Fairmount: Encourage good-faith collaboration by voting ‘No’ on UO East Campus package

Presenter: The University of Oregon pushes a package of land use changes that would allow seven-story dorms anywhere in the East Campus area.  At the city’s public hearing April 20, those supporting the University spoke first. 

Colin McArthur: I’m Colin McArthur with Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture and Planning.

The University is the applicant and they are proposing a housing plan. The plan addresses short-term needs for more student housing, while also planning responsibly for long-term needs for students, graduate students, and student families. 

The proposal is the result of more than two years of planning. During that time, the University updated its regulatory plans, evaluated housing demand, and identified the specific barriers that are preventing needed housing from being built. 

The changes are designed to remove known barriers, nothing more. They would allow residence halls as a permitted use, increase the maximum height from 45 feet to 85 feet, expand the residential transition area from 60 feet to 75 feet next to R-1 properties, and increase the height limit within that transition area from 30 to 45 feet.

These are the foundational elements that have not changed since the proposal was originally submitted in March, 2025.

Residence halls are an appropriate use in the plan area. In fact, they are generally lower intensity than many academic or instructional uses. Those other uses draw large numbers of people throughout the day, often from early morning to late evening with sharp peak-hour surges.

Residence halls function differently. They’re living spaces for a defined population with predictable and relatively low peak activity.

The original prohibition on residence halls was based on land needs in 2004, over 20 years ago. Circumstances have changed since then. The University has developed six new residence hall communities, four of them in the East Campus area, as well as renovating Justice Bean Hall.

The East Campus area is particularly well suited for housing. It’s close to academic buildings, student services, athletic and recreational facilities, and open space. It’s well served by transit, by pedestrian infrastructure, and it’s adjacent to commercial activity along Franklin Boulevard, 19th Street, and Agate Street. This is exactly where student housing belongs. 

With respect to building height, 85 feet is appropriate and necessary. That height allows for a seven-story residence hall using common and efficient construction methods: five stories of light frame construction over two stories of concrete. This approach reduces construction costs and ultimately housing costs.

The University has used this exact approach successfully in recent projects like Yasui Hall and Unthink Hall. Shorter buildings significantly increase costs and make student housing harder to deliver. 

Within the residential transition area itself, the proposed 45-foot height limit is only slightly taller than what’s allowed in R-1 zones, and that provides a reasonable and gradual transition in scale.

There has been an assertion that this proposal does not meet the approval criteria. That claim is incorrect. Neighborhood plans are not meant to be static. The plan itself calls for review after 10 years. In this case, it’s been over 20 years since the last update. The plan also states clearly that it is a policy framework, not a zoning code, and that is intended to be flexible.

Both policy and circumstances have changed significantly in the last 20 years. The state has enacted extensive housing legislation to increase production and remove regulatory barriers. The city has implemented those policies through new housing standards and processes. Meanwhile, housing costs and construction costs continue to rise sharply.

The University has nearly exhausted its available land and the remaining viable housing sites are all in the East Campus area. There’s an unmet demand for on-campus housing. This proposal responds directly to those realities. 

In closing, this is a housing plan that meets real needs. The University has demonstrated, especially in the East Campus area, that it can deliver high quality, well-designed student housing.

Without these changes, housing needs simply cannot be met. The approval of this proposal is a concrete step towards addressing the housing crisis. We respectfully encourage counsel to move forward without further delay. 

Aaron Olsen: I’m Aaron Olsen, assistant director of campus planning at the University of Oregon. I’ve been involved with this project from the very beginning—master planning land use outreach to the community—and I’ll continue working on future projects in the East Campus area.

The University of Oregon’s campus has changed a lot over the years. Our campus is known for its beauty, trees, open spaces, and so much more. An example of this is a travel magazine recently ranked our campus as 27th in their top 50 rankings of most beautiful campuses in the country. All this is to say we recognize our responsibility to develop to maintain this standard.

As we continue to add new projects in the East Campus area, we want to build on that legacy, creating great buildings and welcoming open spaces that make campus even better. The university’s proposal is based on a 2.5 year planning process that produced the next-generation housing development plan.

In 2023, we brought in an experienced design team to explore options for high quality on campus housing for first-year students, graduate students, and student families, while still maintaining a neighborhood transition. We heard a wide range of feedback and made a number of adjustments while still maintaining the ability to build more on campus housing when needed.

The plan does not imagine a continuous wall of 85-foot buildings in the backyard of single-family homes. Instead, it: increases housing density on university-owned land; creates high-quality open spaces and amenities; keeps the current campus boundary (we’re not proposing to expand the boundary); and maintains a transition to the neighborhood, a different one from 2004, but still a transition.

