HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Testimony (9-8-18 to 9-12-18 as of 10:00 AM)
September7,2018
RobinHostick
Director,PlanningDivision
CityofEugenePlanningandDevelopment
th
99W10Ave
Eugene,OR97401
RE:CU180001/WG180002UONorthCampus
DearMr.Hostick,
ThankyoufortheopportunitytocommentontheConditionalUsePermit/WillametteGreenway
PermitapplicationfortheUniversityofOregonNorthCampus.TheOfficeoftheVicePresidentfor
ResearchandInnovation(OVPRI)providesservicesandresourcesinsupportofresearchand
discoveryattheUniversityofOregon(UO).ResearchattheUOencompassesthousandsofscholarly,
scientific,andcreativeendeavors,whichallrequireessentialfacilities.
Spaceislimitedonthecurrentcampus,andbeingabletoprovideessentialfacilitiesforgrowthand
changeiscriticaltotheǒƓźǝĻƩƭźƷǤƭresearchmissionandforattractingandretainingfacultyand
students.OVPRIsupportsthe
hƭCUPproposalbecauseit:
Willallowtheuniversitytoprovide,expand,andimproveessentialresearchfacilitiesas
needsarise.
Willprovidemorepotentialdevelopmentsitescampuswide,allowingtheuniversityto
locatenewusesappropriatelyandpreservesitesthatarebestsuitedforresearchuses.
Willallowtheuniversitytolocatemoreresearchactivityoncampus,ratherthanspreading
themoffcampus.
Willallowtheuniversitytoimproveandenhanceitsriverfront,whichwillopenup
opportunitiesforoutdooreducationandresearch.
BydedicatingmostoftheNorthCampusacreagetoconservationandotheropenspaceand
proposingdevelopmentwellbelowwhatisallowedinthecode,theproposedCUPmeetsandwell
exceedsthecodecriteria.
Forallthesereasons,myofficestronglysupportstheUniversityofhƩĻŭƚƓƭCUPproposal.
Regards,
DavidConover
VicePresidentforResearchandInnovation
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
1266 University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1266
(541) 346-2090 (541) 346-2023
TF http://uoresearch.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
Comments on University of Oregon Application for the North Campus Conditional Use Permit and
Willamette Greenway Permit
prepared for Eugene City Hearing on September 12, 2018
George W Evans
I was one of the sponsors of the University of Oregon Senate Resolution US17/18-14: Withdrawal of North
Campus Conditional Use Permit, which was approved by the Senate on March 14, 2018. This resolution
included the text: y Senate calls upon the UO administration to
withdraw the riverfront property, north of the tracks, from consideration under the present North
Campus conditional use permit application \[CUP, submitted Feb 26, 2018\] in order to allow further
deliberations among and between the Senate, the Administration and the university community regarding
Unfortunately, this did not occur: the CUP submitted in February to the City
and the subject of this Hearing continues to include the riverfront property.
I remain deeply concerned about this part of the CUP, which allows in the plans for 45-foot structures in
the riverfront area north of the railroad tracks and large, fenced, floodlit artificial-turf playing fields in
proximity to the Willamette River. There is a long history of opposition by UO faculty, students and the
community to development of the north-of tracks UO riverfront area. I believe such development would
be a major mistake by our University and that it is not in the interests of the City of Eugene.
Fortunately, in his May 11 response to the UO Senate, University of Oregon President Michael Schill made
a commitment that changes in the area north of tracks would not be made until there is an amended
university Campus Plan; that the process
into account; that the first step will be a study of options for alternative locations of additional recreation
fields; and that the Campus Planning Committee will be engaged in this process. I am impressed by this
given below, I do not think it is
appropriate for construction of artificial-turf recreation fields to be permitted in this sensitive area.
Furthermore, the application is for a permit that will be in place for 30 years. It is perhaps unlikely that
President Schill will be continuously UO President for the next 30 years.
