1. Compliance with the Riverfront Research Park Commission Requirements <br />During the public hearing, opponents alleged that the applicant and the city failed to comply with <br />EC 2.220 et seq, which establishes the Riverfront Research Park Commission and its functions. <br />Opponents argue that the City (and the applicant) were required to refer the application to the <br />Riverfront Research Park Commission, which they assert should have conducted the public <br />outreach efforts related to the Master Plan and should have substantively reviewed and made <br />referral comments or recommendations regarding the application. <br />As the opponents correctly describe, the Riverfront Research Park Commission was established <br />in 1985 “to make recommendations to the city and University of Oregon in connection with the <br />development of the Riverfront Research Park property.” That Commission has not functioned <br />and has no members since approximately 2000; however, provisions related to its creation and <br />5 <br />functions continue to be listed the city’s code. <br />While a Riverfront Research Park Commission may still be identified in the city code, the <br />applicable approval criteria for the requested Master Plan Conditional Use permit do not include <br />any requirement related to reliance on that Commission for either the substance or the review <br />process for the requested Master Plan. EC 9.7007 includes the requirements related to <br />neighborhood/applicant meetings; and EC 93725 specifies the review procedures and criteria for <br />master plan development within the S-RP zone. Neither of those applicable code provisions, or <br />any other provisions related to the S-RP zone, require the city to involve that Commission for <br />outreach or notice purposes, or to seek input or recommendations from that Commission <br />regarding development within the S-RP zone. The city did not err in failing to involve that <br />Commission in this review. <br />2. Notice Violation <br />During the public hearing, several opponents alleged that the city had not provided proper notice <br />of the proposed Master Plan. However, while arguing that more extensive notice should have <br />been provided to ensure greater public awareness of the requested Master Plan, they provided no <br />evidence that the required notice was not provided. A review of the notice provided by the city <br />indicates that the city provided the required notice. <br />3. Scope of the Requested Master Plan <br />Several opponents argued that because of the different physical characteristics of that portion of <br />the North Campus north of the railroad tracks compared to that portion south of those railroad <br />tracks, the applicant should have proposed two separate Master Plans and should be required to <br />obtain two separate conditional use permits for the two different areas within the S-RP zone. <br />The city’s code identifies the land subject to the S-RP zone as a single area. EC 9.3705(1) <br />specifies that “\[t\]he S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone is intended for application to <br />properties included within the boundaries of the Riverfront Park Study, an area generally located <br />5 <br />The applicant submitted records that indicate the Commission requested that it be disbanded in 1998 and a 2010 <br />memorandum from the City Attorney that indicates that the city and the university intended its dissolution. The <br />applicant’s rebuttal testimony also asserts that City and the University disbanded the Commission by declining to <br />appointment commissioners for the year 2000 term. However, while it may not have any function, that Commission <br />is still identified in EC 2.2200 et seq. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 18-1; WG 18-2) 5 <br /> <br />