There are both benefits and challenges of living next to a major university. We recognize that and we work to address issues around events, traffic, construction, and other impacts that cross the university boundary. 

After the Jan. 20 hearing, we made modifications in response to concerns and we’re also studying traffic on Agate Street to identify improvements for all travel modes that work.

As an addition to the TPR (Oregon Transportation Planning Rule) analysis, a strong relationship with the neighborhood matters to us. We have continued to meet with neighbors throughout this project. We understand their position and we recognize there are aspects of the proposal we must agree to disagree. When thinking about the proposal to increase allowed building heights and the resulting transition.

It’s useful to compare the Walnut Station area north of 15th Avenue. City Code treats 15th Avenue, which is about a 65-foot right-of-way, as the transition between single-family homes and the much taller mixed-use center to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. 

Larch Street, by contrast, has a right-of-way of roughly 100 feet wide and has a landscape median with street trees creating a larger physical buffer.

Under Walnut Station zoning, a 90-foot-tall building can be just 55 feet from 15th Avenue. The University’s proposal would allow an 85-foot-tall building about 145 to 175 feet from the west side of Larch Street, far more distance than the Walnut Station transition.

These amendments are necessary to have the ability to build more on-campus student housing when needed, and expanding on-campus housing also supports broader community goals to increase housing supply.

Approval of this proposal will allow the University to create a walkable, vibrant, student-centered campus community with a range of housing options. 

Michael Griffel: My name is Michael Griffel. I serve as the associate vice president for student services and enrollment management and the director of university housing at the University of Oregon. I strongly urge you to support the changes. This is really a needed evolution to this process.

This ordinance is at its core about a strong Eugene community, a strong university community. Student success, inclusion and belonging. Students who live on campus in University of Oregon residence halls (in comparison to those who don’t) have higher grades, stay at U of O at higher rates, graduate at higher rates and graduate faster.

Students who live on campus are more engaged, more connected, feel a stronger sense of belonging and feel more support. The residence halls being closely adjacent to one another, forming a community within a community, heightens connection, inclusion, and belonging. Because students who live on campus their first year succeed at higher rates.

The University is stronger when the greater University community and Eugene community are stronger. Housing’s expensive. Building as efficiently as possible helps to reduce cost and increases access. This ordinance allows for much more housing to be built much more efficiently.

The University needs to be able to build adequate contiguously on-campus housing so that more students are not pushed into an already tight rental market, displacing families, increasing rents, and forcing students and non-students further from campus, further from transit, and further from support services.

The University of Oregon’s beautiful campus: The University’s been purchasing properties in the East Campus area for over 70 years for the purpose of being able to expand when needed. UO residence hall occupancy has increased well over 40% in the last 20 years since the last ordinance on this campus overlay was reviewed.

Approving this ordinance is not just a zoning decision, it’s a student-success decision, it’s a belonging-and-inclusion decision, a strengthening-the-University decision, and a strengthening-the-Greater-Eugene-community decision. 

Staff: Henry Schadwinkle:

Henry Schadwinkle:  Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in favor of this proposal. I’m speaking both today as a community member and also as a student studying urban planning and public policy at the university. I’m currently a senior and as a student who lived on campus for two years, one of which I was a resident assistant.

During my experience as a resident assistant, it was my responsibility to support first-year students who were living on campus. And through this experience, I saw many of the benefits of living on campus, both in the students that I supported and in my own experience.

Many of those benefits as was just spoken about, include a lower financial burden for the students, higher academic success for students, less of a need for students to own or use a car themselves and an increased rate of students walking, biking, and using public transportation around the community.

As my experience has been studying urban planning and public policy at the University, I can attest that this is the ideal location to continue to build residence halls around the University. It connects students with the already built campus with bike lanes, walkability areas, public transportation, and brings peers together around the support system that the University offers for students.

I would like to remind the Council that by supporting this measure, you’ll be increasing the total number of rental spaces across the entire city of Eugene, both supporting the students and the university, but also the broader university community.

But also like to remind the Council that on the City of Eugene’s website, under the urgent community needs is the city’s goal to stabilize rent, stabilize housing costs across the entire community.

I’d like to remind you that this is an opportunity to take a step towards achieving that goal, both in supporting the entire city of Eugene and also the students and faculty at the University of Oregon.

Jenny Ulum: Jenny Ulum, and I’m in support of the proposal before you. I actually live three blocks from the University of Oregon at 21st and University. And so I’m very familiar with the pressures that come from living in proximity to the University.

