Plan, the identification of the parking structure in the Master Plan is subject to evaluation only <br />for compliance under EC 9.3725 and EC 9.8815. At such time as the UO proposes to develop <br />10 <br />that parking structure, it must comply with the applicable provisions in EC 9.3715(1). <br />Opponents to the Requested Master Plan also argued that the application does not satisfy EC <br />9.3730. That provision requires the property owner to submit an annual report to the planning <br />and development director identifying uses on the site, “to ensure that the primary purpose of the <br />11 <br />S-RP zone is preserved.” Opponents, however, do not establish how this provision could be <br />construed to be an applicable approval criterion for the requested Master Plan. By its terms, this <br />provision is an annual reporting document. While continued compliance with an approved <br />Master Plan would certainly inform the future annual reporting requirement to ensure continued <br />adherence to the purpose of the S-RP zone, there is nothing in the language or purpose of this <br />provision that would suggest that it constitutes a criterion or criteria applicable to approval of the <br />requested Master Plan. <br />Several opponents also argue that the application does not include sufficient information to <br />evaluate the proposed development. They urge that detailed information regarding how UO <br />proposes to develop the site is necessary to fully evaluate the proposed development. This <br />argument underlies the apparent confusion and misunderstanding as to the purpose of the <br />requested Master Plan. As discussed above, the Master Plan is a long-range planning document. <br />While all of the uses identified in the Master Plan are permitted uses in the S-RP zone, the <br />Master Plan itself does not propose any specific development. At such time as specific <br />development is proposed, that development must be evaluated for compliance with applicable <br />10 <br />In its defense of how the future parking structure does, or could, comply with EC 9.3715(1), the applicant <br />requests that the hearings official “determine that the City’s and University’s campus-wide parking approach applies <br />to the University’s Plan for the S-RP zone, in lieu of the 400-foot default in EC 9.3715.” That request is beyond the <br />scope of this review of the requested Master Plan. Specifically, that determination is not necessary to determining <br />whether the requested Master Plan satisfies each of the applicable approval criteria in EC 9.3725. <br />11 <br />EC 9.3730 S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone Required Reporting <br /> states: <br />In order to ensure that the primary purpose of the S-RP zone is preserved, the owner or the developer of the property <br />within the zone shall submit an annual report to the planning and development director that provides data <br />demonstrating that: <br />(1) <br />Primary use(s) within a development site complement the research or educational activities of <br />the Oregon State System of Higher Education. <br />(2) <br /> Accessory and supporting uses do not occupy more than 25 percent of the gross floor area within <br />a development area at any time. <br />(3) <br /> Product manufacturing carried out in conjunction with a primary use does not exceed the 40 <br />percent limitation of EC 9.3710(2)(b). <br />(4) <br /> Interim uses do not occupy more than the specified percentage of the gross floor area within a <br />development site at any one time. <br />In the event there is more than one owner or developer involved in development within the S-RP zone, the <br />provisions concerning manufacturing, accessory and support uses, and interim uses apply to each development site. <br />Each owner or developer shall submit the required annual report verifying compliance with the provisions of the S- <br />RP zone. Failure to submit the annual report required under this section or failure to adhere to the specifications of <br />the requirements of this section shall constitute a violation subject to the enforcement provisions of section 90.0000 <br />through 9.0280 General Administration. Such failure shall also constitute grounds for withholding further <br />development permits and/or certificates of occupancy within a development site until the violation has been <br />remedied. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 18-1; WG 18-2) 20 <br /> <br />