The Eugene City Council heard testimony from supporters and opponents to the East Campus Area Plan’s amended proposal on April 20, which would allow heightened dormitories in the area.
The University of Oregon, the applicant for the proposal, spent the first 10 minutes of the public hearing detailing the purpose of the proposal and the timeline of the process. Because the land use applications are a quasi-judicial proceeding, the applicant must prove whether or not they comply with the city’s applicable approval criteria.
The city’s approval of the land applications is solely based on whether or not the applicant met the approval criteria — not if council members agree or disagree with the content of the proposal.
UO has been looking at East Campus for possible housing expansion for decades, slowly purchasing buildings to implement the Next Generation Housing Development Plan. The university is asking the city to approve three applications that would amend a code to allow heightened dormitories in the area, remove a land use overlay by Matthew Knight Arena, and amend the Fairmount/University of Oregon special area study.
Many residents had concerns about the height of the buildings and the preservation of the surrounding neighborhoods. Others felt that UO did not sufficiently communicate and collaborate with residents living in the area.
Representative groups like the Fairmount Neighborhood Association worked alongside campus planners in focus groups to have their concerns heard, and UO community liaisons kept the housing development page updated and available for residents to view.
The city council held a public hearing on Jan. 20 to hear from the applicant and concerned residents. After hearing testimonies from both sides, the council passed a motion to extend the record for written testimony. Per state law, the applicant is solely allowed to submit to the record for the last seven days.
On Feb. 10, UO entered into the record their amended proposal addressing testified concerns. During a public meeting on March 9, the council voted to direct the city manager to schedule a second public hearing on April 20 for the amended proposal.
Assistant Director of Campus Planning Aaron Olsen said that the majority of the changes were in the Refinement Plan Amendments, reverting proposed language changes back to its original text.
“In total, (Fairmount Neighborhood Association) proposes 22 text changes to the applicant’s proposed Refinement Plan Amendments, which were submitted by the city on July 23, 2026,” UO’s submission said. “The applicant has reviewed these changes and accepts 18 of the proposed changes, does not accept three and partially accepts/does not accept one.”
“One example that we talked about with the neighbors for a while was that we had proposed changing the ‘low density residential’ term to just ‘residential’ to try to simplify it,” Olsen said. “Well, we had agreed a long time ago to just revert back to the original language… That was really the bulk of the changes.”
Twenty-four individuals signed up to provide public testimony: seven spoke in support, with three neutral and 14 opposed. Each who spoke in support emphasized student support, stabilizing the rental market and adaptation to growth in their testimonies.
“Our housing market’s sick, and we haven’t built enough housing,” Jacob Fox, executive director of Homes for Good, said in support. “As a community we have to decrease regulations and modify overlays so that we can build a lot more housing.”
Those opposed reiterated their previous testimonies from the first public hearing, citing the collaboration process, building height and the graceful transitioning edge of buildings. Others objected to claims that the proposal would improve student housing availability.
“This is a real estate development project by the University of Oregon to try to make money in place of the private sector,” David Wade said in opposition. “The private sector has responded to the need for student housing. You can see the 15 feet buildings all over our neighborhood. The difference is that they didn’t build it in residential neighborhoods and they pay property taxes, which the university does not.”
“If you pass this, you’re basically saying the protections that you promised us on height are out the window,” Susan Macousen said. “At that point, every ten years the university (will do that) to us, and every year (they will) get away with it. Why have a city government if you’re not gonna listen to the people? Because the university isn’t the people.”
Members of FNA also spoke at a public hearing, saying that they believe they have sufficient evidence submitted in the open record to prove that the applicant has not met the applicable approval criteria.
During the applicant’s five-minute response to the testimonies, Cameron McCarthy Principal Planner Colin McArthur argued that city officials including the public planning commission deemed the proposal adequate for the approval criteria.
Using public testimony, the city council will make a decision on May 11 on whether or not the proposal meets the approval criteria to be passed. At the end of the public hearing, the council passed a motion to keep the record open for seven more days to let the applicant submit final arguments, and then be closed. Using spoken and written testimony, the city council will make a decision on May 11 on whether or not the proposal meets the approval criteria to be passed.
