Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and welcome to the October 21st, 2025 planning commission meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. My name is Jason Leer and I'm chair of the Eugene Planning Commission. To begin this evening, I'd like to call on Commissioner Bon for the city's land acknowledgement statement. Since time immemorial, the Calapoui people have been the indigenous stewards to our region, building dynamic communities, maintaining balance of wildlife, and enacting sustainable land practices. This land acknowledgement is a way of resisting the eraser of indigenous histories and to honor native communities by inviting truth and reconciliation. Following treaties between 1851 and 1855, Calapouya people were dispossessed of their indigenous homeland by the United States government, forcibly removed to the coast reservation in western Oregon. As we consider the impacts of colonization, we also acknowledge the strength and resiliency of displaced indigenous people. The city of Eugene is built within the traditional homelands known as the Calapouya Ilhi. Calapouya descendants are citizens of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Community of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Seleletes Indians of Oregon that continue to make contributions in our communities here and across the lands. We express our respect for the inherent political sovereignty of all federally recognized tribal nations and indigenous people who live in the state of Oregon and across the nation. Therefore, the planning commission recognizes what we do today will affect the many generations who will come after us.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Bon, and thanks to everyone for joining us in this virtual meeting format. Tonight, we're holding a public hearing on a set of concurrent applications, including a refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change for the east campus area of the University of Oregon. The university is requesting these changes to align the Fairmont/UN University of Oregon special area study, the land use code, and zoning with the university's next generation housing development plan and recent East Campus area plan updates. Given that this is the only agenda item tonight, we anticipate moving on to deliberations and may potentially make a recommendation this evening after the hearing. Anyone wishing to access and participate in the public hearing can do so by following the access instructions listed on the agenda for this meeting. Planning commission meetings can also be viewed by watching the live stream available on our website or the broadcast on Comcast channel 21. If you wish to speak and provide testimony tonight, please know that we will begin the testimony portion of tonight's meeting after a brief presentation from staff. When we reach that point, the staff will provide instructions about the virtual hearing format and how to participate. Before we start, I want to let you know a bit about the planning commission and our role in the process. First, we're unpaid volunteers appointed by the Eugene City Council, who all live and work in Eugene like many of you. For this set of applications, we are not the decision makers. Rather, we will review the proposal, testimony, and other relevant materials and make a recommendation to the city council. The city council will hold their own public hearing before making the final decision on the proposal. We're at large members, which means we have to consider the needs of the community as a whole, as well as the needs of all groups and neighborhoods. We're also human beings, which means each one of us has personal views that make us who we are. But as planning commissioners, we're committed to balancing all of our needs as a community and to making the best recommendations we possibly can based on our policies and our laws for us and for future generations. That can be pretty

tough to do and we know not everyone will agree with every recommendation we make. So, as we proceed this evening, we want you to know upfront that we are listening, that we care deeply about you and our community. We recognize how important these changes are and encourage everyone speaking tonight to do so in a respectful and productive way. That said, given the topic of tonight's hearing, some of the terms we have to use are legalistic. So, I'll try to explain the requirements in plain language the best that I can. Since this is a hearing for a sightsp specific refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change, there are unique procedures which we are legally required to follow. The decision-making process for this application is considered quasi judicial. So, we will use a quasi judicial format for this public hearing. Before we begin, the Eugene code also requires the planning commissioners disclose any conflicts of interest, exparte contexts, biases, or abstensions. In a quasi judicial proceeding, the parties are entitled to an impartial or neutral decision maker. To ensure this fair consideration, the Eugene code and the planning commission's rules attempt to limit exarty contacts or communications between a party and the decision maker outside of the public hearing process. Each planning commissioner must disclose and describe the substance of any communication they have had about this application outside of the public process. The planning commissioners must also disclose any conflicts of interest. That is whether the decision they are about to make could or would result in a personal financial gain or loss for themselves, their relatives or business with which the commissioner or the commissioner's relative is associated. Finally, a planning commissioner cannot participate if they are biased. That is for whatever reason they are incapable of making an objective decision on these applications. Do any commissioners have anything to disclose? Nothing from the planning commission. Does anyone in the audience or a member of the commission wish to challenge the impartiality of any of the planning commissioners? We'll give a second for

any hands to go up if there's anyone in the audience. It looks like we do have someone. Oh, and they have lowered their hand. And just a reminder, we'll take a hands up for testimony a little bit later in this process. So, give it one more second. It doesn't look like anyone has their hand up. So, I'd like to invite our moderator, Crystal, to provide some information for tonight's hearing.