In addition to objecting to the specific developments that would be permitted by the CUP in the UO
riverfront area, I need to first draw attention to the earlier deficiencies in the university planning process
that led to this point. I walk the paths in the UO riverfront area, between the Frohnmayer Footbridge and
the DeFazio Footbridge, usually several times per week. I have done so for many years. The consultation
was inadequate. I say this because while I am both a member of
the UO faculty and a regular walker of this path, I first became aware of the current proposals only in
November 2017 when, near Frohnmayer bridge, I saw a single posted notice concerning a meeting on
campus, which appeared about a week before the meeting (a meeting that was sparsely attended). At
that Nov. 8 meeting, campus planning indicated that the proposal was entering its last stage and that
after one further revision they intended to submit it to the City of Eugene in January 2018. The UO
Campus Planning Committee then voted Nov. 28 to move forward with the CUP application. Although the
1
revised CUP that was submitted in early 2018 included increased setbacks from the river, and other
modifications, its central development features remained.
My concerns about process are particularly telling, given that over the years the University Senate has
passed a number of resolutions opposing development of the land north of the railroad tracks and south
of the river, most recently in 2010. And not just the UO Senate; during 2009 and 2010 many groups,
including the ASUO Student Senate, the UO Architecture and Landscape Architecture departments, the
Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation, and the Graduate students in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
opposed this development. In 2011 the proposal to put new Oregon Research Institute buildings in this
area was eventually rejected by UO President Lariviere, and the new ORI buildings were instead built in a
less sensitive area.
Given this background, it is difficult to understand why campus planning did not include an effective way,
during the relatively high-use periods of spring, summer and early fall in 2017, of obtaining opinions
concerning these proposed uses from ordinary UO students, faculty and staff, as well as Eugene residents,
who may not be part of organized groups but who use the segment of the Ruth Bascom path, and
adjacent land, in the UO riverfront area for bicycling, walking, swimming or taking in the views from the
Frohnmayer footbridge.
Related to these concerns about process, I also note that the September 12 date for the City Public
Meeting is several weeks before the beginning of the UO Fall quarter. This is a week in which few students
are on campus and many faculty, like myself, are absent on research trips. The University was unwilling to
delay the City hearing until after the start of the Fall quarter, presumably because of the tight timeline in
connection with need for approval of a south-of- tracks parking garage in the CUP. For obtaining input
from the general UO community, however, this timing is extremely unfortunate.
A last concern regarding process is that 30 years is much too long for the CUP, particularly in regard to the
UO riverfront area. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how the University and the City will evolve
over time, and the uncertainty is greater the longer the time horizon. This uncertainty itself indicates that
30 years is too long. Furthermore, as I argue below, the benefits to ƓƚƷ developing this area with artificial-
turf recreation fields or office buildings will quite likely be seen to grow over time. This argues for a much
shorter expiration date.
I turn now to the content of the CUP. My remarks are directed at that part of the North Campus CUP
concerning the UO riverfront area, i.e. the area north of the railroad tracks and south of the Willamette
River. Consider first the interests of the University of Oregon community. This is a wonderful natural
space with the river to the north and open undeveloped fields to the south. The riverfront area is a great
draw attracting good students and faculty to the university. It is also an important part of the academic
process that students and faculty have an environment to aid contemplation and thought, and the
communication of ideas. When visiting faculty give seminars, or when we are recruiting new faculty, I
usually try to take them to see the riverfront area. Visitors are always stunned that we have this on our
doorstep.
2
The University should capitalize on the unique natural resource of having a major river running through
the campus. In their statements to the UO Senate, Professors Bart Johnson (Landscape Architecture) and
Bitty Roy (Biology) have outlined a vision of the use of the area that does exactly that. The UO is already
known for its commitment to environmental sustainability, a theme that runs through various
departments and academic units. Numerous departments, including Biology, Geology and Botany, already
use the riverfront area as an outdoor classroom involving thousands of students per year. The UO
riverfront area could provide the platform for a riverfront campus emphasizing environmental education,
including a center for environmental and sustainability studies and ecosystem restoration.
The North Campus CUP does include increased setbacks from the river and building height limits that are
more stringent than required by the City; and, in their Riverfront Conceptual Design Example, campus
planning has impressive plans for
well as at the Millrace outfall. Campus Planning should be commended for these endeavors as well as
improved paths and river access. However, these plans are undercut by the inclusion, in the Conceptual
Design Example, of three large recreation fields. In theNovember and January open houses and in
discussions with campus planning, it is clear that they have in mind several large artificial turf playing
fields, with floodlights, in the north of the tracks, riverfront area. This is the type of development that the
UO Senate and the UO community have long opposed.
