fields would include flood lights and that they would be fenced. This would be a huge change in the use of the riverfront area, and it was a major reason for the UO Senate opposing the North Campus CUP going forward with the riverfront area included. In the Conceptual Design Example the recreation fields are colored green. However, just because they are colored green does not make them Construction of an artificial-turf recreation field is a major construction project. (For greater detail see the American Sports Builders Association buyers guide webpage, the source for my summary of current 1 standard procedures). The first step is to strip the site, cut and fill to level, grade and compact the soil. Next, drainage pipes will be installed and connected to a collection system surrounding the field. Generally, a geotextile separation fabric then is installed to separate the subsoil from the base.The base then will be constructed. The base provides a stable platform for the synthetic turf and aids in drainage. loose laid aggregates aggregate is topped by asphalt pavement. Some systems next include a shockpad. Finally, a carpet, with a backing, is laid. The grass-like artificial fibers attached to the carpet backing are most typically made of polyethylene or polypropylene. Coatings, e.g. to the backing, including polyurethane and latex coating, 1 For an assessment of the relative advantages of natural turf-grass vs. synthetic turf playing fields, see the Cornell University ƭğŅĻƭƦƚƩƷƭŅźĻƌķƭ website. The case against artificial turf fields is made in the non-profit Environment & Human Health, Inc., 2017 report {ǤƓƷŷĻƷźĭ ǒƩŅʹ LƓķǒƭƷƩǤγƭ /ƌğźƒƭ ĻƩƭǒƭ ƷŷĻ {ĭźĻƓĭĻ. It may be worth noting that major league baseball introduced artificial-turf fields in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but then began to abandon them in the 1990s. Currently only two MLB teams use artificial-turf fields. 3