Thank you, Chair Lear. Uh, so hello everyone. I'm Crystal Fischer. I will be your moderator for tonight's meeting. I'm going to cover a few items before we begin with regular proceedings. Uh, first, I just want to thank everyone for joining us in this virtual hearing and note that tonight's hearing is being recorded. Uh, since we're meeting virtually and this is a quasi judicial hearing, I will provide specific instructions on how to request to speak before we begin the public testimony section after the staff's brief presentation on tonight's topic. With that, it's great to have everyone here and I will hand it back to the chair.

Thank you, Crystal. Uh, as she said, we'll begin with a brief presentation from Bri Black and then move on to the to open um the public hearing. And I don't know if I got your first name pronounced correctly. Would you want to correct me there? Ray, thank you. Sorry. I apologize for that. No worries. Thanks, Bray. Gone. Right. So, I will share my screen now. And is that showing up for everybody? Cool. You're good.

Awesome. Thank you. So, hi, my name is Bray Black, associate planner with the city of Eugene. And showing this slide as a reminder of the order of procedure for our public hearing today. So, I'll be presenting for the staff presentation portion. And after that, the planning commission will open the public hearing. Members of the community will have a chance to provide testimony following testimony from the applicant. So without further ado, today we'll be discussing a package of applications proposed by the University of Oregon, which include a refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change that will apply generally to the east campus area. First, I want to go over a bit of background uh to explain how we got to where we are now. Back in 1982, the Eugene City Council adopted the Fairmont University of Oregon special area study, which is the applicable adopted refinement plan for the subject area. This refinement plan provides policy direction related to land use, transportation, and parking to guide development within the eastern portion of the University of Oregon campus and the adjacent portion of the Fairmont neighborhood. In 2004, the Gene City Council adopted ordinance number 20312, which is one of the amending ordinances for this for the refinement plan text and land use diagram. This ordinance established the East Campus Overlay Zone and codified requirements to govern development within that overlay. Almost 20 years later in 2023, the university began the process of updating its internal development policies to allow for more learning centered residential communities in the east campus area. Then in 20 in 2024, the university completed its next generation housing development plan, which is a long-range plan for onampus housing and infrastructure. Subsequently, the University of Oregon adopted the 2024 east campus area plan to replace the 2003 development policy and allow for the implementation of the next generation housing development plan. The 2024 East Campus area plan updated the university's policies to accommodate current and projected needs for student housing and institutional uses while maintaining the compatibility of the University of Oregon campus with the surrounding neighborhood. That brings us to today. The amendments that we're discussing today have been requested in recognition of the age of the Fairmont University of Oregon special area study

and the changes in the needs of the university over time. While the east campus area has been developed thus far in accordance with the university's internal development policies, the refinement plan and the applicable requirements of the Eugene code, the university has identified that its current housing capacity is insufficient to serve the anticipated level of student population growth over the next 20 years. So, in general, the requested amendments are intended to align the Fairmont University of Oregon special area study, the land use code, and the property zoning with the university's next generation housing development plan and recent east campus area plan updates. At this point, I'd like to show a vicinity map to illustrate the areas and properties that will be affected by each proposed change. As you can see, the area that would be impacted by the proposed refinement plan amendment spans from just north of East 15th Avenue, south to East 19th Avenue, east of Agot Street, and west of Lard Street. A much smaller area shown in the red box there would be redesated in the refinement plans land use diagram from limited highdensity residential, limited institutional to simply institutional, which I'll provide more details about later. Within the redesignation area, nine properties are also subject to the proposed zone change, which would remove the east campus overlay from those properties. The proposed code amendment would affect the entire East Campus overlay zone, the current boundaries of which are shown in blue here. Before I move on, I'll note that my contact information will be provided at the end of this presentation for anyone who might need assistance interpreting this map or any of the maps included. And for reference, here is a map showing the zoning of the properties that'll be affected by the proposed amendments as well as the zoning of adjacent properties. The black dotted line there indicates the subject properties for the proposed amendments and zone change. So, as you can see here, all properties zoned with the east campus overlay have a base zoning of PL public land. The base zoning of the properties align with the metrop plan designation, which is government and education. Some of the subject properties north of East 15th Avenue are also zoned with the site review overlay zone which is not proposed to be removed through these