That’s one reason we live there is because we want to be in that university environment. I also am on the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, and it’s really in that capacity as well as a Ward 3 resident that I’m here testifying support at this tonight. 

I would refer you to some previous testimony submitted on the original proposal that was before you and some of the points have been made here about how this is better for students, better for the academic achievement of our students, I think ultimately better for our neighborhood because having students concentrated on campus is better where they’re supervised. 

The previous speaker spoke about being an RA (resident assistant). We don’t have those in the rentals that are in our neighborhood, and so it is I think a step up for the academic achievement for the neighborhood, but also it helps the University succeed in a very competitive environment for students. 

Right now, one of the knocks— It’s a beautiful campus and we get that feedback — one of the raps against us, and one reason people don’t come to the University of Oregon, is because we don’t have (what they consider) suitable or up-to-modern-standards residence halls.

Now, we’ve been chipping away at that, and we have some good dorms that have come online. But as you look at the demographic cliff (if you’re familiar with that) in higher education, there’s more competition for fewer students. This will really help us competitively.

And, frankly, in Eugene, I think we know the University of Oregon is super important to us. Economically, it’s our major employer and I really look forward to partnering with the city and working collaboratively with the city on making the University as strong and successful as it can be. So thank you for your time and for accepting my testimony.

Staff: Our next speaker’s Bob Choquette.

Bob Choquette: Thank you for the opportunity to speak again in support of the proposed land use changes related to the East Campus area for the University of Oregon. 

I’m here in my capacity as chair of the University’s Campus Planning Committee, and the CPC’s mission is to advise the president on long-range campus development with regards to building, landscaping, and transportation policy.

I support the proposed changes as they will accommodate the current and future needs of on-campus student housing in the East Campus area. On-campus housing improves student performance, reduces academic costs, adds to the overall housing supply, and intentionally connects and engages students with the University.

The University has long identified the East Campus area for future student housing and the proximity to transit and commercial activity along Franklin Boulevard makes this an ideal location for on-campus student housing. …to propose land use changes will allow the University to realize the vision established in the new, in the next-generation housing development plan that supports student success and makes efficient use of limited University land 

to propose land use changes are critical to increasing the housing supply on campus and within the community. It’s my pleasure to endorse the approval of this application. 

Jacob Fox: My name is Jacob Fox. I’m the executive director of Homes for Good and I’m speaking in support of this application today.

Homes for Good is the largest affordable housing provider in Lane County. We provide a home to over 5,000 households across Lane County, and there’s nothing that Homes for Good and other community-based organizations can do to build enough housing to address the need in our community. 

So the bottom line is that we have a very unhealthy housing market, and I think we all have a responsibility to create pathways to increase housing production in our community.

Just a few statistics. Rental prices have gone up over 40% in the last five years. The price of a home has gone up 88% in that same time period. And that’s the reason why there’s so many people that we see experiencing homelessness every day—because our housing market’s sick and we haven’t built enough housing.

So basically as a community we have to decrease regulations and modify overlays so that we can build a lot more housing. We build about 1,000 units a year in Lane County, all income ranges. And we’ll just not dig out of the hole that we’re in if we stick with the status quo.

So I just urge the Council to approve this application and create pathways to increase housing production.

Taliek Lopez-DuBoff: My name is Taliek Lopez-DuBoff. I serve on the University of Oregon’s Campus Planning Committee and the University of Oregon’s Board of Trustees. I’m also a student in the College of Design, studying planning and public policy. 

I’m here today to speak in support of the proposed land use code amendments related to the University’s development of the East Campus area.

I want to focus my comments less on the plans and policy, and more of what it means for students where students live, especially first-year students; how their experience in college and both academically and personally living on campus creates access to classes, to campus resources, and to community.

Students who live on campus are more likely to succeed academically, stay connected, and feel like they belong. It also reduces pressure on Eugene’s rental market, which matters not just for students, but for the larger Eugene community as well. Neither of my parents went to college and navigating my first year in housing experience was incredibly important to me.

Being surrounded by other first-year students meant that I wasn’t going through this transition alone. Some shared similar backgrounds while others brought a completely new perspective. And that mix, I think, is the foundation of any academic community, those everyday interactions that help shape my sense of belonging and my success far more than I ever expected.

As the University continues to grow, creating more opportunities for students to have that kind of experience that matters, this proposal helps make that possible by allowing additional student housing in a location that already makes sense, close to campus, close to transportation, and close to existing services.

This isn’t about sudden change, but about continuing a long-planned effort to meet students’ needs in a thoughtful way, while being mindful of the surrounding area and the broader U of O community. For those reasons, on behalf of the students that I represent, I respectfully urge the Council to support these amendments.