Currently there is a large grass field (considered two playing fields) near the river and west of the
Frohnmayer/Autzen footbridge. In the plan these would be relocated further away from the river, but the
area devoted to them would be increased to accommodate three recreation fields, and these would
become artificial turf. In addition, there is the intention, in line with standard practice, that the artificial
turf fields would include flood lights and that they would be fenced. This would be a huge change in the
use of the riverfront area, and it was a major reason for the UO Senate opposing the North Campus CUP
going forward with the riverfront area included. In the Conceptual Design Example the recreation fields
are colored green. However, just because they are colored green does not make them
Construction of an artificial-turf recreation field is a major construction project. (For greater detail see the
American Sports Builders Association buyers guide webpage, the source for my summary of current
1
standard procedures). The first step is to strip the site, cut and fill to level, grade and compact the soil.
Next, drainage pipes will be installed and connected to a collection system surrounding the field.
Generally, a geotextile separation fabric then is installed to separate the subsoil from the base.The base
then will be constructed. The base provides a stable platform for the synthetic turf and aids in drainage.
loose laid aggregates
aggregate is topped by asphalt pavement. Some systems next include a shockpad. Finally, a carpet, with a
backing, is laid. The grass-like artificial fibers attached to the carpet backing are most typically made of
polyethylene or polypropylene. Coatings, e.g. to the backing, including polyurethane and latex coating,
1
For an assessment of the relative advantages of natural turf-grass vs. synthetic turf playing fields, see the Cornell
University ƭğŅĻƭƦƚƩƷƭŅźĻƌķƭ website. The case against artificial turf fields is made in the non-profit Environment &
Human Health, Inc., 2017 report {ǤƓƷŷĻƷźĭ ǒƩŅʹ LƓķǒƭƷƩǤγƭ /ƌğźƒƭ ĻƩƭǒƭ ƷŷĻ {ĭźĻƓĭĻ. It may be worth noting that
major league baseball introduced artificial-turf fields in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but then began to abandon
them in the 1990s. Currently only two MLB teams use artificial-turf fields.
3
are often applied, and the backing may then be perforated for drainage. After the carpet has been
seamed and secured with tape or adhesives, the last stage is to add infill: The carpet then is filled with
particulate material, the type and depth of which will vary from system to system In-fill materials most
often are granulated rubber or rubber and sand, either layered or mixed. The rubber may be styrene-
butadiene rubber (SBR) granules, black in color and produced from re-cycled tires, or ethylene propylene
terpolymer (EPDM) granules, specifically produced to be granulated and available in black or in colors.
As this description makes clear, construction of artificial turf fields would be a change in land use that is in
it is almost impossible to return that area
to land that sustains life -- even to return it to a grass field since the soil, plants and microbes will all be
gone. Constructing artificial-turf recreation fields thus implies constructing a dead zone within the
riverfront area.
fenced off from animals and from people other than those engaged in their designated use. The current
grass Riverside Field, while not the ideal use of this land, is at least compatible with use by people to cross
to the river, or to adjacent natural areas, or for informal gatherings.
But that is not all. Artificial turf fields raise environmental and health concerns. Health issues have focused
on the adverse, and possibly carcinogenic, effects of contact with the widely used crumb rubber infill.
Crumb rubber is usually made from granulating used tires. C
2
Environmental concerns include leaching of
chemicals from the fields into the surrounding area. More specifically, both crumb rubber and synthetic
fiber fragments, arising from wear and tear, can be washed into nearby surrounding areas. That this is a
3
significant concern was established in a recent report by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
In addition, crumb contains a range of organic contaminants and heavy
metals that can volatilize into the air and/or leach into the percolating rainwater, thereby posing a
potential risk to the While the quantitative importance of these risks is
organic contaminants and heavy metals into the air, water, and
soil in the surrounding environment occurs continuously, and their cumulative masses can be significant
4
functional lifetimes. Watterson (2017), after reviewing the available evidence, concludes
Public health professionals in the meantime may draw on established principles to support greater
5
caution in setting crumb rubber exposure limits and controls.
Because of these concerns the industry is beginning to introduce new materials. We can anticipate we will
be told that while there may or may not have been legitimate environmental or health concerns about
2
in 5źƭƷźƌƌğƷźƚƓƭ, Fall 2015, Science History Institute.
3
Report, C 183, March 2016, revised March 2017.
4
Hefa Cheng, Yuanan Hu, and Martin ReinhardEnvironmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review
9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷğƌ {ĭźĻƓĭĻ ğƓķ ĻĭŷƓƚƌƚŭǤ, 2014, Vol. 48, pp. 21142129.
5
Artificial Turf: Contested Terrains for Precautionary Public Health with Particular Reference to
Europe?LƓƷ W 9ƓǝźƩƚƓ wĻƭ tǒĬƌźĭ IĻğƌƷŷ, September 2017, Vol. 14(9): 1050.
4
crumb rubber and older materials, a new generation of artificial turf carpet and infill will be used.
However, this familiar tactic from the chemical industry has an obvious flaw. It takes years to study and
recognize the health and environmental hazards of new products and technologies. The current, and most
widely used, artificial-turf technology containing crumb rubber infill --
fields -- was introduced around 2000, in response to drawbacks of the first two generations of fields. It
has taken over fifteen years to recognize the potentially serious environmental drawbacks of 3G fields. A
new generation of artificial turf will (presumably) be using materials that are not known to be dangerous,
but which may turn out in time to be just as bad. We should not be experimenting with potentially toxic
new materials in the riverfront area.
This still is not all. In the summer, temperatures on artificial turf fields can become very high, to well over
140 degrees Fahrenheit. As well as being unpleasant for sports participants, this creates an undesirable
heat-island effect that affects the surrounding natural area and undermines its value as habitat.
And then there are the flood lights. The intention is to include flood lights around the fields for use at
dusk and in the evening to maximize use of the fields. Flood lights will create light pollution in the
surrounding area that can disrupt the circadian rhythm of birds and animals, as well as being annoying to
people, on or near the Frohnmayer footbridge, looking at the sunset or the night sky. As noted by the
International Dark- known as light pollution can have
pollution can be mitigated by having the lights point downward, but adequate mitigation is not possible.
The purpose of the lights is to illuminate brightly the recreational field; this results in an unavoidable glare
visible at considerable distance. And as can be verified by going in the evening to the university
th
recreational fields on 19 Avenue and near the Student Rec building, the lights themselves, though
downward pointing, are visible (I would say visibly annoying) from a considerable distance, because by
necessity the lights must be mounted at great height. We will be told that hours of use can be limited, but
those hours of use will unavoidably include dusk, twilight and early evening.
In summary, the introduction of artificial turf fields and/or flood lights is a completely inappropriate use of
the land in the riverfront area. The Willamette River and the riverfront area are a unique resource
available to the University. To capitalize on this unusual natural resource, the University should aim for
educational, restoration and research missions This was well captured
in the UO Senate Resolution in Section II.4:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Senate moves that any future uses for the Riverfront make use of the unique
features of the Willamette river and associated habitats, and should emphasize ecological restoration, nature experience, and
learning and public service, and stewarding its natural resources.
Artificial turf fields can be located elsewhere; it cannot be right to use the riverfront land for such a
purpose that is totally unrelated to the River. ŷĻ /źƷǤ ƭŷƚǒƌķ ğķķ ğ ĭƚƓķźƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ /
t ƷŷğƷ ƓĻźƷŷĻƩ
ğƩƷźŅźĭźğƌ ƷǒƩŅ ŅźĻƌķƭ ƓƚƩ Ņƌƚƚķ ŅƌźŭŷƷƭ ğƩĻ ƦĻƩƒźƷƷĻķ źƓ ƷŷĻ
h wźǝĻƩŅƩƚƓƷ ğƩĻğ͵
5
Let me now turn to the interests of the wider Eugene community. As noted by Professor Ed Whitelaw
(Economics), in his February memo provided to the UO Senate before its March 14 vote, and in his
September 2 Register Guard Guest View, the riverfront area is what we economists call a local public
good. The Willamette River and adjacent north-of-track UO riverfront area provide benefits to UO faculty,
students and staff and to all Eugene residents. The artificial-turf playing fields and buildings that would be
permitted in the CUP imply a loss of habitat and amenity values for the many people who walk, run or
bike near those proposed developments. There is no evidence that the University has attempted to
quantify these lost benefits. The proposed riparian restoration along
would provide important positive benefits. However, the proposed construction of artificial-turf playing
fields implies a large loss of habitat and natural area across a wide central chunk of the riverfront land.
This area is a significant ecological resource that could be restored, for example, to create an expanded
area of oak savannah and native plants. That possibility would be permanently foreclosed by the
effectively irreversible step of construction of artificial-turf playing fields.
In summary, the experience for Eugene walkers, runners and cyclists who use the riverfront areawould be
severely degraded by the proposed artificial turf playing fields as well as by the proposed
along the southern edge of the riverfront area. The Ruth Bascom Riverbank trail was a major triumph for
Eugene, and this stretch of the path and adjacent land, because of its openness and light from the south,
is widely prized. Because of its proximity to campus and to the Frohnmayer (Autzen) footbridge, it is
extensively used by students, faculty and staff as well as the public more generally. This will be
increasingly true as the university and the city expand.
Indeed, the benefits of the UO riverfront land as a natural area will become even more significant as the
Knight Campus comes on stream and assuming the City plans for redevelopment of the EWEB land go
through as expected. The Knight Campus will mean large numbers of UO faculty and staff working north
of Franklin Blvd, adjacent to the riverfront area. The EWEB redevelopment, which will likely include
residential development, restaurants and shops, and which is intended to provide a connection of the city
center to the river, will lead to an increase in the number of people traveling along the Ruth Bascom path
east toward and into the riverfront area. There is no evidence that the campus planning or the CUP has
taken adequate account of the impact of these developments for the increased value of maintaining the
integrity of the UO riverfront land as a natural area for city residents.
To conclude, a great university should understand that undeveloped riverfront land, connected as it is to
campus, is a tremendous asset, both for the university and for city residents. The UO riverfrontis special,
it is valuable, and it is irreplaceable. Office buildings and floodlit artificial-turf fields should be located
elsewhere. A number of great university campuses have large tracts of undeveloped land of scenic beauty
that combine academic programs with habitat conservation and ecosystem restoration, while at the same
time providing an area that university and community members can enjoy visiting or traveling through.
The UO should reserve this land for these uses. Prohibition of artificial turf fields and flood lights north of
the tracks should imposed as a condition for granting the CUP.
6
ADDENDUM
List of some specific objections to the proposed North Campus Conditional Use Permit and Willamette
Greenway Permit:
First, City Code Section 9.3700 Purpose of S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone, states as objective 4:
To recognize the natural amenities of the site, balancing the opportunity for development to use
The Special Area Zone is located between the Willamette River and Franklin Boulevard. Under the
proposed CUP the part of the Special Area Zone lying between Franklin Boulevard and the railroad tracks
will receive concentrated building development. For the balance envisaged in objective 4, the area
between the railroad tracks and the Willamette should be reserved for a natural area and compatible
related educational and research uses. As I have argued at length, the use of this area for artificialturf
fields and/or flood-lit fields is inconsistent with recognizing the unique natural amenities of the site.
Second, City Code Section 9.8800 concerning Willamette Greenway Permits states:
Planning Goal 15, Willamette River
Greenway which is designed to protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the natural, scenic, historical,
For the reasons earlier given at length, the construction of artificial turf fields in proximity to the river is
inconsistent with the objectives given in Goal 15. It is also inconsistent with
City Code Section 9.8815 criteria (1):
reatest possible degree, the intensification, change of use, or development will provide the
Given the intensified development planned south of the tracks, construction of artificial turf fields
between that development and the river is inconsistent with criteria (1).
Third, most students, many faculty members, and some staff of the University of Oregon, as well as some
City residents, will be away on summer break or vacation on September 12. A second hearing should be
scheduled in October, after the first week of the Fall quarter, so that testimony can be taken after the
start of the UO academic year.
Fourth, 30 years is much too long a period for a permit, particularly for the north-of-tracks area. For Type
III applications, City Code Section 9.7340 Expiration envisages a default expiration date of 18 months.
