Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official <br />October 17, 2018 <br />Page 5 <br />spaces, circulation systems for automobiles, pedestrians and <br />bicycles, and proposed, utility systems.” <br />1988 Master Site Plan at 12 (emphasis added). <br /> This context and history demonstrate that the present Plan is sufficiently detailed to <br />demonstrate compliance with the master site plan requirement in EC 9.3725. <br /> Regarding the propriety of multiple master site plans for the S-RP zone, EC 9.3725 refers <br />to “the master site plan” in the singular, and the approved 1988 plan was a single plan for all <br />University lands in the S-RP zone. Moreover, the City Attorney has opined that multiple master <br />site plans may not be consistent with the City’s S-RP zone rules. See May 11, 2018 letter from <br />University President Schill at 4-5. The University therefore has appropriately declined to break <br />up its current proposed Plan into multiple plans. <br />B. Status of the RRP Commission <br /> Opponents’ argument: <br />Opponents argue that the City may not approve the Plan <br />because the Plan has not been vetted by the RRP Commission. See, e.g., Oct. 3 Cziko letter at <br />“Issue 1.” <br />University’s response: <br /> The purpose of the RRP Commission was to evaluate and make <br />recommendations to the City and the University regarding proposed development in the <br />“Research Park.” IGA Exhibit B Section 1, as codified in EC 2.220. However, nothing in the <br />Eugene Code requires the City or the University to seek a recommendation from the RRP <br />Commission before the City may approve a master site plan for the S-RP zone. The status of the <br />RRP Commission is therefore irrelevant to the City’s consideration of the Plan. <br /> Moreover, the RRP Commission is a product of the IGA, and both the City and the <br />University agree that the IGA has been terminated. The City and the University therefore are <br />under no obligation to staff the RRP Commission. <br /> Finally, the master site plan for the Research Park expired in 2012, and the University <br />now proposes a new Plan for its property within the S-RP zone. The RRP Commission <br />envisioned for the Research Park therefore is not relevant to the University’s current Plan. <br />Instead, the Plan was vetted by the University Campus Planning Committee and through <br />extensive public outreach as described in Section 4 of the University’s CUP application for the <br />Plan. Opponents of the Plan, including Allen Hancock and Paul Cziko, participated in focus <br />groups, Campus Planning Committee meetings, open houses, and other discussions that resulted <br />in the Plan. See University Plan application at Exhibit H (submitted as updated information on <br />September 12, 2018) and Exhibit I. <br /> <br />