The end of fall term has brought the university one step closer to breaking ground in the controversial Willamette Design Area, a 42-acre area of campus between the railroad tracks and the Willamette River that’s at the forefront of a decades-long land use battle between students, faculty and campus planning officials. 

The Campus Planning Committee —a group of students, faculty, administrators and university representatives that advises UO President Michael Schill on campus development projects — voted Nov. 20 to recommend the approval of an amendment to the campus plan that would allow the university to construct buildings and additional recreation fields along the river.  

The vote comes after decades of community opposition to construction on the riverfront that stretches back to the mid-1980s, when UO began developing the Riverfront Research Park, located just south of the railroad tracks along the Mill Race waterway. Since then, the university has faced lawsuits, UO senate resolutions, petitions and student demonstrations against riverfront development. 

Related: ASUO resolution opposes turf fields along Willamette waterfront

The amendment designates 60% of the Willamette Design Area for conservation, 20% for other open space, 16% for recreation fields and 4% for buildings. The area currently houses the Riverfront Fields, which the UO men’s and women’s rugby teams use. 

According to university Landscape Planning Associate Aaron Olsen, the campus plan does not guarantee construction until specific projects have been funded and approved. 

The campus plan is a document that establishes a set of principles which future construction projects must operate within, according to the Campus Planning and Facilities Management website. 

“It’s meant to be flexible, so when new needs arise that we might not know about today, we have the plan in place to guide and lead those conversations,” Olsen said.  

On Nov. 11, ASUO passed a senate resolution opposing riverfront development. The resolution requests that the university relocate the proposed playing fields and that the Campus Planning Committee revise the campus plan amendment to designate the entire Willamette Design Area as a natural area, which would prevent building and playing field construction.

While Olsen said that there are currently no concrete plans to build playing fields on the riverfront, some community members are concerned that their construction could permanently damage the area’s ecosystem if they are built, particularly if they are constructed with synthetic turf. 

“Synthetic playing fields are basically plastic,” said UO alum and community activist Allen Hancock. “There’s runoff, there’s lights, there’s fences.”

UO biology professor Bitty Roy has taught classes on the riverfront and advocated for the area’s conservation for over a decade. She’s especially concerned about the habitat loss that could result from future construction and how it could affect the riverfront’s educational value. 

She conducted a survey in 2018 that found more than 3,600 students use the riverfront in academic classes each year. 

“It takes one minute of netting, and you’ve got students occupied for hours,” she said, referring to the aquatic life students can collect from the river to study. “To be able to do this right on campus is astonishing and incredibly valuable.”

In a 2019 study of the area’s bird and animal populations, Roy found dozens of native species that use the river and its surrounding vegetation as habitat, a number of which are threatened or endangered. She said that, because of this, she believes the area should be managed from a strictly ecological perspective. 

The final draft of the campus plan amendment includes language meant to address community concerns, Olsen said, including proposals to establish a 200-foot development setback from the riverbank, move existing recreation fields farther from the river and prioritize natural grass over synthetic turf. 

According to the Campus Planning Office’s Senior Planner, Emily Eng, future projects in the Willamette Design Area are not limited to playing fields and buildings. 

“When we talk about projects, even restoration could be a potential project,” Eng said. “There’s a wide range of projects that could happen.” 

The amendment discusses the possibility for projects to restore the riverbank to a more natural condition, though Olsen said they won’t happen until there’s funding.  

Roy, who’s skeptical that the university will fund restoration projects anytime soon, said she’s talked to students and faculty in the Biology department who’d love to help restore the riverfront, but doesn’t know where to go for permission. If the university would take advantage of students’ willingness to help, she said, restoration could be done for almost nothing.
Annika Mayne, one of the ASUO senators who wrote the resolution, sees community outreach as Campus Planning’s weak point. While Campus Planning Committee meetings are open to the public, she said the university doesn’t sufficiently advertise them, limiting community involvement in campus planning. 

“I see it as a communication issue,” Mayne said. “I would really like to see the university actively reach out and look for student and community engagement.” 

Both Mayne and Roy said that meeting times present another major obstacle to community involvement. Campus Planning Committee meetings are often held during peak class hours, Roy said, making it difficult for students and faculty members to attend and participate in major votes. 

“Process and participation is one of the underlying principles of the Campus Plan and part of the tradition of campus planning at the university,” Olsen said in an email. “It is an integral part of all proposals considered by the CPC.” 

According to a Dec. 4 appeal filed by two Campus Planning Committee members against the amendment’s approval, only one of the 12 student and faculty Campus Planning Committee members attended more than half of the fall term meetings regarding the riverfront. 
The appeal requests an additional public hearing at a time conducive to student and faculty attendance as well as a revote on the amendment’s approval with a quorum of Campus Planning Committee members present. 
At the appeal hearing on Jan. 6, appellants Juliae Riva and UO professor Peter Walker argued that the Campus Planning Committee did not follow the participation requirements outlined in the campus plan. They attributed low student and faculty turnout to inappropriate meeting times and the unprecedented stressors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that campus planners failed to encourage maximum community participation during the amendment process. 

Director of Campus Planning Christine Thompson said that meeting times were chosen to accommodate the greatest number of participants possible, and that the Campus Planning Committee had thoroughly discussed and considered UO community concerns in meetings prior to the Nov. 20 vote. 

UO Chief Financial Officer Jamie Moffitt presided over the hearing. She will issue a written decision by Feb. 4 that will either send the campus plan amendment back to the Campus Planning Committee for further review, or let its recommended approval to President Schill stand.