City Council - Regular Meeting

[music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Welcome to the April 20th, 2026 Eugene City Council public hearing. Thank you for joining us in this hybrid meeting format. Anyone wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website. The broadcast on Comcast Channel 21 or by following the instructions listed for this meeting on the public webcasts and meeting materials web page. There are three public hearings on tonight's agenda. Please note that members of the public who sign up to testify may speak only on the topic that is subject of the stated hearing. For those wishing to testify during the public hearing, please fill out a request to speak form available on the city's public webcasts and meeting materials web page. These request to speak forms will be used to generate the order of speakers and correctly enter speakers' names into the public record. We'll accept request to speak forms until 5:35 p.m. As a reminder, Council's meeting rules of conduct apply to all attendees, both in chambers and in the lobby. And include no flags, signs, loud or disruptive language, noise, or conduct that obstructs the business of the Council. Please keep the room quiet and respectful for all of the speakers. You are welcome to wave your hands in silent support. Additionally, we encourage those that are ill or who have had close contact with others that are ill to join our meetings remotely rather than in person. We also ask encourage attendees to spread out within the meeting space and wear a mask if you would be comfortable doing so. We have some available in the lobby if you need one. In case of a medical emergency, an automated external defibrillator is located on the counter behind our staff, located to the left on the west side of the room. And in case of an emergency evacuation, emergency exits are through the double doors located at the back of the room and the double doors near the front of the room. The doors to the patio can also be used as needed. With that, I call this meeting to order.

The first public hearing on tonight's agenda is an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. City Manager, can you please introduce the topic? Uh thank you, Council President. Uh this is a public hearing on a ordinance adopting the hazardous substance user fee for the Eugene Toxics Right to Know program. Uh the proposed rate is $75.22 per full-time equivalent employee with a maximum charge of $2,000 per facility, which is required under state law. This fee structure has been in place since the program began in 1998 and continues to fully fund the voter-approved Toxics Right to Know program. The Toxics Board has recommended this rate to support the fiscal year 2027 program budget. After the hearing, the Council has the option to adopt the ordinance as presented or provide direction for modifications. Thank you. I now open the public hearing. Staff, can you please share the list of speakers on the screen and announce the first speakers. Thank you, Council President. We have until 5:35 until the form closes, but at this time we have no speakers signed up for this topic yet, but I will have more certainty in just a couple minutes.

Thank you for your patience, everyone. There's no one signed up for this first council hearing. Thank you, Cherish. I now close the public hearing. Are there any questions or comments from city council? Seeing none, the next public hearing on tonight's agenda is an ordinance concerning increased public health standards coordination amending sections 9.0500, 9.2460, 9.2461, and 9.4165 of the Eugene Code 1971 and providing an effective date. City Manager, could you please introduce the topic? Thank you, Council President. This is a public hearing on an ordinance concerning increased public health standards coordination. This project is in response to a motion passed in June of 2025 by the council that directed staff to develop a land use code to increase coordination with the city's public health regulatory partners. As proposed, the ordinance would require the city to provide notice to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency prior to issuing a building permit for new development in the E2, I2, and I3 zones. This is the second council public hearing uh for the public health standards project. The first public hearing was held on February 17th, 2026, considered similar ordinance, but on March 9th, the council passed a motion to hold another public hearing on an updated ordinance that includes the same noticing requirements as the first ordinance, but added a requirement for the applicant to attest to any permits they are required to receive from three public health agencies. This item is for public hearing only, and potential action on this ordinance is scheduled for June 8th, 2026. Thank you. Testimony presented at this public hearing should be directed toward the applicable approval criteria or

other criteria that the speaker believes applies to this decision. The applicable approval criteria criteria for this proposed land use code amendment is located in Eugene Code Section 9.8065. The full text of that code section is available in the findings attached to this AIS for the public hearing. I now open the public hearing. Staff, can you please share the list of speakers in this on the screen and announce the first speakers? Thank you. If you have signed up to speak via Zoom, please take this time to ensure that your screen name in Zoom includes your last name and matches the name you used to sign up to speak. If your screen name does not match, we cannot allow you to speak when it is your turn. I will announce two speakers' names at a time. When you are called to speak, please state your name and your ward or neighborhood, if known, before beginning your comments. If you are providing testimony via Zoom, when it is your turn, we will announce your name and allow you to speak. If you are announced as the next speaker and physically in the room, please move to the seat in the front row designated for the next speaker. When it is your turn, you may come to the podium. Please leave any bags you may have with you at your seat. If you have documents to give council, please place them in the basket near the podium. You will have 2 and 1/2 minutes to speak. The timer will flash red when you have 15 seconds remaining to speak. Your microphone will be muted at the 2 and 1/2 minute mark. Our first speakers this evening are Travis Knudson, followed by Lynn Woodrich. Travis is online, so I will be allowing you to talk, Travis.

[clears throat]

We are ready when you are. Hello, everybody. Good evening, Mayor Knudson and City Counselors. My name is Travis Knudson, and I am the Executive Director of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, LRAPA. I'm joining virtually from Seattle, where I'm attending an EPA Region 10 Air Directors meeting, but wanted to ensure LRAPA's voice was part of this public hearing record. LRAPA supports adoption of version three of the public health standards code amendments. This is our fourth comment on this ordinance. When earlier versions contained language ambiguity and a perceived procedural conflict with state permitting requirements, we identified it and worked collaboratively with city staff to resolve it. Version three is that result. It establishes a workable coordination mechanism between the city's land use processes and environmental permitting without creating a legal or procedural barriers for applicants or agencies. The two key elements of version three, the applicant can attest and the city do notification to regulatory agencies gives us early entry into the conversation of new industrial development in the E2, I2, and I3 zones. This provides value in that LRAPA can verify if air quality permit requirements have been correctly identified before a facility starts operating without the necessary controls. We appreciate the council's decision to move forward with version three rather than version four. That attestation requirement adds meaningful transparency at minimal burden to applicants, and the distinction is value preserved. LRAPA is ready to implement this framework. As the city moves into phase two, the hazard and risk analysis, we remain committed to providing technical assistance and air quality expertise that inform that work. Thank you for your sustained commitment to the public health coordination in Lane County. We're proud to have a partner in this coordination. Thank you, Travis. Our next speakers are Lynn Woodrich, followed by Courtney Griscel. Griscel. My name's Lynn Woodrich. I'm the co-chair of the Active Bethel Community

