Let me now turn to the interests of the wider Eugene community. As noted by Professor Ed Whitelaw <br />(Economics), in his February memo provided to the UO Senate before its March 14 vote, and in his <br />September 2 Register Guard Guest View, the riverfront area is what we economists call a local public <br />good. The Willamette River and adjacent north-of-track UO riverfront area provide benefits to UO faculty, <br />students and staff and to all Eugene residents. The artificial-turf playing fields and buildings that would be <br />permitted in the CUP imply a loss of habitat and amenity values for the many people who walk, run or <br />bike near those proposed developments. There is no evidence that the University has attempted to <br />quantify these lost benefits. The proposed riparian restoration along <br />would provide important positive benefits. However, the proposed construction of artificial-turf playing <br />fields implies a large loss of habitat and natural area across a wide central chunk of the riverfront land. <br />This area is a significant ecological resource that could be restored, for example, to create an expanded <br />area of oak savannah and native plants. That possibility would be permanently foreclosed by the <br />effectively irreversible step of construction of artificial-turf playing fields. <br />In summary, the experience for Eugene walkers, runners and cyclists who use the riverfront areawould be <br />severely degraded by the proposed artificial turf playing fields as well as by the proposed <br />along the southern edge of the riverfront area. The Ruth Bascom Riverbank trail was a major triumph for <br />Eugene, and this stretch of the path and adjacent land, because of its openness and light from the south, <br />is widely prized. Because of its proximity to campus and to the Frohnmayer (Autzen) footbridge, it is <br />extensively used by students, faculty and staff as well as the public more generally. This will be <br />increasingly true as the university and the city expand. <br />Indeed, the benefits of the UO riverfront land as a natural area will become even more significant as the <br />Knight Campus comes on stream and assuming the City plans for redevelopment of the EWEB land go <br />through as expected. The Knight Campus will mean large numbers of UO faculty and staff working north <br />of Franklin Blvd, adjacent to the riverfront area. The EWEB redevelopment, which will likely include <br />residential development, restaurants and shops, and which is intended to provide a connection of the city <br />center to the river, will lead to an increase in the number of people traveling along the Ruth Bascom path <br />east toward and into the riverfront area. There is no evidence that the campus planning or the CUP has <br />taken adequate account of the impact of these developments for the increased value of maintaining the <br />integrity of the UO riverfront land as a natural area for city residents. <br />To conclude, a great university should understand that undeveloped riverfront land, connected as it is to <br />campus, is a tremendous asset, both for the university and for city residents. The UO riverfrontis special, <br />it is valuable, and it is irreplaceable. Office buildings and floodlit artificial-turf fields should be located <br />elsewhere. A number of great university campuses have large tracts of undeveloped land of scenic beauty <br />that combine academic programs with habitat conservation and ecosystem restoration, while at the same <br />time providing an area that university and community members can enjoy visiting or traveling through. <br />The UO should reserve this land for these uses. Prohibition of artificial turf fields and flood lights north of <br />the tracks should imposed as a condition for granting the CUP. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />