Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpen Record 3 final rebuttal by applicant (10-17-18) October 17, 2018 Nicholas Gioello Planning and Development Department City of Eugene th 99 W 10 Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 RE: North Campus Conditional Use Permit (CU 18-1 WG 18-12) ApplicantÈs Final Rebuttal Dear Nick, Please accept this letter and enclosed information as the applicantÈs final rebuttal and written responses to testimony received during the first and second open record periods, which closed on October 3 and October 10, 2018, respectively, for CU 18-1 and WG 18-12. Enclosed information consists of a response prepared by the applicantÈs legal counsel: File CU 18-01 and WG 18-12: University of Oregon final rebuttal letter prepared by Michael J. Gelardi, Hershner Hunter LLP. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Colin G. McArthur, AICP MICHAEL J. GELARDI Direct: (541) 431-1438 mgelardi@hershnerhunter.com October 17, 2018 Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official c/o Nick Gioello Planning and Development Department City of Eugene th 99 West 10 Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 RE: File CU 18-01 and WG 18-12: University of Oregon final rebuttal Dear Ms. Gustafson Lucker: Our law firm represents the University of Oregon in connection with land use permitting for the University’s “North Campus” master site plan (the “Plan”). This letter is the University’s final rebuttal to the evidence and argument entered into the record in this proceeding. Part I of this letter provides background and context to the University’s conditional use permit (“CUP”) and Willamette Greenway permit application to the City of Eugene (“City”) for approval of the University’s Plan. Part II summarizes the evidence and arguments presented by opponents of the Plan that relate to the applicable permit approval criteria, and responds to each of the opponents’ relevant claims. I. Background and Context of the University’s Plan The Plan addresses the University’s proposed uses in the Riverfront Park Special Area Zone (the “S-RP” zone) for the next 30 years. The S-RP zone is a unique local zone that is the product of two key planning decisions made by the City and the University during 1985 and 1986. The first decision is the Riverfront Park Study (“RP Study”), which is a refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (the “Metro Plan”). The second decision is an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the State of Oregon, acting 1 through the State Board of Education (the “IGA”). The history of the RP Study, the IGA, and the University’s prior 1988 master site plan for the S-RP zone are briefly summarized below. 1 The RP Study and the IGA are included in the record in a large file submitted by opponent Paul Cziko on approximately September 12, 2018 (the “Cziko File”). The RP Study is located at pdf page 4974 of the Cziko File, and the IGA is at page 5046 of this pdf. 01691923.DOCX Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 2 A. 1985-1986 RP Study and IGA The RP Study identified all University uses as permitted uses in the S-RP zone, plus a range of private uses, including “light industrial, research and development, and office,” “multiple-family dwellings” and certain “retail and non-retail uses” considered to be complementary to University uses. See RP Study at 5. The IGA established a framework for City and University cooperation to develop research facilities in the S-RP zone through public- private partnerships, as contemplated by the RP Study. See IGA at 2-3; RP Study at 2. Opponents of the RP Study appealed that decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (“LUBA”). At LUBA, those opponents argued, among other things, that the uses allowed by the RP Study violated protections for open space under Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Willamette Greenway standards under Statewide Planning Goal 15. LUBA rejected these arguments and upheld the RP Study, except for a findings issue. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 14 Or LUBA 335 (1986). The Court of Appeals then reversed LUBA’s decision on the findings issue and affirmed the remainder of LUBA’s decision. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 80 Or App 176 (1986) (“Urquhart I”). The opponents next challenged the City’s adoption of the S-RP zoning rules that implemented the RP Study. Similar to the first Urquhart appeal, the opponents argued that the RP rules violated Goal 15 on the theory that new uses in the Greenway must be limited to open space uses. LUBA also rejected that argument and upheld the City’s S-RP zone rules. See Urquhart v. Lane Council of Governments, 16 Or LUBA 102 (1987) (“Urquhart II”). B. 1988 S-RP zone Master Site Plan Following Urquhart II, the City and University jointly developed a 20-year master site plan for uses in the S-RP zone. Consistent with the IGA, the plan focused on development of a “Riverfront Research Park.” The plan called for 29.5 acres of the University’s property in the S- RP zone to be dedicated to laboratories, offices and parking lots, including 13.7 acres for those uses located near the river and north of the railroad tracks. The City approved this plan through a CUP and Greenway permit issued to the University, and opponents appealed that decision to 2 LUBA. See Stotter v. City of Eugene, 18 Or LUBA 135, 138-40 (1989). The Stotter appeal was similar to the Urquhart cases because the opponents argued that the 1988 CUP was inconsistent with Metro Plan policies concerning the Greenway and environmental conservation. LUBA again rejected all of the opponents’ arguments and upheld the master site plan CUP. 2 The above summary of uses in 1988 Riverfront Research Park master site plan is taken from LUBA’s Stotter decision. The 1988 master site plan and CUP decision are included in the record in the Cziko File. Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 3 C. Termination of IGA and Extension of 1988 Master Site Plan In the 1986 IGA, the City agreed to enact an ordinance establishing a Riverfront Research Park Commission (the “RRP Commission”) to study and make recommendations on development of the research park. See IGA at 4 and IGA Exhibit B. The RRP Commission met for a number of years, but concluded in 1999 that the RRP Commission had become an impediment to development of the research park. The RRP Commission therefore recommended termination of the IGA, dissolution of the RRP Commission, and for the University to become the sole operator of the research park. See Letter from RRP Commission (Dec. 10, 1999), included in the University’s October 3, 2018 first open record period materials. The City and the University agreed with the RRP Commission’s conclusions and disbanded the RRP Commission by declining to appoint commissioners for the year 2000 term. The City and the University also signed a new intergovernmental agreement in 2000 transferring funds held by the City for the research park to the University. See Nov. 30, 2010 package from Richard Lariviere, former University President, and Nov. 30, 2010 memorandum from Glen Klein, City Attorney, included in the University’s October 3 open record materials. In 2009, the University applied to the City to modify the 20 year 1988 CUP to extend the duration of the master site plan for an additional three years to 2012. The City approved the request, and a group of opponents calling themselves “Connecting Eugene” appealed the City’s decision to LUBA. LUBA rejected the opponents’ arguments and affirmed the CUP extension. See Connecting Eugene v. City of Eugene, 61 Or LUBA 439 (2010). Led by current opponents Allen Hancock and Paul Cziko, Connecting Eugene then attempted to challenge building permits for the Oregon Research Institute (“ORI”) facility in the S-RP zone before LUBA. See September 12, 2018 Cziko File at pdf pages 119-120. It appears that the appellants voluntarily dismissed this appeal. ORI then proceeded to construct its facility south of the railroad tracks at the property now addressed as 1700 Millrace Drive. See 2018 University Plan application narrative at page 34. D. The University’s New Master Site Plan The 1988 CUP expired in 2012. The University then developed the Plan that is the subject of this proceeding. Unlike the 1988 master site plan, the current Plan commits the area between the railroad tracks and the Willamette River primarily to conservation and open space uses. Specifically, the Plan generally establishes a 200 foot development setback from the top of the river bank that applies to buildings and recreation fields, which is far more than required by the Eugene Code. The Plan also dedicates 31 acres of the University’s 77 total acres in the S-RP zone to environmental conservation, plus additional areas for other open space uses. . Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 4 II. Rebuttal to Opponents’ Evidence and Arguments This part of the University’s final rebuttal describes issues raised by opponents that relate to the applicable approval criteria and provides the University’s response to those issues. For each group of relevant issues, the University identifies the applicable approval criteria, summarizes the opponents’ arguments, and provides the University’s response. A. Nature of the University’s Plan Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue that the University’s 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 University’s 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. University’s 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 city’s 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 University’s 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. Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 5 spaces, circulation systems for automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles, and proposed, utility systems.” 1988 Master Site Plan at 12 (emphasis added). This context and history demonstrate that the present Plan is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate compliance with the master site plan requirement in EC 9.3725. Regarding the propriety of multiple master site plans for the S-RP zone, EC 9.3725 refers to “the master site plan” in the singular, and the approved 1988 plan was a single plan for all University lands in the S-RP zone. Moreover, the City Attorney has opined that multiple master site plans may not be consistent with the City’s S-RP zone rules. See May 11, 2018 letter from University President Schill at 4-5. The University therefore has appropriately declined to break up its current proposed Plan into multiple plans. B. Status of the RRP Commission Opponents’ argument: Opponents argue that the City may not approve the Plan because the Plan has not been vetted by the RRP Commission. See, e.g., Oct. 3 Cziko letter at “Issue 1.” University’s response: The purpose of the RRP Commission was to evaluate and make recommendations to the City and the University regarding proposed development in the “Research Park.” IGA Exhibit B Section 1, as codified in EC 2.220. However, nothing in the Eugene Code requires the City or the University to seek a recommendation from the RRP Commission before the City may approve a master site plan for the S-RP zone. The status of the RRP Commission is therefore irrelevant to the City’s consideration of the Plan. Moreover, the RRP Commission is a product of the IGA, and both the City and the University agree that the IGA has been terminated. The City and the University therefore are under no obligation to staff the RRP Commission. Finally, the master site plan for the Research Park expired in 2012, and the University now proposes a new Plan for its property within the S-RP zone. The RRP Commission envisioned for the Research Park therefore is not relevant to the University’s current Plan. Instead, the Plan was vetted by the University Campus Planning Committee and through extensive public outreach as described in Section 4 of the University’s CUP application for the Plan. Opponents of the Plan, including Allen Hancock and Paul Cziko, participated in focus groups, Campus Planning Committee meetings, open houses, and other discussions that resulted in the Plan. See University Plan application at Exhibit H (submitted as updated information on September 12, 2018) and Exhibit I. Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 6 C. Issues Related to Proposed Recreation Fields Opponents’ arguments: Many opponents assume that the recreation fields proposed in the Plan will be made of artificial turf, and those opponents make a variety of arguments against this facility design. For example, Sean Malone argues that artificial turf violates Metro Plan policies D.5 and E.2. See Sept. 12 Malone letter. Allen Hancock argues that only natural grass recreation fields are consistent with the standards for S-RP zone development in the Greenway under EC 9.3725(2)(c). Opponents also suggest that artificial turf fields are inconsistent with the purpose of the S-RP zone as stated in EC 9.3700. See e.g., undated letter from Mari Galloway. University’s response : The Plan does not include any specific facility design for the recreation fields, and the fields will be subject to additional future permitting depending on their design. For example, if the University proposes lighting for the fields, this design will be subject to the City’s outdoor lighting permit standards in EC 9.6725. Regardless of the materials used on the fields, this development will require compliance with stormwater site development standards in EC 9.6790-9.6797. The City’s stormwater standards are designed to prevent water pollution associated with runoff, including any pesticide runoff from natural grass. See EC 9.6790. The University is committed to environmental stewardship, and the university will carefully study field surfaces and their impacts on the environment before proposing any construction project for recreation fields north of the railroad tracks. Metro Plan policies D.5 and E.2 both concern compatibility of uses with the natural environment, including the Willamette River. As described in Part I above, the RP Study is a refinement plan to the Metro Plan and all University uses in the S-RP zone are permitted uses under the RP Study. University uses such as recreation fields are therefore, by definition, compatible with Metro Plan policies, including policies D.5 and E.2. This issue was resolved in the Urquhart and Stotter cases because those decisions upheld the RP Study and the S-RP zoning rules as consistent with Goal 5, Goal 15 and the Metro Plan. Mr. Malone’s argument that artificial turf fields are inconsistent with the Metro Plan is therefore incorrect. Moreover, EC 9.3700 specifically states that the purpose of the S-RP zone is “to provide for activities and uses that complement the research and educational functions of the \[University\].” Physical education and recreation are part of the University’s educational function. Recreation fields are therefore consistent with the purpose of the S-RP zone. Furthermore, as noted above, the proposed fields are also explicitly within the scope of permitted uses in the S-RP zone because they are University uses. EC 9.3725(2)(c) requires the “maximum possible landscaped area, open space, or vegetation between the activity and the river” (emphasis added). Recreation fields satisfy this criterion because the fields are open space. Moreover, the fields themselves are the relevant “activity” under EC 9.3725(2)(c), and the Plan calls for a minimum 200 foot setback between the Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 7 fields and the top of the river bank. The Plan is therefore consistent with, and exceeds, the requirements of EC 9.3725(2)(c). Finally, it is important to note that the City has previously permitted a number of synthetic turf fields within the Greenway. See Greenway permits included in the University’s October 3, 2018 open record submission. This precedent demonstrates that the University may develop synthetic turf fields in the S-RP zone if the University chooses to do so, as long as the University demonstrates compliance with applicable design requirements and development standards in construction-related permits. D. Restoration of the Vegetative Fringe along the River Opponents’ arguments: Opponents both criticize the University’s proposed restoration plan and argue that this restoration must take precedence over other development proposed in the Plan. For example, Mr. Cziko argues that the University’s proposed restoration is not adequate because it doesn’t qualify as “active restoration” under “section 2.C.1” of the RP Study. See Oct. 3 Cziko letter at “Issue 3.” University’s response : Mr. Cziko appears to refer to policy C.1 of the RP Study, which requires the City to protect the riverbank by adopting zoning rules to create a setback along the river and Millrace, and to work cooperatively with local property owners such as the Eugene Water & Electric Board to develop an active management plan for the riverbank. The City has adopted zoning rules that impose setbacks near waterways in the S-RP zone. Those setbacks are 35 feet from the river, and generally 15 feet from the Millrace. See EC 9.3715(2). Moreover, the City’s Water Resources Conservation (WR) overlay zone imposes additional development restrictions within 100 feet of the river and within 40-50 feet of the Millrace. The City’s coordination responsibilities under the RP Study are not binding on the University, but the University nevertheless agrees to cooperate with the City on the University’s proposed riparian restoration. The City’s S-RP zone rules require an S-RP zone master site plan to “provide for protection and enhancement of the natural vegetative fringe along the Willamette River” to the “maximum extent practicable.” The “natural vegetative fringe” is the “riparian strip,” which is “the area between the top of the river bank and the water’s edge.” EC 9.3725(2)(d). The University’s Plan goes far beyond the code requirement by proposing a200 foot setback from the river top of bank for riparian restoration and by dedicating 31 of the University’s 77 acres in the S-RP zone to riparian restoration. Exhibit B to the University’s application is a study of the riparian area in the S-RP zone and provides direction for the University’s restoration of that area. The University’s restoration activities within the riparian area will be subject to additional permitting before restoration may occur under the City’s WR overlay zone rules. See EC 9.4930(3). Restoration activities may also be subject to additional state and/or federal Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 8 environmental permits. The University will develop a specific restoration design plan as a component of this permitting. Nothing in the City’s S-RP zone rules or related policies requires riparian restoration to precede other activities in the University’s Plan. Imposing that type of timing requirement would undermine the University’s comprehensive planning efforts and be contrary to RP Study Policy A.3, which calls for a “a high degree of flexibility for development proposals.” E. Parking Issues Opponents’ arguments: Opponents make several arguments related to a parking structure proposed in the Plan. The subject structure will be located on an existing surface parking lot near the intersection of Riverfront Parkway and Millrace Drive. This parking structure will be designed in part to serve the University’s future Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact, which is located outside of the S-RP zone. Opponents argue both that the University proposes too much and too little parking in the S-RP zone. First, Mr. Malone argues that parking in the S-RP zone may only serve uses located in the S-RP zone, and therefore the University’s proposed parking structure near Riverfront Parkway may not provide parking for the Knight Campus. See Oct. 3 Malone letter. Mr. Malone’s client Allen Hancock appears to argue that parking facilities must be located within 400 feet of the specific uses they are designed to serve under EC 9.3715(1). See Oct. 3 Hancock letter at “Issue 1.” Mr. Malone also argues that the proposed parking structure near Riverfront Parkway may block visual access to the riparian area along the Willamette River from Riverfront Parkway in violation of EC 9.3715(1)(c). See Sept. 12 Malone letter at 2. University’s response: First, it is important to stress that the development standards in EC 9.3715 are generally not applicable criteria to a master site plan. Parking compliance for specific facilities will be determined through future construction-related permitting decisions. Second, the 400-foot proximity standard in EC 9.3715(1) is simply a default; the rule explicitly allows the City to approve a different parking standard through the master site plan CUP process. The City and the University have cooperatively planned University-related parking on a campus-wide basis for many years. The 1988 master site plan contemplated a string of parking lots adjacent to the railroad tracks in the S-RP zone, and the plan did not limit the use of these lots to S-RP zone facilities. Some of those parking lots were developed, including the surface lot at the location of the parking garage proposed in the University’s 4 current Plan. Compare 1988 master site plan parking diagram with 2018 Plan application narrative Figure 2.1 and Plan Exhibit A Sheet L02. 4 This diagram is available at page 3893 of the Cziko File pdf. Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 9 In 1997, the City granted the University an adjustment to lower otherwise-required parking by 50% campus-wide. The University submits annual reports to the City to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Consistent with this campus-wide decision, in February 2018, the City granted the University an adjustment for a 25% reduction in parking associated with the Knight Campus. These 1997 and 2018 parking decisions are included in the University’s October 3, 2018 first open record period submission. The University’s October 10 package also includes a specific request to the Hearings Official to determine that the City’s and University’s campus-wide parking approach applies to the University’s Plan for the S-RP zone, in lieu of the 400 foot default in EC 9.3715. As in other City zones, the S-RP zone contains parking standards for developments in the S-RP zone. However, nothing in the S-RP zone rules or related policies preclude the University from developing parking structures in the S-RP zone to serve University uses physically located in other zones. To the contrary, as described above, all University uses are permitted uses in the S-RP zone. Moreover, the 400-foot parking proximity standard and arbitrary zoning separation between University uses and parking, as advocated by Mr. Malone and his client Mr. Hancock, would