This ultimately is about creating more opportunities for students to succeed and feel here at home in beautiful Eugene. 

David Mitrovcan Morgan: My name is David Mitrovcan Morgan. I’m a student at the University of Oregon, a member of its Board of Trustees and an employee of University Housing, the department responsible for building the student housing at the center of tonight’s conversation.

Today, I want to say something that’s a little different than all the public comment you’ve heard thus far, and that’s talking about the nature of this proceeding, which is that it is quasi-judicial. 

And so what does that mean? That means that the question before you today is not whether you liked this project the last time this ordinance came before this body.

Nearly all the testimony I heard, including my own, was on merit. Proponents talked about the need for housing. Opponents spoke about density, traffic on Agate Street, and what taller buildings would mean for sit downing streets. 

And so far that has been the case today. While it’s neither wrong to care about those things, nor is it wrong for them to be presented, the proceedings today do not ask you to a preference.

They ask the question very specifically: Did the applicant, the University of Oregon, fulfill the legal obligations and approval criteria required for this project? I firmly believe that we did, and that’s why I’m testifying in support of today’s ordinance amendment. 

The University of Oregon submitted three land use applications, a refinement plan amendment, a code amendment, and a zone change.

All were evaluated against codified criteria, statewide planning goals, the city’s comprehensive plan, and area-specific plans. The Eugene Planning Commission voted 4-0 to advance the proposal and, in the words of Chair Jason Lear, said that it did appear to meet the approval criteria as articulated by staff.

Before that, there were two years of planning an open house in March and September of 2024, a campus planning committee, public hearing in October, 2024, and even most recently when neighbors raised concerns during the last public meeting. The University didn’t dig in, but actually modified the proposal.

I work in the department that’s building these dorms. I sit on the Board of Trustees. I know what it took to get here. Every required channel, the right of way on record, and it’s subject to review, not approximately, but all of it. 

Again, the question before you today is not, ‘Is this proposal good or not,’ it’s ‘Did the applicant do what is required?’ I say yes. I believe the record says yes. I know the Planning Commission said yes, and I hope that your vote would say the same. So thank you for your time. 

Staff: Peter Craycroft: 

Peter Craycroft: I live on 19th and I took a neutral position here because I’m on the border. 

I have 65 years here being part of the University as a student, as a teacher in the design department, as a board member, and as a donor to the university. 

I probably have walked the campus more than almost anybody, certainly the top 10%. I’m down there all the time. I’m glad to see the density that exists in the dormitories that are on the campus now. But I’m very concerned about the line. 

And I say that with a lot of experience in dealing with the increased densification of my neighborhood and seeing pressure from the city and pressure from the University, operating in a way that is hard to understand often where you’ll think that there’s an agreement between the neighborhood group. 

There was a time when the neighborhood groups had more formal relationships with the city that were defined, and there were these rules. And then you would see in my neighborhood particularly that the idea of grandmother’s cottages, grandfather’s cottages was accepted and then it was expanding and there were these kind of agreements.

And then all of a sudden you’d see a permit on a building in the alleyway, and you’d call the city and say, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’ And the city would say, ’Oh, they’re just putting their washer and dryer in the old garage.’ Right. And then you’d see an air conditioning unit going in, for what, right? And you’d call the city and you would still get this kind of not-honest reply.

Staff: David Wade:

David Wade: Once again, it’s wonderful to be in this temple of democracy and to see all of you here. I’m going to speak again about process. We didn’t have one here. The University did not engage the neighborhood in a 20-year-old process by which we could have avoided all of this. Yes. They announced their plans and said, ‘Love it or leave it.’

Number two, the Planning Commission. A majority said, we don’t understand this. We can’t evaluate it, so we’re going to vote. Yes. Great. Eight. The staff, the staff missed all the stuff. The university withdrew after the neighbor’s complaint. They missed all of it. And yes, it’s a judicial process, one that applies the Metro Code, which has a specific provision for projects like this and their effect on residential neighborhoods.

University never mentioned that Metro Code provision in any of its voluminous paperwork and the staff didn’t catch it. So you City Council are sitting without any help on this project. We have offered help, and that help is in the form of testimony, which I support, from the Fairmount Neighbors. 

I should say that I live at Villard Street. I am directly across from the four-block wall of 85-foot buildings they’re proposing to get through this council. And they say, ‘Oh, well, this is all for the students.’ Oh, no, it isn’t. This is a real estate development project by the University of Oregon to try to make money in place of the private sector.

The private sector has responded to the need for student housing. You can see the 15-story buildings all over our neighborhood. The difference is they didn’t build it in residential neighborhoods and they pay property taxes, which the University does not. They pay in lieu, but not based on assessed value, so they want to take away business from private developers who pay taxes.

That’s what this is all about.

John Barofsky: John Barofsky, I’m here to testify on the plan amendment for you tonight.

I want to point out that you have the option to approve, deny, or approve with modification. In this case, the best and fastest way to achieve the outcomes that both the neighbors and the University want is to deny the application and let the parties work out the differences.

This would not be you opposing the stated goals of the University or the neighbors. It would be a way for you to, as our elected decision-makers, saying that we can do better for all involved. 

And just looking back at my time on the Planning Commission, I sat on several quasi-judicial decisions and I heard the good arguments on both sides, and the arguments that you’ve heard tonight from the proponents of this are valid. All of those are great ideas, but what you’re asked here is to use the approval criteria to make the decision. 

When I was sitting on Planning Commission, that’s what we had to do, and we forwarded that decision to you guys as the decision-makers. We couldn’t say, ‘Yes, I hear you.’ That and ‘Your concerns are valid and I believe it.’ We had to look at the criteria in this situation. 

Both the opponents and the people who are in favor of these have great things to say about the neighborhood and the University. You can refuse it and not be bad guys. You can refuse this thing and let us work it out and make sure that we get the best result for the whole city and the University.

Mary Jaqua: My name is Mary Jaqua and I’ve lived in the Fairmount neighborhood since 1989. I oppose this refinement plan amendment. I believe that further review and neighborhood engagement can lead to a much better outcome ultimately for everyone involved.

I’m here in support of my neighbors and the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, and I thank you for your consideration as you review the testimony that we are submitting to you tonight .

Carol Isaacson: I’m Carol Isaacson, been a homeowner in Fairmount neighborhood for about 30 years now. I’m a U of O graduate and I support the University, but I am opposed to the changes that they have proposed. I was at the meetings when the University came and attended and assured us neighbors that the building height would be no more than three and a half stories high.

There were open houses, but all that transparency went away when the changes to doubling the height structure and removing setbacks. All that disappeared once those changes were forwarded. I disagree with the University’s decision that this is good for students. It is proximity to campus that ensures good grades, not necessarily living on campus.

There are other studies that show that as well. The other thing is the University is the demographic cliff is fast approaching. There are 4,600 students there that are freshmen. They have, with current estimates, they have over 5,000 units currently. 

So this impending housing crisis for the students: With a reduction, Oregon is going to reduce by 19% high school graduates. California is going to be reduced by 29% and Washington by 8%. This is going to persist for over 20 years. There’s a huge drop in students. So the fact that there’s this high housing crisis for student housing is not, I’m not seeing it and the numbers don’t make sense to me. 

The other thing is the assumption that this is going to release housing for the rest of Eugene student housing and affordable housing are two different things. The reasons people, students go looking for housing outside of the University because the price of the housing residential hall is ridiculous. 

Susan Macousen: Hi, I am Susan Macousen and I am adamantly opposed to this. This is about money. It’s about the building industry building tax-free. It’s not about students (except for the fact that the University makes beaucoup bucks housing students). 

It’s about money. It’s about the University trying to make money. 

Eighteen-year-olds are going down in numbers. They’re shrinking population, but not only are they a shrinking population, they’re not going to University anymore because universities are so expensive and what do you get out of it? How many of us went through university and actually did what we studied to do? Not many. And you can’t afford to do that now. 

And this, if you pass this, you are basically saying the protections that you promised us on height are out the window. At that point, every 10 years, the University does this to us, and every year they get away with it. Why have a city government if you’re not going to listen to the people?

Because the University isn’t the people. Yeah, it’s an employer, but it’s not the people that you serve. You need to serve us. And we’ve been more than reasonable with the University, and they are out to make money. It’s all about the money. 

Arthur Farley: My name’s Art Farley. I live in the Fairmount neighborhood. 

And I think it’s fairly obvious that a seven-story dormitory, 75 feet behind houses built along Villard, does not provide a gentle transition between campus and neighborhood as the University claims in its plan and as Metro Plan would like to see also, in its requirements.

But I’d really like more focus on the other issue being brought up now, which is this claim of, ‘There’s an immediate need for additional student housing, both now and in the future.’ 

Look, the University data itself shows that enrollment at the University is the same as it was 10 years ago and actually went down a little bit this year. You can look online. 

In that time, extensive new student housing has been built close to campus and also impressive new dorms and dormitory capacity is built on campus, and there’s another one in the area built. 

Recently the president of the University sent to the faculty a letter that says, including competition for prospective students, especially nonresident students, is fiercer than it has ever been as universities across the country try to offset losses to an international enrollment and certain state appropriations, rising costs due to geopolitical tensions, and cuts in research funding.

And that has recently been mentioned—the expected decline in graduates from high schools over the next decade or so. 

So I would ask you to deny the current proposal as is stated, and I think we have time to work this out. I would ask you to reject it and send it back to the University in the planning to work with the department, with the neighborhood, and try to find a plan that meets everybody’s goals.

We all expect, and we see the need for increased student housing and near campus and East Campus is a perfect place, but not with this height limitation. 

We were successful before working those 20 years ago with the University to come up with the existing East Campus plan. There was, and we also worked with the arena to get that approved and worked with the University to work, that the University would come to the neighborhood.

We can look at some alternatives: How could they maybe realize the same density with a different approach to this rather than this 75 or 80% just by the street. So let us all work that out. There’s time to do it. There’s no need. There’s not this need, like they’ve got to get this dorm up next year. 

Susie Smith: My name is Susie Smith. I’m a member of the Fairmount Neighbors board and I’m the Land Use Committee chair. And I’m here to talk on behalf of the board a little bit about the preparation of all the materials that we’ve submitted to the record, all of which address the ‘criteria of approval’ as was outlined regarding quasi-judicial process.

We want to bring that to your attention. I was asked (I hate talking about myself), but was asked to talk about this because—so, I have a master’s degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Oregon, and I had a 23- year career at the city of Springfield, nine of which I was a land use planner and the planning supervisor, during which time I wrote refinement plans, process refinement plan and code amendments, wrote findings, etc. etc. etc.

Retiring as Public Works director, I dealt with land use issues all the time, so I’m qualified to do this evaluative work. But we also consulted with currently practicing Eugene land use planning professionals, and a land use attorney for the express purpose of evaluating the criteria, the proposal, and all of our arguments for their validity.

We wanted to know: Are our arguments, are our claims valid? Because we actually support the U of O in their housing objectives. But what they’ve done here is equivalent to taking a nuclear-powered chainsaw to a cube of butter is what they’ve done with the refinement plan and the code and what we worked so hard to achieve.

So our testimony is not the long-winded ramblings of a not-in-my-backyard anti-development neighborhood group. It is a careful, thoughtful, professional evaluation. And our claim to you is: Neither the applicant or the city staff have met the criteria approval and we believe we have a legally defensive argument on numerous of them.

So we really hope you will read our two new pieces of testimony. 

George McCully: My name is George McCully and I’ve resided in the Fairmount neighborhood first at Orchard Street and currently at the home in which my father was raised. I’ve lived in the neighborhood now for more than 60 years. This has been and is my home and has been so for the McCully family since 1915.

I support many of the aspects of the current proposal by the University that is before you again tonight. However, for the University to claim that this land use change will not impact the character of the neighborhood fails to recognize that this proposal, and in fact many of the previous proposals have in fact changed the character of the neighborhood. 

Homes in which I played as a child are gone. There are no children playing in the streets because there are very few families with children who live in the area. As the University has taken over ownership of the homes in which those families lived, and the traffic on those streets has increased substantially with no attempt to address the traffic movement and parking issues.

Businesses that previous lined Franklin Boulevard have been replaced with Matthew Knight Arena and the aroma of fresh, freshly baked bread no longer exists. This is progress, but it does come with many compromises and it has affected the character of a historic neighborhood that was originally its own city.

University through individuals who have discussed this plan verbally with us, has indicated that its goal is to be able to build a dormitory and that plan nearly duplicates the neighborhood’s request. However, the plan before you allows them to build a significantly more imposing structure than what is projected currently by those individuals.

And if this request is approved, the University will be allowed to build nearly anything that they choose in the future when the individuals with whom we have spoken are gone. 

All the FNA (Fairmount Neighbors Association) is asking is that the University’s current vision of the proposed structure or development be guaranteed by appropriate land use plans rather than an open-ended document.

We therefore ask you to deny this proposal in its current form, or at least require modifications that will ensure compliance in the future. With the adopted plans as presented to us, we believe that this will allow the university to continue with their current desire. 

Susan Jakabosky: My name is susan Jakabosky and I am opposed to the proposal before you tonight and here to support the Fairmount neighbor’s, testimony as submitted this evening. I live in 120 year old house cottage style home that I lovingly care for or at least try to.

It’s a great place to live. I actually love living near the university. I love hearing the softball team had a home run while I plant my das. And I love hearing the marching band practice when I pick ’em in the fall. We definitely need more housing. Our whole neighborhood agrees with that. Obviously it’s very obvious.

I think students should live on campus. I love seeing that. That’s not the issue here. We’re not opposed to the university’s plants. We just want them to be good neighbors and to respect our neighborhood. We only ask that they plan their project with the neighborhood in mind and not overpower us with 85 foot tall buildings right behind our homes.

Unfortunately, the particular plan we speak up to tonight needs some revision. And the way I understand it, the process you are have before you is requires that you vote no so that we can send this back and the neighborhood and the university can enter into dialogue that we can come to some kind of compromise and come up with something that works for both parties.

Please, please, I ask you to vote no, so we can continue our dialogue. We can work out this problem and continue to keep our neighborhood the way it is. My street is a great street with strong sense of community. My house is a happy little house and I really hope you vote no so that my house can stay a happy little house and my neighborhood can stay a nice neighborhood.

I thank you and my happy little house thanks you. 

Jeff Philpot: My name is Jeff Philpot. I live in the Fairmount neighborhood and I currently serve as a co-chair of the Fairmount Neighborhoods Association, and I’m speaking in opposition of this proposal tonight.

Fair Remont residents have long supported the university’s growth, including high density student housing on East Campus. Many of us chose this neighborhood because of its character and its close relationship with the university. We value that connection. We really do. At the same time, we are committed to preserving the safety, livability, and historic character of the neighborhood.

Goals that are clearly reflected in the Metro plan, the Refinement Plan, and Eugene Code. Tonight, many Fair Mountain residents are here in support of the testimony. I’d like to ask those neighbors to stand up briefly. 

This is us. Pretty good group. Pretty diverse group, I must say. We appreciate that the applicant has revised some elements of their proposal in response to our concerns.

However, we continue to oppose the remaining changes. At the heart of the issue is the East Campus overlay zone established to create a meaningful transition between higher intensity campus uses and our single family neighborhood.

The applicant is opposing to fundamentally alter that balance, eliminating three quarters of the transition zone by allowing dormitories and increasing building heights from 45 feet to 85 feet without mitigation of impacts on the adjacent neighborhood.

These changes would dramatically increase building scale, occupancy, traffic, service demands, and parking requirements, creating impacts far beyond what current zoning allows. Yet the applicant claims there will be no negative effects and rejects any meaningful mitigation requirements. These assertions simply are not credible.

Our board, along with qualified professionals, have spent hundreds of hours reviewing this proposal. Our findings show that it does not meet the approve, the approval criteria. We sincerely hope that you take the time to review our submittals. The burden of proof lies with the applicant and that burden has not been met.

The council is not obligated to approve these changes. We respectfully ask that you deny the proposal in its current form or require modifications to ensure compliance with adopted plans and protect the integrity of the neighborhood. 

Hillery Kyablue: My name is Hillery Kyablue, and, my husband Steve and I have raised our children at Villard Street, where we’ve lived for over 40 years. We love the U of O students and we support the university, but about every decade it seems we have to fight to get new planners to work with us.

It’s stressful and unnecessary. We are losing a lot of sleep and our health is suffering to cope. We look for silver linings. We are so grateful for our Fairmount Neighbor’s support for us and the love of the neighborhood. And we’re grateful that you might hear and under, and we are grateful that you might hear and understand our reasonable concerns.

We’re also glad that the U of O tried to fix their flawed proposal, but the edits just show how bad it was and keeps the most harmful part. 85 foot walls. They say they’ve been buying a poems here for 40 years, as if that means the destruction of our neighborhood was inevitable, and we should have gotten out of the way.

But when the U of O started buying those homes, we didn’t run away, and city leaders created the neighborhood refinement plan to protect the neighborhood. 20 years ago, when U of O tried to update the plan, the city made them work with the neighbors. That deal allowed much taller, denser development to support the U of O, leaving only a small L-shaped buffer to protect nearby homes.

Now we’re accused of being NIMBY neighbors for asking for some modestly stepped heights. 

Shifting Baseline Syndrome is when people gradually accept a worse environment as normal. A long-term damage is hard to see and can be impossible to reverse. Only those who are there for a long time could see the gradual decline. 

None of today’s U of O planners, city staff or planning commissioners were here 40 or even 20 years ago. We were. We may not survive the harm. 

Tom Evaniew: My name is Tom Evaniew, and I am opposed—against the application. As a 30-year homeowner of Fairmount, I’ve seen a plethora of changes in our historical neighborhood. Our neighborhood has experienced firsthand an increased crime, traffic noise disturbances, littering property neglect, family home conversions to rentals, and on and on.

And these issues are the result of the unintended consequences from previous expansions by the University. 

