CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment A The Impact Of UO's Incremental Development .Typi.'ca~.ly, proposed large-scale developments such as a basketball arena, a hospital, or other large tnst~tutional developments are constructed soon after the approval of a required land use application ~ building permit. Additionally, typically proposed large-scale developments trigger the requirement to implement and fund mitigation measures to address the development impacts on the surrounding area and transportation system as a condition of approval. General University development is different. The University's East Campus development will occur incrementally over many years as specific development needs are matched with available funding. Therefore, although the Eugene code might require a TIA to be performed by the UO, it is unlikely that a small-scale development will trigger the need to implement mitigation measures as a result of the single development because of the relatively small impact. Additionally, the Eugene code does not address the impact of incremental small-scale development over time by the same developer. The code only recognizes the current development application and the associated impacts of that individual development. Therein lies the problem. Tlie proposed UO's East Campus applications provide a broad blueprint of allow~ible development in the East Campus Area, If tiffs application is approved, the UO plans on expanding their current least Campus Area by about 600,000~ square feet. Consequently, While fUll build-out of the East Campus Area .wilt result in' the equivalence of a .very large-scale development, which' wilt have significant cumulative impact.on the neighborhood, there is no current mechanism to address the UO's incremental development approach. Therefore, the Committee believes that in order to mitigate the impacts of incremental development in the East Campus Area it is critical to address mitigation and the preservation of the Iivability of the neighbor, h, oo~, pr~a~ctively through a combination of the adoption of effective land use policies proposea'oy me tnanning Commission and the funding of the Agate Street and Area-Wide Traffic studies. After the studies are completed and the solutions are dearly defined, the City and UO will be better able to determine the longer term funding sources to successfully implement the identified mitigation measures. In addition, the Committee strongly recommends that the Council make a formal commitment now to review the outcome of the studies and problem solve the associated implementation and funding solutions after the studies are completed so there is a clear road map to implementing the mitigation measures (reference Attaclunent B). Note: as stated in the proposed traffic policy #7, the boundary of the Area-Wide Traffic Calming Study is limited to the streets within the Fairmount/University of Oregon Special Area Study boundary. In addition, in the case that City Staff can not present a definitive cost for the studies at the time of the decision and the City Council is hesitant to approve funding of the studies without a defined cost, the Committee recommends that the Council determine a maximum/not to exceed cost for the studies in order to avoid the inability to approve the studies based on the lack of information. ~ Reference Rich Linton's public testimony from the February 23, 2004 public hearing for the exact figures. Fairmount East Campus Committee March L 2004 Application File # MA 03-7, RA 03-5, CA 03-5 Attachment A City Council Acjenda pacje 285