Open Record 3 final rebuttal by applicant (10-17-18)

Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 2 A. 1985-1986 RP Study and IGA The RP Study identified all University uses as permitted uses in the S-RP zone, plus a range of private uses, including light industrial, research and development, and office, multiple-family dwellings and certain retail and non-retail uses considered to be complementary to University uses. See RP Study at 5. The IGA established a framework for City and University cooperation to develop research facilities in the S-RP zone through public- private partnerships, as contemplated by the RP Study. See IGA at 2-3; RP Study at 2. Opponents of the RP Study appealed that decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). At LUBA, those opponents argued, among other things, that the uses allowed by the RP Study violated protections for open space under Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Willamette Greenway standards under Statewide Planning Goal 15. LUBA rejected these arguments and upheld the RP Study, except for a findings issue. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 14 Or LUBA 335 (1986). The Court of Appeals then reversed LUBAs decision on the findings issue and affirmed the remainder of LUBAs decision. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176 (1986) (Urquhart I). The opponents next challenged the Citys adoption of the S-RP zoning rules that implemented the RP Study. Similar to the first Urquhart appeal, the opponents argued that the RP rules violated Goal 15 on the theory that new uses in the Greenway must be limited to open space uses. LUBA also rejected that argument and upheld the Citys S-RP zone rules. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 16 Or LUBA 102 (1987) (Urquhart II). B. 1988 S-RP zone Master Site Plan Following Urquhart II, the City and University jointly developed a 20-year master site plan for uses in the S-RP zone. Consistent with the IGA, the plan focused on development of a Riverfront Research Park. The plan called for 29.5 acres of the Universitys property in the S- RP zone to be dedicated to laboratories, offices and parking lots, including 13.7 acres for those uses located near the river and north of the railroad tracks. The City approved this plan through a CUP and Greenway permit issued to the University, and opponents appealed that decision to 2 LUBA. See Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA 135, 138-40 (1989). The Stotter appeal was similar to the Urquhart cases because the opponents argued that the 1988 CUP was inconsistent with Metro Plan policies concerning the Greenway and environmental conservation. LUBA again rejected all of the opponents arguments and upheld the master site plan CUP. 2 The above summary of uses in 1988 Riverfront Research Park master site plan is taken from LUBAs Stotter decision. The 1988 master site plan and CUP decision are included in the record in the Cziko File.