Much will change over the next 5, 10 or 20 years, including, for example, our understanding of local
riparian ecology and more detailed knowledge about potentially harmful effects of leachates from
artificial turf fields. And the demand for natural areas is likely to grow over time as the local population
increases and development intensifies.
George W. Evans
September 10, 2018
7
September 11, 2018
Hearings Official
City of Eugene Planning and Development
th
99 W 10 Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: CU 18-0001/WG 18-0002 UO North Campus
Dear Hearings Official:
Attached, for context, please find the letter from University of Oregon President
Please be aware that the resolution was rejected based on sections 2.1 and 2.2,
which respectively called for withdrawing the CUP application in part or in whole.
The university
decision on the issues addressed in the resolution itself.
For additional background, University of Oregon processes allow the senate to
debate on and pass resolutions on any matter that an individual senator believes is
appropriate. While the university appreciates the involvement and interests of all
ion lies with the Campus
Planning Committee, a committee that has representation of faculty, staff, students
and the administration. After significant deliberation the Campus Planning
Committee recommended to President Schill the approval of the CUP application.
Please let me know if additional context would be helpful.
Sincerely,
Emily Eng
Senior Planner
ΐΑΖΕ 5¨µ¤±²¨³¸ ®¥ /±¤¦®Ǿ %´¦¤¤ /2 ΘΖΓΏΒȃΐΑΖΕ ¬ ¨«³®Ȁ ´¯« ͔´®±¤¦®ȁ¤£´ §³³¯²Ȁȝȝ¢¯¥¬ȁ´®±¤¦®ȁ¤£´ȝ¢ ¬¯´²ȃ¯« ¨¦
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Megan Kemple <megank@efn.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:24 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:North Campus CUP
IhavelivedinEugeneforover20yearsandoneofthethingsIappreciatemostaboutEugenearethenatural
areasalongtheRiverfront.Ibikeandwalkalongtheriverregularlyandappreciatethenaturalbeautyofthe
areacurrentlyunderconsiderationfordevelopment.Iwanttoseethishabitatandrelativelyintactecosystem
protectedforUofOstudents,Eugeneresidentsandwildlifebothnowandinthefuture.Thatmeansno
playingfieldsorbuildings.
TheUOshouldberequiredtoprovidethepublicbenefitsdescribedintheMasterPlansuchasriverbank
restoration,thebikepath,etc.ĬĻŅƚƩĻ otherdevelopmentoccursnorthoftherailroadtrack.TheUniversity's
plancallsfortherestoration"whenfundsareavailable."Theplanshouldbe"phased"toensure
accountability.
In2048,thenextopportunityforpublicengagementabouttheuseofpubliclandifthepermitisgranted,Lƌƌ
be76yearsold!LķliketoremindthehearingsofficerthatEugenecode9.7340(2)statesthataConditional
UsePermit"shallexpire18monthsaftertheeffectivedateofapproval..."Thereasonforashortdurationisto
protectthepublicinterestwhencircumstanceschange.TheUniversitycouldstillgetanextensionofupto3
yearssoit'sreasonablethattheUniversitybegrantedan18monthpermitlikeeveryoneelse.
LƒsurprisedthatthishearingisbeingheldwhenUofOisnotinsession.IrequestthattheUofOvoluntarily
stoptheclockonthepermitapplicationsoanadditionalhearingcanbescheduledwhenschoolisinsession.If
theUofOwantsa30yearpermit,itshouldbeabletoabletowaitthreeorfourweekssothepeoplemost
participateinthepublicprocess.
affectbytheproposeddevelopment(studentsandfaculty)canfully
Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthesecomments.
MeganKemple
39NCedarSt.
Eugene,Oregon
1
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Karen Sati Kielas <karensuwinski@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 12:03 PM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:Proposed UO Riverfront Development
To Whom it May Concern,
We are homeowners in Eugene and are writing to voice our concerns that the process and
plans for the proposed UO development along the riverfront is not in alignment with the health
of our river ecosystems, or with the Eugene we'd like to see for future generations.
30-years is way too long.
Irreparable changes and damage to the river ecosystem would take place
in this 30-year window and we would be stuck with the damages before we would have another
opportunity to make changes.