and a Bethel resident for over 30 years. I live in Ward 8. I'm speaking on behalf of our board. I'm urging you to adopt version three of part one of the public health standards land use code amendment CA 25-3, as recommended by planning staff. Version three requires applicants seeking building permits in the E2, I2, and I3 industrial zones to consult with agencies and identify whether their project requires air, land, or water permits from the EPA, DEQ, or LRAPA, or to attest that none are needed. It does not require those permits be obtained before a building permit is issued. It simply ensures the right information is surfaced early. Right now, Eugene's planning department and environmental regulatory agencies often don't communicate until late in the approval process. This amendment fixes that gap by creating an early communication pathway. You may hear concerns this will deter businesses. It won't. This applies only to E2, I2, and I3 industrial zones with typically just seven to 10 applications per year, so agencies won't be inundated with calls. Version three brings public health into the land use process at the right time, giving agencies the chance to understand whether a new development could generate pollution requiring permits before a building permit is issued. I strongly urge you to adopt version three of part one of the public health standards land use code code amendments CA 25-3. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Our next speakers are Courtney Griscel, followed by Tiffany Edwards. Evening, uh not Mayor, but Council. My name is Courtney Griscel. I reside in Ward 5, and I'm here tonight to testify on behalf of the public health standards code amendment CA 25-03. I'm speaking on behalf of a coalition of local business owners. Um there were 10 of us that sent a letter earlier today listing names um summarizing this testimony to you,

and I want to note that we're not testifying we're neither in support nor in opposition of any of the versions, but what we want to talk about is what all of them are signaling and the process that's brought us here. Um I'm also speaking from my own experience as a 20-year plus economic development practitioner who's worked both in public sector and in private sector on substantial business retention and expansion projects as well as community partnerships. A question was raised by a counselor during February council deliberations and the question specifically was, "How can any of these variations be truly burdensome to business?" From a business perspective, the concern is not the technical requirements of any single version, not three, not planning commission recommended four. It's the pattern and trajectory these versions represent. We make long-term investment decisions based on predictability, not just of today's code, but of where policy appears to be heading and how policy makers are leading us in that direction and the conversations they've had through that process. When land use begins to move away from clear and objective and into areas of already governed state, local, and federal regulatory environments, it creates uncertainty and confusion about not only where the boundaries will ultimately settle, but who will be responsible for settling them. Importantly, businesses don't wait for instability to fully materialize before we react. We evaluate patterns early, which is how we avoid disruption, protect jobs, and maintain our long-term commitments to the community. Additionally, language matters. Broad labels like chronic toxic polluter, when used by city staff and elected officials, applied to permitted and regulated entities like us undermine trust in collaborative relationships needed to achieve public health goals, or really any goals for that matter. We agree public health is critical and we live these values every day navigating state and federal and local

regulations. So, when you ask where the burden lies, it is in the cumulative signals. It isn't in any single version or what it takes to satisfy one task. Thank you. Thank you, Courtney. Our next and final speaker for this topic is Tiffany Edwards. Thank you and good evening, Council. Tiffany Edwards, I am a member of the Planning Commission and I'm here tonight in that capacity. I wanted to explain a couple of things on the version three that you are reconsidering or have before you for this public hearing. This is a version that the Planning Commission voted down. They did not approve this version. Staff then directed us to provide a recommendation per Council's explicit direction. So, hence version four was was the version that you were recommended. But I thought I would explain, try to do my best to explain some of the issues that we had with the policy and I've brought some handouts. So, I'm going to hand these out. You will get these I think tomorrow. Um, but basically this is the these are the the land use um, these are the industrial tables and it has all of the businesses and I've highlighted them for you on every single page. The businesses that would be subject to this policy. The issue specifically is with and you when you go through and you'll read many, many types of businesses that you would not expect to have to have a permit for air quality or or any of those environmental quality permits. The issue specifically was the fact that these types of businesses are now subject to this policy. These are businesses that don't have a preexisting relationship with regulate the regulatory agencies. They've never been regulated. These are restaurants, these are bars, these are dance studios, these

are martial arts. And because it not only applies to development to land use permits, it divide it it applies to all development permits. So, those are things like electrical work, tenant improvements, things that aren't already currently captured in here. Another speaker mentioned seven to 10 a year. It is greatly more than that because it now applies to the development permits. And so, any business that is doing an electrical work or doing any tenant improvement that is permitted to operate in E2, I2, or I3 is subject to this. And this is the reason why the Planning Commission felt that it was unworkable and felt that we should have the city do the attestation and do do the outreach to the regulatory agencies to ensure that there was coordination. Thank you, Tiffany. Council President, that was our final speaker for this second public hearing. Thank you. I now close the public hearing. Council will continue to accept written testimony following the closure of the public hearing until action is taken. You may submit written testimony to the email or mailing address provided on the public notice. Instructions for submitting written testimony are provided in the public notice for this meeting as well as in the AIS. If you would like to receive future notices about the proposed land code amendments, please provide your name and mailing address to staff listed on the AIS for this item. Are there any questions or comments from the City Council? Councilor Kushinsky. Yes, I had two questions. I don't know if this microphone [snorts] is close enough. First, on the draft forms that we received, there's a So, this is "Be contacted if applicable and response date indicated for responses not received." That's just

for informational purposes. Is there any requirement that any applicant actually contact these agencies if they know they don't need permits or they know what permits they need, they don't they don't have to call, correct? Good evening. This is Jeff Gepper, principal planner for the land use planning team. That's [clears throat] correct, Councilor Kushinsky. That's not a requirement. For us, it was more of an idea that if they'd contacted and then they indicated that they never received a response, we would want to know that so that we could reach out to our agency partners and find out where the breakdown in communication has occurred. Okay. But if I know what I need, I don't have to call anybody. I can just check I don't need anything. Absolutely. Okay. And then my second question, um, are you anticipating that this requirement would create any sort of delay in the processing of any of these permits or put a capacity strain on staff who are processing these permits? There will be added capacity impacts just from the fact that we have to send a new notice. So, but you know, once we build in that process, it should be relatively streamlined. Um, from the perspective of an applicant, they do have another form to fill out and that does add another box for us to check that that form is included. So, I would imagine that is there some small impact to capacity? Yes. Um, I think that will be minor over time. Okay. So, it's not a thing your staff have to like contact a rep on verifying information or anything like that before they issue a permit. They just get the form and Correct. Yeah, all we're looking for is that the fact that the form is submitted of in any case because these aren't our regulations to employ. We just want to make sure that they've, you know, filled out that form so that we can submit that form to our agency partners who will review it for their own rules. All right, thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilor Grimes. Thank you, Council President. Jeff, before you get too comfortable back there, um, first of all, we all are concerned about our air quality, our water quality. Everybody wants to protect that. It's I'm more concerned about the unintended consequences. And so, I think it's one thing if if a filer understands what they have to do. I'm more concerned about the small business that comes in that has no idea what any of this means. Where do they get help? So, within version three that was, you know, asked to be brought before you, we tried to provide the attestation form that would give at least contact information for the groups that they would need to reach out to in some hopes that that would provide them at least a reasonable point of contact for the a place to start, so to speak. Um, this this is front and center in my mind. Recently, I met with one of the startups coming out of the UO Knight Scientific Accelerator. And I wanted to find out what was working well with planning process and permitting process, what wasn't, where were the barriers, what were the things that would help, and what would he like me, us, to know about that. And his I had an idea of what they might say. He went to a place I hadn't even really thought of. And his big thing was, "Look, I'm a scientist. The people I work with are engineers. We're not business people. We don't understand all the permitting system. We don't know where to go, not even having a list of who the right contacts are for the various things. Um, you know, it goes back to something we were hoping to gain with the four economic development positions. One was to help people like this get through the permitting process. And for my colleagues, I I hope we revisit that at some point because people are having a

hard time making ends meet. And if you haven't looked lately, we are at the bottom of all of our comparators as far as economic growth and development. And that means jobs. It means living wages so people can afford housing. We just have to be careful what steps we take. Again, I'm all for protecting our environment, protecting our livability, and there's a balance between that and job growth. But at the same time, we need to figure out how we can help people that apply for permits to have the most guidance we can give to make this process easy. Personally, I think it should be city staff that does that, but I I think I'm probably in the minority when I say that. Um but we need to be doing what we can to help people move forward their businesses. These are jobs. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Graves. Counselor Clark. Thank you, Madam President. And Jeff, stay there. I got questions for you, too. I I would concur with my colleague, only I'd add a couple of exclamation points, I suppose, on the top of that. Um

[snorts]

it is my opinion that only strong economic development in these areas are the long-term solution to our budget problems for our city. So, I think it's imperative that we do this job right, and that we don't unnecessarily end up chasing people away. So, while it's also important to me to make darn certain we have clean air, clean water, and a clean environment, [clears throat] especially in West Eugene, where people haven't had the best uh experience in in some cases. We need to be careful about that, but we also need to not chase businesses away. So, if version three passes, walk through this with me. Somebody's going to they they feel that they want to open a a a new business in West Eugene. And within the within the zone, within the area, they are told that they need to apply to uh all of the regulatory agencies and that apply that are suggested by you. Do does the city staff have any power to um require those agencies to respond? Um let me just clarify really quickly that um what's required in version of the three um doesn't actually require anybody to apply for a permit. Um nor is it required for an agency to respond to the individual. So, that is a correct statement. So, all it's requiring is for somebody to complete this form that says, I do need to I do need these permits, and I understand that, or I don't need any permits. And you make the determination about whether they need them or don't?

We we are not making that determination. We they submit that form to us, and we pass that form on to our regulatory partners for them to determine whether that's correct. And when you do that, do your regulatory partners have a responsibility to respond to you? No. So, the the only requirement in the code is that they submit this attestation form, and we then supply that form, as well as some basic information about the proposal, to our agency partners. Because these aren't our regulations, we don't want them holding up the building permit process. We just want to meet the requirements of this proposed land use code that is essentially just building in coordination and not uh adding a barrier. And I I I guess I want to ask if somebody it turns out that somebody doesn't need uh a response from a regulatory agency, and they don't get one, but it's determined by that agency they don't need to, what does the city of Eugene do with that applicant's permit when no one's responded? So, we would review the permit on for our own rules and regulations, and this land use code would only require that we've received a form or some documentation that says we don't need this permit, and that would be enough for us to move on and issue their building permit. What if that regulatory agency never provides that response? So, to Counselor Kushinski's question about we did on our example form include like the date that you reached out to them, and whether or not you weren't replied back to, because that's an important thing for us to keep track to make sure that we can build those relationships with our agency partners to ensure that they are responding, or we find out if if they're not, then maybe this needs to be revisited. My question is is maybe not worded very well.

What's your respondent to the app What's your response with city staff's response to the applicant if the regulatory agency does not respond? We would tell them that they need to, you know, if they believe they do not need a permit to fill out the form and submit it to us, and we'll accept that, and we'll pass it on to that agency. So, it's to approve it anyway, even though they never got a response. So, we are not approving anything. We are receiving a form, and we are passing that form on to our agency partners along with some additional information. So, it's about the receipt of that information and being able to pass that off to our agency partners.

Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Clark. We have Counselor Zsiga. Yeah, thanks. Um to me, this is much much more straightforward. This is really basic information that any business should know if they're going to be successful in building a new business in Eugene or any place in the country, basically. We're not asking them to be experts about the permitting process or even get any permits. It's just that they know what they're supposed to be doing and or should know what they're supposed to be doing. They're not required to apply for a permit, they're not required to have a permit, they just have to attest that they know that they're supposed to get a permit. And by the way, if you don't get a permit from an an agency, and it's required, you can't go forward with the project. So, if you don't know that way ahead of time, and this helps businesses know that way ahead of time, then they won't run into that problem. You still have to get the right permits to move forward in order to build a business. It's just kind of basic the way things get built in this country and and in Eugene. Thank you, Counselor Zsiga. And Counselor Kushinski, I'll give you a second round. Yes, thank you. Sometimes it helps me um with making sure I really understand what a process looks like if I do like a concrete example. And so, this example, I'm a martial arts studio, and I'm putting in upgraded lighting inside my facility. Um that's not something that would trigger any sort of regulatory permits. And so, I'm applying for a building permit for that at that improvement. In that case, what happened is I would fill out this form, I would say I would submit it with the rest of my paperwork for my building permit. I would say I don't need any of these permits. I know I don't need them, so I don't call LCC, I don't call DEQ, I just I

don't need them. I hand this to the planning staff. Planning staff verify that I filled out this form. They forward this form on to the regulatory agencies, and then they would go ahead and issue the permit based on the criteria in Eugene's code, regardless of what any of the regulatory agencies do or don't do with that information. Is that is my understanding what that process looks like correctly? That's a correct summation of the process, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor. And Counselor Graves. Thank you, Council President. Just real quick. Um my purpose of bringing up the story of speaking with the CEO from the new startup out of the UO site night scientific accelerator was the point he didn't know what all he needed to do. And again, he he's a scientist, not a business person. Um a martial arts studio, I mean, that's great if they know what permits they need and what permits they don't, but some of these startups don't have any idea of what they need. And there's not a single place they can go to find out all the answers. So, I think we need to be taking the extra step to be having this information available, and somebody to help them get through the process if this is what our expectation's going to be. Uh it shouldn't be met with this is your responsibility, uh good luck. I mean, it should be more than that. If we if we're truly interested in helping existing businesses survive and thrive, helping them grow, and helping new employers come into our area to employ our people. Our median income level is the lowest on our comparables, as well as our uh growing our economy. We need to do something about this, and part of that's not making things so onerous that they can't get through. And I disagree with the comment, well, they should know all this, because many of them don't. They know how to do their craft, they

don't know what all's required in the regulatory environment. They aren't all planners. So, whatever we can do, I'm I'm pretty sure this is going to pass. Uh I think we need to do something, but I also want to make sure we're doing whatever we can to help people be successful in our community. That's our responsibility, too. Thank you. Thank you. With no other counselors in the queue, um we will move on to our third public hearing of the night, um which is an ordinance amending the Fairmont University of Oregon special during a study text and diagram, amending chapter nine of the Eugene code, and rezoning property to remove the East EC East campus overlay zone. City Manager, would you please introduce this topic? Thank you, Council President. Uh this is a public hearing to consider a package of land use applications submitted by the University of Oregon for the East campus area, a refinement plan amendment, a code amendment, and a zone change application. This application, excuse me, this package of applications would amend the Fairmont / University of Oregon special area study, the Eugene land use code, and the zoning of properties in the East Campus area to align with recent updates to the East Campus area plan and the university's next generation housing development plan. Tonight's public hearing is the second city council public hearing for this package of applications. The second hearing was scheduled after the council passed a motion on March 9th, 2026 to reopen the record and hold another hearing on a modified ordinance. The council's motion was passed in response to the modifications to the proposal provided by the applicant to address concerns raised in public testimony. Tonight is a public hearing only and deliberations are scheduled for May 11th. Thank you, city manager. The city council's role in this process is to approve, approve with modifications, or

to deny the application. The decision-making process for this application is quasi-judicial, so we will use a quasi-judicial format for this public hearing. To start, do any councilors need to disclose any bias, conflicts of interest, ex parte communications, or abstentions pursuant to EC 9.7065? Seeing none. Uh before we proceed, I want to state that anyone Oh, sorry. That's if they are announced. Have staff received any challenges to a councilor's impartiality submitted pursuant to uh Eugene Code Section 9.7065.5? No. Testimony presented at this public hearing should be directed toward the applicable approval criteria or other criteria that the speaker believes apply to the decision. The applicable approval criteria for this proposed refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change are located in the Eugene Code Sections 9.8424, 9.8065, and 9.8865 respectively. The full text of those code sections are available in the findings attached to the AIS for this public hearing. The failure of anyone to raise an issue accompanied with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the city council and parties an opportunity to respond will preclude appeals on that issue. For quasi-judicial proceedings, once public hearing has opened, the applicant will present first and may speak for up to 10 minutes because the applicant bears the burden of showing that the proposal complies with the applicable approval criteria. Then other speakers will each be allowed 2 1/2 minutes and will be called in the following order. Those in support of the proposal, those with a neutral position, and those opposed to the proposal. After this, the applicant will be allowed up to 5 minutes for a final rebuttal.

We ask that each speaker begin their testimony by confirming whether they are in support of, neutral to, or opposed to this refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change request. If you would like to receive future notice proceedings related to these applications, please provide your name and mailing address along with your testimony, or provide your name and mailing address to the staff contact identified at identified in the agenda item summary for this public hearing. I will now open the public hearing. Applicant's representatives have a total of 10 minutes to speak on behalf of the applicant. I will leave it to you to decide the time amongst yourselves. Thank you. Thank you, council and staff. I'm Colin McArthur with Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture and Planning. I'm joined by Aaron Olson, the assistant director of campus planning, and will provide the applicant's testimony. Um we appreciate the opportunity to highlight the importance of this proposal in this second public hearing. I'll start with some brief context. 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 2 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 ft to 85 ft, expand the residential transition area from 60 ft to 75 ft next

to R1 properties, and increase the height limit within that transition area from 30 to 45 ft. 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 are 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 ft 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 Unsoeld Hall and Unthank Hall. Shorter buildings significantly increase costs and make student housing harder to deliver. Within the residential transition area itself, the proposed 45-ft height limit is only slightly taller than what's allowed in R1 zones. And that provides a reasonable and gradual transition in scale. [clears throat]

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 a 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 it 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 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 council to move forward without further delay. Good evening, council. I'm Aaron Olson, 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 and 1/2 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-ft buildings in the backyard of single-family homes. Instead, it increasing 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 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 January 20th 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 is in addition to the TPR 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 our 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-ft 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. The large street, by contrast, has a right of way of roughly 100 ft wide and has a landscape median with street trees creating a larger physical buffer. Under Walnut Station zoning, a 90-ft tall building can be just 55 ft from 15th Avenue. The university's proposal would allow an 85-ft tall building about 145 to 175 ft from the west side of the large street, far more distance than the Walnut Station transition. These amendments are necessary to have the ability to more 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. Thank you. Thank you. Uh staff, do we have any interested parties asking to speak? Thank you, counselor. Yes, we do. Please share the list of speakers on the screen. We have 24 speakers signed up. Um I've split them into three sheets. Um support, neutral, oppose, since we're quasi-judicial, just for context there. Um If you have signed up to speak via Zoom, please take this time to ensure that your screen name in Zoom matches your last name and match and matches the name include your last name and matches the name you used to sign up to speak. If your screen name does not match, we cannot allow you to speak when it is your turn. I will announce two speakers' names at a time. When you are called to speak, please state your name and your ward or neighborhood, if known, before beginning your comments. If you are providing testimony via Zoom, when it is your turn, we will announce your name and allow you to speak.

When you are announced as the next speaker and you're physically in the room, please move to the seat in the front row designated for the next speaker. When it is your turn, you may come to the podium. Please leave any bags you may have with you at your seat. If you have documents to give council, please place them in the basket near the podium. You will have 2 and 1/2 minutes to speak. The timer will flash red when you have 15 seconds remaining to speak. Your microphone will be muted at the 2 and 1/2 minute mark. Please note that screen sharing or displaying information on the screen is not allowed, and any misuse of the platform or violation of the council's code of conduct will result in immediate termination of speaking privilege. Please note that use of profanity is not prohibited or is not permitted.

[clears throat]

The use of profanity is not permitted. Our first speakers are Michael Griffel, followed by Henry Shadwinkel. Hello, City Council. Thank you for having us and staff. 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 UO 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 university is stronger, the greater university community and university 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 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, and has 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. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Our next speakers are Henry Sha- Shadwinkel, followed by Jenny Ullom. Good evening, Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in favor of this proposal. Um 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 2 years, one of which I was a resident assistant during. During my experience as a resident assistant, I work 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 excuse excuse me, 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 um 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 systems the university offers for students. I encourage you or I should I would like to remind the council that um by supporting this measure, you will be increasing the total number of um of uh rental spaces across the entire uh city of Eugene, both supporting the students in the university, but also the broader university community. I would also like to remind the council that on the city of Eugene's website, um under the urgent community needs is the is the city's goal to um stabilize uh rent stabilize um 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. Thank you. Thank you, Henry. One reminder to our speakers tonight, please state your name, your your ward or neighborhood, if known, and even though I have separated it into three groups, please confirm whether you are in supportive, neutral to neutral to or opposed to this refinement plan amendment. Uh our next speakers are Jenny Ullom, followed by Bob Choquette. I better not mess this up after just getting that those instructions. Jenny Ullom, I'm in Ward 3, uh and I'm in support of the uh proposal before you. I actually live three blocks from the University of Oregon at um 21st and and University, and so I'm very familiar with the um 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 of 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, you know, 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. We don't have those in the rentals that are in our neighborhood. And so it it is I think a step up for the the academic achievement for the neighborhood but also it's it's uh it helps the university succeed in a very competitive environment for students right now. One of the knocks, you know, 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 you know modern standards residence halls. Now we've been chipping away at that and we have some good dorms that have come online but this is as you you look at the demographic cliff if you're familiar with that in higher education fewer 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. Thank you Jenny. Our next speakers are Bob Choquette followed by Jacob Fox. Council members, 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 am 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. 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. The proposed 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. The proposed 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. Thank you Bob. Our next speakers are Jacob Fox followed by Taliek Lopes Dubose. Uh council members uh my name is Jacob Fox. I'm the executive director of Homes for Good and I'm speaking in support of this application today. Uh 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 um 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. The bottom line is that we have a very unhealthy housing market and I

think we all have a a responsibility to create pathways to increase housing production in our community. Just a few statistics um rental prices have gone up 40 over 40% in the last 5 years. The price of a home has gone up 88% in that same time period. Uh 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. Uh so basically as a community we have to decrease regulations um 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. Thank you Jacob. Our next speakers are Taliek Lopes Dubose followed by David Mitrovic and Morgan. Good evening counselors and staff. I'm originally from Beaverton, Oregon but I live in Ward 1. My name is Taliek Lopes Dubose. 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 helped 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 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 UO community. For those reasons on behalf of the students that I represent I am I 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. Thank you for your consideration and your time. Thank you Taliek. Our next speakers are David Morgan followed by Peter Craycroft. Hi members of the council. My name is David Mitrovic and Morgan. I'm a resident of Ward 3 as well as 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 like 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 surrounding streets. And so far that has been the case today. While it's neither wrong to care about those things and nor is it wrong for them to be presented the proceedings today do not ask you to weigh 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 against codified criteria, statewide planning goals, the city's comprehensive plan, and area specific plans. The Eugene Planning Commission voted four to zero to advance the proposal and in the words of Chair Jason Lear said that quote it did appear to meet the approval criteria as articulated by staff.

[snorts]

Before that there were 2 years of planning, an open house in March and September of 2024, a campus planning committee public hearing in October 2024 and even the 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 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. Thank you, David. Our next two speakers are Peter Craycroft, followed by Tiffany Edwards. Okay, so I wasn't actually expecting to be Greetings. Um I wasn't expecting to be here quite so soon, but I think I can I can deal with it. So, my I live on 19th and I took a neutral position here because I'm on the border. Um I have 65 years here being part of the university as a student, um as a teacher, uh in the design department, as a board member, um 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. Um I'm glad to see the density that exists in the dormitories that are on the campus now. Um but I'm very concerned about the Maginot Line.

Um and I I say that with a lot of experience in dealing with the increased densification of my neighborhood. Um 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 kind of defined and there were these rules. And then you would see um in my neighborhood particularly that the the idea of um grand grand grandmother's cottages, grandfather's cottages um was accepted and then it was kind of expanding and there were these kind of agreements. Um 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. The university is kind of in the background to all of that, pressuring but never talking. The city

Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Peter. Your time is concluded. Yeah, well, so quickly here. Peter, your time is concluded. Your time is concluded. What needs to happen is the university needs to do drawings. I I've been in Peter, I'm so sorry. Your time is concluded. Okay, needs to be visual Peter, you may You may submit written testimony online. Thank you. Our next speakers are Tiffany Edwards, followed by David Wade. Okay, thank you. Our next speakers are and I will share the final list. [snorts]

David Wade, followed by John Borowski. And here's this list of the last speakers for the evening. Ready. 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. The staff The staff missed all the stuff the university withdrew after the neighbors complained. 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 Fairmont neighbors. I should say that I live at 1673 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. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. Our next speakers are John Borowski, followed by Mary Jacqua. Good evening. John Borowski, Ward 3 in opposition. City Council Mayor

[gasps]

Um I'm here to testify on the plan amendment before you tonight. As a former planning commissioner, I'm aware of the complexity of the decision before you. It's very challenging as a decision-maker to be able to understand all of the nuances of the criteria that you're being challenged that are being asked to digest, excuse me. Even more so because of the fact that this is quasi-judicial. So, getting input from interested parties is limited. Neighbors have articulated several criteria that are questionable. Remember, it is the applicant's job to meet the approval criteria. 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 do 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 and your concerns are valid and and I 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. Thank you. Thank you, John. Our next speakers are Mary Jacqua, followed by Carol Isaacson. Councilor President and Councilors My name is Mary Jacqua and I've lived in Ward 3 in the Fairmont neighborhood at 1755 Orchard Street since 1989. I oppose this refinement plan amendment. I believe that um further review and neighborhood engagement can lead to better outcome ultimately for everyone involved. I'm here in support of the um my neighbors and the Fairmont Neighborhood Association. Thank you for your consideration as you review the testimony that we are submitting to you tonight and the testimony that you already have on record. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Our next speakers are Carol Isaacson, followed by Susan Makucson. I'm Carol Isaacson, uh Ward 3. Uh been a homeowner at in Fairmont neighborhood for about 30 years now. I'm in a UO graduate and I support the university, but I am opposed to changes that they have proposed. I was at the meetings when the university came and attended and assured us neighbors that the height building height would be no more than three and a half stories

high. Um there were open houses, but all that uh transparency went away when the changes to doubling the height structure and removing um setbacks, uh all that disappeared once those changes were um forwarded. I disagree with the uh university's uh decision that this is uh good for students. Um it is uh proximity to campus that ensures good grades, not necessarily living on campus. There are other studies that show that as well. Um the other thing is um the university is the demographic cliff is fast approaching. There are 4,000 uh 4,600 students there uh that are freshmen. They have with current estimates, they have over 5,000 units currently.

[laughter]

So, this impending housing crisis for the students with the reduction, Oregon is going to reduce by 19% uh 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 uh Eugene. Student housing and affordable housing are two different things. The reasons people students go looking for uh housing outside of the university because the price of the housing residential halls are is ridiculous. Thank you, Carol. Our next speakers are Susan MacCaslin followed by Arthur Farley. I'm Susan MacCaslin and I am adamantly opposed to this. Um this is about money. It's about the building industry building tax-free. It's not about students. The uni except for the fact that the university makes boo-boo bucks housing students. It's about money. It's about the university trying to make money. 18-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. Um and this if you pass this you're 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. We 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. Thank you, Susan. Our next speakers are Arthur Farley followed by Suzy Smith. Hi, good evening. My name's Art Farley. I live at 1667 Fairmont Boulevard in the Fairmont neighborhood. And uh I think it's fairly obvious that a seven-story dormitory 75 ft 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 to more focus on the other issue kind of been brought up now, which is uh this claim of there's an immediate need for additional student housing both now and in the future. I look 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 built on campus and there's another one in the area built. Uh recently, the president of the university sent to the faculty a letter that says in including, quote,

"Competition for prospective students, especially non-resident students is fiercer than it has ever been as universities across the country try to offset losses in uh international enrollment, uncertain state appropriations, rising costs due to geopolitical tensions, and cuts in research funding. And as has recently been mentioned, the expected decline in in graduates from high schools over the next decade or so." So, I don't So, I would ask you to uh deny the current proposal as is stated and I think we have time to work this out. I would actually to reject it and send it back to the university and the planning uh 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 in near campus and and that city 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 were and we also worked with the arena uh to to get that approved and and worked with the university to work that out. The university would come to the to the neighborhood, we can look at some alternatives. How could they maybe re realize the same density with a a different approach to this rather than this 75 or 80, you know, percent 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 got to get this dorm up next year. Thank you, Arthur. Our next speakers are Suzy Smith followed by George McColley. Evening, Mayor and Council. Uh my name is Suzy Smith. I live at 1659 Orchard in Ward 3 since 1988. I'm a member of the Fairmont 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 pri- 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 uh was asked to talk about this because um so, I have a master's degree in region urban and regional planner from the University of Oregon and I had a 23-year career at the City of Springfield, nine of which was as a land use planner and the planning supervisor, during which time I wrote refinement plans, processed refinement plan and code amendments, wrote findings, etc., etc., etc. Um retiring as public works director, I dealt with land use issues all the time. So, I'm qualified to do this evaluation of work. But we also consulted with currently practicing Eugene land use planning professional 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 our arguments are our claims valid because we actually support the UO in their housing objectives. Um 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 defensible argument on numerous of them. So, we really hope you will read uh our two new pieces of testimony. Thank you, Suzy. Our next speakers are George McColley followed by Susan Jackabowski. Good evening, counselors. My name is George McColley and I resided in the Fairmont neighborhood first at 1638 Orchard Street and currently at 2081 Fairmont Boulevard, 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 McColley 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 track traffic movement and parking issues. Businesses that previously 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 the 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 requests. However, the plan before you allows them to build a significantly more imposing 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 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 design Thank you, George. Our next speakers are Susan Jackobowski followed by Jeff Philpott. Evening. My name is Sue Jacobowski Susan Jacobowski and I live at 2018 Orchard Street. I am opposed to the proposal before you tonight and here to support the Fairmount neighbors testimony as submitted this evening. I live in a 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 hit a home run while I plant my dahlias and I love hearing the marching band practice when I pick them in the fall. We definitely need more housing. Our our home neighborhood agrees with that obviously.

It's 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 plans. 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 of 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. Thank you, Susan. Our next speakers are Jeff Philpott followed by Hillary Kayable Good evening, counselors and mayor and staff. Thank you all. My name is Jeff Philpott. I live in the Fairmount neighborhood and I currently serve as a co-chair of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and I'm speaking in opposition of this proposal tonight. Fairmount residents have long supported the university's growth including high density student housing on East Campus.

Many of us 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 Fairmount residents are here in support of the testimony. I'd like to ask those neighbors to stand up briefly. There's 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 proposing 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 for impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. These changes will 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 has spent hundreds of hours reviewing this proposal. Our findings show that it does not 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. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speakers are Hillary Kayable followed by Tom Evanview. Hiya. And my name is Hillary Kayable. Just for the pronunciation. Okay. And Steve my husband Steve and I have raised our children at 1818 Villard Street where we've lived for over 40 years. We love the UO students and we support the university. But about every decade it seems we have to fight to get new planners to work with us. 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 neighbors support for us and their love of the neighborhood. And we're grateful that you might hear and and we're grateful that you might hear and understand our reasonable concerns. We're also glad that the UO 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 up homes here for 40 years as if that means destruction of our neighborhood was inevitable and we should have gotten out of the way. But when the UO 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 UO tried to update the plan the city made them work with the neighbors. That deal allowed much taller denser development to support the UO

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. The long-term damage Oops, sorry. The long-term damage is hard to see and can poss- impossible to reverse. Only those who are there for a long time can see the gradual decline. None of today's UO plan- planners, city staff, or planning commissioners were here 40 or even 20 years ago. We were. We may not survive the harm

Thank you, Hillary. Our next speakers are Tom Evanview followed by Nathan Markowitz. Good evening, Council. My name is Tom Evonview, Ward 3, and I am opposed against the application. As a 30-year homeowner of Fairmont, I've seen a plethora of changes in our historical neighborhood. Our neighborhood has experienced firsthand an increase crime, traffic, noise disturbances, littering, property neglect, fam- 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 approach is 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 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 cited on the main campus and not on the periphery in our neighborhoods. On campuses are numerous the university campus has numerous open spaces, parking lots, or inappropriate 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 ft to a maximum 85 ft. 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. Thank you, Tom. Our next speakers are Nathan Markowitz, followed by Steve Gabb. Councilors, thanks again for your time and service, and also for letting us all speak. I know this is a long meeting. I'm a 30-year resident of Fairmont 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 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 Fairmont 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 council 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. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nathan. Our next and final speaker is Steve Gabb. My name is Steve Gabb, and I'm live at 1818 Villard Street. 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 UO can already build up to four stories in the buffer zone. And they can build 85-ft 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 UO administrators who

stepped in to try to help, but it's still a mess. Legal precedent was ignored. Type 5 was used in 2003 and should have been again. To get here, history was misconstrued to say that you must accept UO 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 ft 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 an It's 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 Fairmont 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 negative impacts, I'll withdraw my oppose opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Council President, that was our final speaker. Thank you, Chairish. At this time, applicant may provide actually 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Um thank you, Council. There was um pieces of additional information that were submitted late this afternoon. Um we've had some opportunity to review it, so we'll take this time to first address maybe some misconceptions and and that information. Um nothing in the proposal affects allowed development on R1 land zone. Um there's no impact on on R1 zoning. Um There's an assertion that there's no meaningful residential transition. Um however, the our our height proposal of 45 ft is um very consistent with what's allowed in R1 and um especially in consideration of the 20% increase in height allowed by Senate Bill 1537. And then um there would continue to be continues to be a request for additional land use processes to be applied to the proposal. Um this request is contrary to the state needed housing law, and um staff has addressed this in their one uh January 2026 memo uh in response to a question from Councilor Kisfalusi. Um I want to briefly address the process Oh, one other thing. Um the university is not building 80 a wall of 85-ft buildings. That is un- untrue. If you can envision the scale of Essig or Unthank Hall or even um Kalapuya, um that is what that is what they're planning. Um I want to briefly address the process and where we are today. The applicant was submitted back in March 2025, so it's now been under under review for more than a year. There have been three public hearings on the proposal. For the first hearing, the record was open for nearly 2 months. For the second hearing, it was open for more than a month. Leading up to this