result in unneeded parking lots. This would be contrary to the campus-wide parking plan that is designed to conserve land and encourage alternative transportation. Mr. Malone’s and Mr. Hancock’s advocacy for these parking standards also contradicts their espoused interest in environmental conservation in the S-RP zone. Finally, the photographs and diagrams included in the University’s October 3 package demonstrate that the proposed parking structure near Riverfront Parkway and Millrace Drive will not impede visual access to the Willamette River riparian area from main entry points along Franklin Boulevard. F. Bicycle Paths Opponents’ arguments: The University proposes two different alignment options for a new bike path through the S-RP zone. Mr. Hancock argues that one of these designs does not provide a “continuous, two way” bike path as required by EC 9.3720(1). Mr. Hancock argues that the Plan is also inconsistent with the City’s Transportation System Plan, because the University’s Plan could impede City development of a bicycle and pedestrian crossing over the railroad tracks in the S-RP zone to connect Alder Street with the existing bike path along the river. See Sept. 12 Hancock letter. University’s response: Both of the University’s two proposed bike path alignment options comply with EC 9.3720. The northern alignment proposes a new bridge crossing over the mouth of the Millrace Slough. The alignment extends under the south abutment of the Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 10 Frohnmayer Bridge and extends eastward in order enable a future extension to Knickerbocker Bridge on the north side of the railroad tracks. The alignment responds to desires for public access along the river, enhanced safety by activating the river’s edge and improving sightlines, and improved ecological function. The southern alignment utilizes the existing culvert crossing within the Millrace Slough. The alignment does not extend east past Frohnmayer Bridge, as constructing a path to the Knickerbocker Bridge on the north side of the railroad tracks may not be feasible due to physical constraints. The alignment instead connects to Riverfront Parkway and Millrace Drive, which is the current eastward travel pattern for pedestrians and bicyclists. The alignment responds to desires to expand the riparian area, improve ecological function, and minimize conflicts between recreation and habitat uses. Regarding the Alder Street Rail Crossing, the University acknowledges this proposed future crossing by indicating it on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Primary Circulation Plan (Plan Exhibit A Sheet L03) and agrees to design any building near this proposed crossing to avoid interference with the crossing. The University supports the City’s Transportation System Plan and will cooperate to integrate the crossing into the bike path improvements proposed in the Plan at the time of a future project. G. Duration of the Plan Opponents’ arguments: Opponents argue against the University’s proposed 30-year timeline for the CUP and Greenway permits associated with the Plan. Opponents note that, under EC 9.7340, the City’s default for a CUP is 18 months, and that the maximum extension associated with a modification to a CUP is an additional 18 months. See, e.g., Oct. 3 Cziko letter at “Issue 2.” University’s response: EC 9.7340 explicitly allows the City to set a longer timeline for a CUP and a Greenway permit as appropriate. Permits associated with the prior 1988 master site plan for the S-RP zone had a duration of 20 years, and those permits were upheld by LUBA. Moreover, the City granted a three-year extension to those permits, and that extension was also upheld by LUBA. The University has explained that the 30-year timeline is needed given the vast area covered by the Plan and the uncertain timing of capital needed to complete development contemplated by the Plan. See Plan application narrative at 93. The City’s staff supports the University’s timeline for the Plan. See Staff Report at 21. The University’s proposed timeline for the Plan is therefore consistent with EC 9.7340. The University proposes a new CUP and Greenway permit for the Plan, not a modification of prior, now expired permits. The time limit associated with modification of a CUP under EC 9.7340 therefore is not applicable to the University’s application. Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Hearings Official October 17, 2018 Page 11 H.Annual Reporting Opponents’ arguments: The City’s S-RP zone rules require annual reporting to the City regarding uses in the S-RP zone in order to verify that the land in the zone is being used primarily for University activities and other compatible private activities. See EC 9.3710 and 9.3730. Opponent Mr. Hancock asserts that the University has not provided this annual reporting and argues that therefore the Hearings Official should deny the University’s application for the Plan. See Oct 3 Hancock letter at “Issue 3.” University’s response: As explained in the University’s October 10 second open record period package, the University did submit annual reports to the City during the previous CUP period, and the University agrees to provide annual reports following City approval of the current Plan. The University therefore will comply with EC 9.3730, though this is not an applicable criterion for the CUP and the Greenway permits that are the subject of this proceeding. III.Conclusion For the reasons described above, and in theapplication and supplemental materials submitted by the University in this proceeding, the Universityrespectfullyrequests that the Hearings Official approve the University’s application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. GELARDI MJG:mp