The University should be held accountable.
The UO should be required to provide the public
benefits described in the Master Plan such as riverbank restoration, the bike path, etc. before other
development occurs north of the railroad track. The University's plan calls for the restoration "when
funds are available." We know the University didn't make good on its promises in the 1988 Master
Their plan should be
Plan to restore the riverfront. What makes us think they will do so this time?
"phased" to ensure accountability.
Playing fields are an inappropriate use of the riverfront.
Over the last 30 years standards for
habitat protection have become more rigorous as scientists understand the fragility of riparian
ecosystems. With the uncertainties associated with climate change and an emerging awareness
regarding the toxicity of synthetic fields, protecting the public interest requires us to take a
precautionary approach to special habitat. That means no playing fields or buildings.
The UO should stop the clock.
The UO can voluntarily stop the clock on their permit application so
.
an additional hearing can be scheduled when school is in session
If the University wants a 30-year
permit it ought to be able to able to wait a mere three or four weeks so the people most affect by the proposed
development (students and faculty) can fully participate in the public process.
Thank you,
Karen and Joshua Kielas
Eugene,, OR 97404
1
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Lindsay Marean <lmarean@bensay.org>
Sent:Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:29 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:support for North Campus Conditional Use Permit
IamwritingtovoicemysupportfortheUniversityofOregon'sapplicationforarenewedNorthCampusconditionaluse
permit.IworkattheMillrace,floatthatsectionoftheWillamette,andwalk,run,andbicycleonthepathsinthatarea.
Currently,therearepatchesofbothmanmadeandnaturalbeautyinthatarea,interspersedwithoutofcontrol
blackberriesandunsanctionedhumancamps(alongwithgarbageandprobablyhumanwaste).Theareahassomuch
potential,andIwouldlovetoseeitbeintentionallydeveloped.
TheUniversity'scurrentplan,althoughvague,isconsistentwithmy
values:lotsofrestoration,somerecreationalfacilities,hopefullybetteraccesstoandintegrationoftheriverfront,and
plannedandorderlyexpansionofcampusbuildings.MyonlyadditionalhopeisthattheUniversitywillallocatesufficient
fundstocaretaketheareasothatitremainscleanandsafe(itisonlymarginallysoatthistime).
Someopponentstotheplanhavetheirownvisionofarestorationeducationprogram.Iencouragethemtofullyflesh
outtheirplansfortheirprogram,andtolocateasiteandfundingtomakethatdreamareality.NorthCampusisnotthat
site.NorthCampusneedsattentionnow,andtheUniversityappearstohaveadesiretogiveittheattentionitneeds.
Bestregards,
LindsayMarean
1880HayesSt.
Eugene
1
GIOELLO Nick R
From:Michaela Hammer <michaela.hammer@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:11 AM
To:GIOELLO Nick R
Subject:UO Riverfront CUP comment
Good morning,
I'm a resident of Eugene and would like to submit a comment about the North Campus CUP in anticipation of tonight's hearing.
not
I believe that the city should grant a 30-year permit to the university to develop the area between the river and campus. I will be 62 years
old when the permit would expire in 2048, nearing the completion of my career and likely living in a very different social and ecological
world than we find ourselves in today. Please consider granting a normal 18 month permit with the possibility of a 3 year extension, so that
their use of the riverfront may be reconsidered and revised as circumstances change over the next three decades.
I would also like to see more transparency and public involvement in the process of any development of that property. The city and
university should wait to hold another hearing until school is in session, when many of the students and faculty that would be directly
affected by the decision will be in town and can have time to be more informed on the issue. I'm disappointed that this hearing is happening
so quietly during the summer.
I'd also like to add that sports fields seem to be inappropriate for an area so close to the river. Riparian ecosystems are remarkably fragile and
unique, and the impacts of synthetic fields and buildings wouldn't be well understood until they've already taken effect. So, I urge you to
reconsider the use of the area and require the university to protect the riverfront habitat for educational, recreational, and ecological purposes.
Thank you,
Michaela Hammer
1194 Adams St.
Eugene, OR 97402
--
Read my farm-based nonfiction at www.hammerandsoil.com
1