third hearing, the record has now been open another month and a half. Uh all together, the record has been open for more than 4 months or 120 days, which is in excess of the city's statutory requirements to make a decision on a land use application. Um the applicant did submit some procedural objections on March 9th, identifying some concerns about the process. Those objections are part of the record and have been preserved for consideration. Um the heart of the debate appears to be whether or not the proposal meets the approval criteria. Um at this point, the application has been thoroughly reviewed and vetted. City staff have recommended approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The city has drafted a proposed ordinance with legislative findings supporting approval. Um we've heard some assertions that somehow those people made mistakes or or mis- mis- things. Um I have heard council speak to the integrity of service of planning commissioners and of staff and of their legal counsel, and we don't believe that to be true. Um we believe that they have thoroughly vetted the proposal and it does meet the approval criteria. Again, Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve it. So, given the extensive review, the multiple hearings, the length of time the record has already been open, we do not see any justification for keeping the record open any longer or for further delaying a decision. So, we respectfully request that the council close the record and move forward with deliberations and action. Thank you. Is there a staff response?

Good evening again, Jeff Goper, principal planner. Um at this time, there's no formal staff response, but we're happy to answer any questions you may have for us. Are there any questions that counselors wish to ask? Counselor Zelenka? Yeah, thank you. Very impressive uh testimony tonight, very professional. Um I've been doing this for 20 years and I have never seen an application like this where it was so fundamentally flawed that they had to redo it and submit it so substantially that it revisions that uh that they had to that we had to require another public hearing. Um I've read a lot of the record. Um while you have removed many of the parts that were problematic for the neighbors and that were inconsistent with the approval criteria, uh doesn't appear that they've removed all of the inconsistent aspects. Um just to be clear, this isn't about student housing, um but about the impacts on the Fairmont neighborhood. That hasn't changed. My understanding is the number of students hasn't has hasn't changed. It's been relatively flat. There's not a lot more new students. Maybe staff can bring that back to us about the data on that. Um the burden of proof is indeed on the on the applicant to show that they're consistent with the approval criteria. And um and staff's supposed to do the analysis to to show that it is or is not. I was pretty disappointed in the lack of critical thinking and analysis in that regard. Um I agree that these refinement plans need to periodically be re- reviewed and updated, but not completely changed and take out many of the important aspects of it. Um I'm interested in why uh the analysis that uh and of mitigation that was

required in the East Campus refinement plan is not done by staff. I'm also uh interested in uh the existing uh East Campus overlay zone which puts that refinement plan into ordinance, uh includes appropriate zoning policies as the metro plan says it's supposed to. And and to maintain this quote, "To maintain the stability and quality of older historic neighborhoods." I'm wondering what happened to that and why that wasn't addressed. Um the Fairmont neighbors submitted some testimony over the last couple of days. They didn't find just one thing inconsistent, not two things inconsistent, but six things that were inconsistent with the approval criteria. Um [snorts] and in particular, the elimination of that transitional buffer zone of housing is what that's at point here. Um it goes from 45 ft. Now, this would allow 85 ft, pretty darn close to people's houses. You saw the model. It's in our it's in our um it's in our it's in our offices. Go look at it uh if you haven't seen it. Um the the uh UO contends that there are no impacts beyond their property line. Yeah, I need you to wrap up, please. Thank you. Thank you. Um is that a question that would be addressed to staff? Would you like staff to answer? Uh not this time. Thank you. Thank you. I have the city clerk um in the queue. Yeah, I have Counselor Evans. Fantastic. Can you hear me now? Hello? Yes, we can hear you, Counselor. Okay. I I wasn't sure. Um earlier in the testimony, um it's

been brought up by a couple of people who testified that um they felt that they needed a little bit more time uh to be able to iron out some of the conflicts that they have uh with the university plan. Um one I want to know uh uh besides what Alan just mentioned, are there other stumbling blocks to making this happen that uh would require us or not necessarily require us if we if we decided to do it, we can do it or not do it, um that would push us out another couple of months in terms of uh ultimate approval of this proposal or denial of the proposal if um we if if if the neighborhood and the university can't work through uh those sticking points. Uh good evening, uh Counselor Evans. Um if you could repeat the question, um that way I could answer it a little more succinctly. Yeah, let let me let me kind of shorten this up. Uh there have been uh several uh people who testified tonight that um they felt that if we uh were to we, I mean the city, were to continue uh conversations and negotiations, that there could be a reasonable resolution to this uh that would minimize the acrimony that's uh been raised in this in this part of the testimony. Thank you for that clarification, Counselor. Um this is this is an interesting process and we talked about this a little bit at our our March 9th meeting, but um we're

in a situation where we have an unlike our typical land use processes or land use code amendment that we bring you, um where you're directing staff to go do work or to go rehash kind of the stuff that's been put in place. We have an application provided by us by by a private party. I mean, in this case, it's the University of Oregon, but um they're still a private party and they've submitted an application to us. So, uh unlike in other circumstances where you can kind of tell us to go back to the drawing board um or to go work with the neighborhood, that's not what we see as our the role that we have here. Our role is to evaluate the um and by our, I mean that the city staff's role here isn't to uh make the applicant collaborate with the neighborhood, but rather evaluate the proposal before us and see if it meets the merits of the approval criteria. And so, I hope that helps answer the question a little bit. Yeah, it does to some degree, but if I have others, I'll I'll get back to you. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Evans. Counselor Zelenka? Yeah, thank you. Um I have several other questions for staff. Um I'm wondering why there are not measures to address the parking and traffic impacts, even though they'll be adding an enormous amount of uh of students into this area. I am uh the UO contends that there are no impacts beyond their their property line. Um and uh it's that is the primary contention here that there are impacts. Um so, I'm wondering why aren't there impacts moderated, and that's what the um the Fairmont neighborhood is objecting to. Um there are things like uh step back height limits. We did this in particular

