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

Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 4 II. Rebuttal to Opponents Evidence and Arguments This part of the Universitys final rebuttal describes issues raised by opponents that relate to the applicable approval criteria and provides the Universitys response to those issues. For each group of relevant issues, the University identifies the applicable approval criteria, summarizes the opponents arguments, and provides the Universitys response. A. Nature of the Universitys Plan Opponents arguments: Opponents argue that the Universitys Plan is not sufficiently detailed. See, e.g., Oct. 3, 2018 Letter from Paul Cziko at Issue 2; September 29, 2018 Additional Testimony letter from UO Riverfront Restoration and Education Group et al. (RREG) at Inadequacy of the Universitys CUP application. Opponents also advocate for multiple separate CUP applications and master site plans for different areas of the S-RP zone. See, e.g., Sept. 29 RREG letter. Universitys response: EC 9.3725 requires a CUP for \[t\]he master site plan for developments proposed in the S-S-RP zone. Although neither master plan nor master site plan are defined in the Eugene Code, a master plan/master site plan is commonly understood in Oregon land use law as a conceptual document that identifies proposed uses and the general locations of those uses within the master plan area. The uses and facilities proposed in a master plan are distinct from the design details of any specific facility contemplated in the master plan. Design details are generally determined through subsequent permit processes. See, e.g., Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210, 255 (2003) (affirming the citys findings that \[b\]ecause of the large scale of the \[Powell Butte master plan\] and relatively long term for implementation, it is not possible to accurately determine full design details and impacts at this time.) The Universitys current Plan provides greater detail than the 1988 master site plan that was approved by the City and upheld by LUBA. This is made clear by comparing the narrative 3 and site plans in the 2018 Plan with the narrative and site plans in the 1988 application. The overview section of the 1988 application specifically states that the application provides only broad planning guidelines and not detailed design information for specific facilities: The purpose of the Master Plan and Design Guidelines is to provide broadplanning and development guidelines for the implementation of the Riverfront Research Park. The Master Plan, by its very nature, does not provide detailed design information for every building or improvement which ultimately will be constructed. Instead, the Plan delineates general areas in which buildings can be built, defines the overall scale of development, and outlines open 3 The 1988 application is in the record beginning at page 3851 of the Cziko File pdf.