Now, the University’s top-down approaches, again, pressing our historic neighborhood for its next capital project, for future student dollars even though sources warn a student cliff is about to begin and government-issued student visas are experiencing a 36% drop in issuance due to stricter policies and increased rejection rates.

In my opinion, high-rise dorms need to be sited on the main campus and not on the periphery in our neighborhoods. The University campus has numerous open spaces, parking lots in appropriate zoned areas such as Franklin Boulevard, Research Park, or 13th Street. 

Since the applicant’s March, 2025 application, the University administration has not met with community owners and the FNA to address our neighborhood concerns surrounding zoning changes from an allowed height of 45 feet to a maximum 85 feet. 

I ask the council to vote ‘No’ and not allow the University to build any high-rise in our historical neighborhood.

Allowing this intrusion will burden the community with additional traffic, parking, noise disturbances, while contributing to family relocation nearby as established residents flee to avoid the perils and chaos of student housing. 

I stand with the FNA. 

I also, in terms of notifications of this meeting, received two blank pages from the city regarding attending meetings. So something needs to be done. I’ll leave these as examples and also one of them was addressed to someone else that came to my address. Again, blank pages.

Staff: Nathan Markowitz:

Nathan Markowitz: I’m a 30-year resident of the Fairmount neighborhood and a board member, and I also stand opposed to the refinement plan changes as written. 

I also love the neighborhood. Someone was talking about the music and I love listening and being next to the University to hear the fight song that ends at 9:59:59 p.m. Very, very energetic.

In January, I actually spoke on the historic nature of the Fairmount neighborhood. Today, I’d like to reference (as has been referenced a little here already), the history of the neighborhood working with the University of Oregon. 

We have a history of collaboration that’s long-standing on the graceful border in the refinement plan, dating to 2003-4, and then working closely on mitigating traffic and parking issues associated with the building and use of Matthew Knight Arena.

We want to get to yes, to help the University achieve its goals. Unfortunately, as was pointed out by your own counsel in the last meeting, this proposal is likely to be opposed and appealed to LUBA. I don’t think this helps anybody. It will delay the desired building of the dorm in question and be costly for both parties.

I therefore recommend that the Council vote against this proposal and remand it back to the parties to negotiate collaboratively and in good faith because I think we will do that, and we’ve already indicated that we are committed to that process.

While I fully appreciate that this is a difficult vote for Council and in some ways feels very uncomfortable, I think it’s simply the best and most expeditious way for you to move forward and for us to move forward with the University of Oregon. 

Steve Gab: My name is Steve Gab. I’m opposed to this proposal. Thank you all for the time you’ve taken wading through hundreds of pages of written testimony. 

Thank you for looking at our scale model. If you haven’t played with it already, please do take it apart and see that the U of O can already build up to four stories in the buffer zone and they can build 85-foot high-rises everywhere else in the entire East Campus area—right now, today—with no changes.

Rest assured: Denying this proposal will not prevent their goal of more students living on campus. 

Let’s recap. We’re here today because the applicant made a whole bunch of changes to a half-baked proposal. They say they did it as a gift to appease confused neighbors. I think they realized that a LUBA appeal was going to be a slam-dunk, and they’re trying to shoehorn this thing back into something more defensible.

It’s better than it was and I appreciate the U of O administrators who stepped in to try to help, but it’s still a mess. Legal precedent was ignored. Type V (Eugene land use application process) was used in 2003 and should have been again. 

To get here, history was misconstrued to say that you must accept U of O plans as policy. 

To get here, the buzzword ‘needed housing’ is the excuse to push this project onto the wrong site and to build it on the cheap with no consideration for the impacts on us 20 feet away.

There are better East Campus sites for dorms and student housing. Demand is already well met by private developers. Yet this high-rise dorm in this buffer zone is what the state meant by needed housing. Come on now.

It’s to attract new students, not to relocate the ones living in apartments around town. And it’s not to house homeless folks. 

More cars, more people, and not a solution to any of the concerns you have today.

I served on the city’s Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team, helping figure out what good infill was. To get here you must ignore everything we learned about good infill.

It’s too bad you can’t tell staff to convene stakeholders to improve this application without denying it. Lacking that option, the Fairmount Neighbors’ amendments would make the application more tolerable. Please adopt those amendments or deny the application.

They say we haven’t proved the negative impacts. Just come visit me. Stand in my yard. And if you don’t think there’s a negative impact, I’ll withdraw my opposition. 

Presenter: Several speakers at the April 20 public hearing ask the city to say ‘No,’ and direct the University and neighborhood to reach an agreement. The City Council could decide May 11.