at the Joe Romania lot. That is uh where there's a step back of heights. We did it on 19th Avenue where there's a step up of heights uh around south of University. Um and there's things like landscape setbacks. There's no inclusion of that. There's no uh traffic and parking plans. I'm wondering why those aren't addressed. Uh the Council's job is to balance the UO's development interest with the with in increasing the stability and quality of older neighborhoods like the Fairmont neighborhood. So, [snorts] we should not be a rubber stamp here. Um we uh are very likely headed to a legal appeal and let with delays and rancor and divisiveness. Um if we find that this proposal does not meet the approval criteria by denying the application, it gets sent back, it's reworked, the issues need to be resolved, and the inconsistencies uh that were raised by the the Fairmont neighbors uh could be addressed. So, um I don't think we want to send as a council the message that we that the neighborhoods can't work with large institutions and can't work with City Hall, and that neighborhoods' opinions don't matter. I think uh that we need to address those and take those very seriously. Thank you, Counselor. Next is Counselor Groves. Thank you, Council President. Um Counselor Solinka brought up a a point that I'm interested in knowing the answer to um regarding vehicle use by students living in dorms on campus. Do we have any uh data on that by what the percentage of the students who live in on-campus housing is? Is that something if city staff don't have this, UO have? I'm just thinking back to my own time. When I lived on campus, I didn't have a

a car, I had a bike. Um it wasn't till I was um well, off campus before I had a vehicle with me here. Thank you. Good evening, Council. I'm Bree Black, Associate Planner on the Land Use Planning Team. Um I would want to look closer at the record to see what data we have to respond to that particular question, but um I will note the applicable approval criteria don't directly address traffic impacts or mitigation outside of the requirement to address statewide planning goals. One of those is statewide planning goal 12, which essentially requires the applicant to submit a transportation planning rule analysis or TPR analysis, which they did. Um and that TPR analysis concluded that the proposed movements will not result into an insignificant effect on the transportation system. Um and then during the process of reviewing materials submitted during the open record periods, we did confirm with our public works staff as well that they had reviewed the TPR analysis as well as the testimony and argument related to it, and based on all of our uh review of these materials, staff maintain our initial finding that the applicant's TPR analysis was conducted consistently with accepted TPR methodology. Well, I appreciate that, and I'm sure it was done accurately. I just was curious what the number is. We can definitely look into that and get back to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor. Um if there's no other comments, um I will now close the public hearing. And at this point, um City Council gets to decide whether um we close the record, um keep it open for 7 days for the applicant to submit final arguments, um or keep it open for an additional uh three 7-day periods in which we will um be able to continue to uh receive testimony. I will turn it to staff. Just thought I'd I'd help you out a little bit on this. The applicant did not assertively waive its statutory right to seven final days for argument. Argument only, so no new evidence. So, that definitely needs to be part of your plan. Um your options are to close the record to everyone else, leave the record open for just those 7 days for argument from the applicant, or you can choose to leave the record open for others to submit evidence or argument. Um and you have options around those, I think, provided uh and at least the Council President to work from. So, option A is off the table. Thank you. Um I would like to I see um Counselor Evans, I'd like to um speak first to that um as Council President. Um I've seen and heard a lot of testimony today um directly um speaking to approval criteria. Um I would like to pursue the option to keep this open for three 7-day periods. Um I'm open to having discussion from the City Council, and um I do see Counselor Evans' um hand. Um I don't see it now, but Counselor Evans. President Leach, may I I There was one more thing I wanted to say. If you choose to leave the record open for 21 more days as

you're proposing, we will need to postpone action um probably until June 10th. Right now, it's scheduled for deliberations and potential action on the 11th of May, and if you made a motion and it passed to allow set three more 7-day periods, the end of record would be at 5:00 p.m. on that day, which wouldn't give staff sufficient time to package things for you. Okay. Um thank you for that clarification. I was under the assumption that our options would have been different than that. Um okay. I will take it to Counselor Chris. You called on me to talk. Uh Council President. I see your hand. Um if that is not the case, then I will move to Counselor Chris. Yeah. No, my hand was up. Thank you. Uh yes, thank you. I know um for lots of different types of land use applications, there are statutory or other requirements about how long we have to make decisions. Um can you help me know what those are for this particular type of land use decision? Yeah, it it's nuanced because this is not the initial public hearing for this one. Um if this after at the initial public hearing, if someone asks that the record be left open, you need to allow it. You've already done that. You did that the last time. Now that we're at we we've already left the record open, there's no statutory or code obligation to leave it open any any further beyond the first those 7 days. Um your question was more specifically

Uh I know that for certain types of land use applications, there's a sort of a deadline for when you have to make a decision. The in this particular one, the only deadline is that once you close the record, um if the record remains closed from the date of closure, the Council has 30 days within which to make a decision. Once the record has been closed, so if you leave it open for seven more days, it would be 37 days from tonight that a decision must be made, 30 days after the record is closed. Thank you. Counselor Solinka. Yeah, um I think the applicant asked to close the record. I don't think anybody asked to keep the record open. There are already hundreds of pages, I've looked at them all, uh of this array. Um this doesn't preclude us to ask questions of staff if the record's closed, correct? That's right, but staff's answers will be limited to what's already in the record. Um and I will say I chatted with staff with planning staff before we came in, and staff's recommendation is that you close the record um that there is sufficient evidence in the record to respond to pretty much any questions that relate to the criterion that we could think of. So, closing the record would mean allowing just seven more days for the applicant. And so that, what's the calendar look like? We have it scheduled for May 11th. Is that still Yes. That would So, that would work. So, we we could we could close the record, applicant would have seven more days, and then that's it, and then we would have 30 days after that to make a

decision, and the May 11th date actually fits within that calendar. Yes. That would be my preference. There's way more than enough info here. [laughter]

Thank you. Counselor Evans, um I do see your hand. Yeah. Thank you. Well, thanks, Council President. Um one question I asked a while back about this that I've never really got a clear answer to, and that is, how many students are we looking to accommodate uh with this building? Are we looking at 5,000? Are we looking at 10,000? Exactly how many students are are is the university looking to add? Uh thanks for the question, Counselor Evans. Uh staff would be happy to uh look through the record materials and see if uh that exact number is provided within those materials. It it would be it would be helpful if we knew uh the number of students that would be accommodated by uh this type of development. Absolutely, we'll do our best to answer

the neighborhood is looking forward to. Absolutely, we'll do our best to provide that information to you prior to um any further uh the next at action. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor Evans. Um City Attorney, do we need to have a vote on this, or I feel like I'm getting um a general consensus among my I I think that it would be a good idea. So, I think that it would be a matter of if you were looking for a motion based on what counselor Zelenko was proposing, it would be a motion using the terms that I provided you with option B. Yes, so move to Oh, true. It would be a motion It would be a motion um that the record remain open for 7 days until 5:00 p.m. on April 27th for only the applicant to submit final arguments and no new evidence. So moved. Second. All in favor? Lock in on your device. Okay, seeing all eight votes coming in affirmative, motion passes 8-0. And as a reminder, deliberations and possible action are scheduled

uh counselor Yeah, my vote was a yes. I didn't see it pop up there. We got it, counselor Okay, thank you so much. Uh deliberations and possible action are scheduled for May 11th, 2026. Thank you. This concludes our agenda for today, and I now close the April 20th, 2026 public hearing. We are adjourned.

[music]