applications. I also want to point out that the light yellow area there um to the east and south that is the area that I'll I'll reference as the adjacent lowdensity residential area or adjacent neighborhood throughout the rest of this presentation. And you'll notice that most of the plzed land that directly abuts residentially zoned property is zoned with the east campus overlay. This is because the east campus overlay zone is intended to provide for a land use transition between the eastern portion of the University of Oregon campus and the adjacent lowdensity residential neighborhood. So next I will provide more information about each proposed application and to contextualize the following slides I want to acknowledge that the details of the three land use applications in front of us appear to be quite complex and that's mostly because of the intense requirements of these types of land use applications and their role as the processes through which these changes can be requested. So even given the apparent complexity of the materials in the record, the measurable outcomes of the proposed amendments and zone change are relatively straightforward. With that in mind, I will start by discussing the proposed zone change. So the zone changes requested to remove the east campus overlay from the nine properties shown here, which are located north of East 15th Avenue, just south of Matunite Arena. The total area of the subject properties is approximately 1.15 acres. As I mentioned before, the base owning of all the subject properties is PL public land. So to be clear, the applicant does not propose to change the base zoning or any other overlay zones that might affect the properties like the site review overlay zone. Nor is the applicant proposing to change the metrop plan designation of the properties. Another point I want to emphasize is that most of the properties that are zoned with the east campus overlay are not included in the zone change request. And as I'll discuss in a moment, the proposed amendments will change the way development is regulated within the overlay zone, but with the exception of these nine properties, the requirements of the east campus overlay will still apply. Next to discuss the outcomes of the proposed refinement plan amendment. The proposed refinement plan amendment includes changes to both the refinement plan text and its land use diagram. While many of the proposed text changes are intended to modernize the language of the refinement plan, the primary goal of the proposed refinement plan

amendment is to update refinement plan policy direction to align with the university's current goals for housing production and sighting of student housing. And for context, the land use diagram in the Fairmont University of Oregon special area study includes several land use designations, each of which designates a certain area for a specific type of development. One of these designations is limited highdensity residential limited institutional shorten to LHDR/I, which serves as a transition between higher inensity institutional uses associated with the university and the lowdensity residential areas located to the east and south. The proposed amendments are primarily focused on this limited highdensity residential limited institutional area the extent to which is shown on this map. So first to simplify references to the limited highdensity residential limited institutional designation the applicant proposes to change the designation name to limited institutional and for clarity I'll primarily use the proposed designation name for the rest of this presentation. The proposed ref plan amendment would also amend the provision in the land use diagram text that currently prohibits student dorm uses within the renamed limited institutional area to allow dormatory uses to be developed on land within that area. I'll note that other than student dormitories, the limited institutional designation does not specifically exclude any use types. The land diagram text lists planned uses within the limited institutional designations such as other types of university housing, offices, outdoor recreation uses, storage, parking, and open space, but does not limit development to these uses. Otherwise, the uses allowed within this designation generally align with the uses allowed in the base zone, public land. So, the proposed change to allow student dormitories would be the only change with regard to allowed uses. And the smaller area north of East 15th Avenue is the area that would be impacted by the proposal to redesate 11 subject properties from limited high density residential limited institutional to institutional on the refinement plans land use diagram. This change is intended to reflect existing and planned institutional uses on the subject properties which are uses associated with the functions of the university.

I also want to note that the red designation of nine out of the 11 lots is necessary for the concurrent zone change which requests removal of the east campus overlay. The zone change amendment are interdependent because the current boundaries of the east campus overlay match the boundaries of the limited institutional designation in the refinement plan. A request for a zone change is required to be consistent with the applicable refinement plan. So the proposal to redesate these properties to institutional necessitates that the east campus overlay is removed from the property zoning and vice versa. Now I'll move on to the proposed code amendment which would apply primarily to the sections of the Eugene code governing the east campus overlay zone. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this overlay zone is to provide for a land use transition between the eastern portion of the University of Oregon campus and the lowdensity residential neighborhood to the east and south. There are three main changes proposed through the code amendment application. One of those changes would remove the code provision that prohibits university and college dormitories within the east campus overlay zone. In other words, the proposed code amendment would allow residence halls within the east campus overlay. Similar to the refinement plan amendment, the change to allow dormitories within the east campus overlay is the only proposed change to allowed uses. So, currently the overlay zone allows most uses that are allowed in the public land base zone with the exception of uses that would generally be more impactful to surrounding properties such as large parking lots, hospitals, and arenas. The other key changes included in the proposed code amendment are to increase the allowed building height within the east campus overlay and to expand the residential transition area. For context, the purpose of the residential transition area is to provide a buffer between campus and adjacent residential property by limiting building height to be shorter than the rest of the east campus overlay. This allows for a graceful transition between campus and the residentially zoned areas to the east and south which are subject to a maximum building height of 30 ft with some exceptions. The residential transition area is currently measured 60 ft from any property zoned R1 lowdensity residential. To help mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed increase in building height allowance,

the residential transition area would be expanded to be measured 75 ft from property zone R1. The blue dotted line here represents the proposed new boundary of the residential transition area. So from 60 ft to 75 ft. Currently the maximum building height within the east campus overlay zone is 45 ft. The proposed code amendment would increase the allowed building height within that brighter red area there, which is the area outside of the residential transition area to 85 ft. And within the residential transition area, which is the pink area, building height is currently limited to 30 ft. The applicant proposes to increase the maximum building height within this area to 45 ft. So the proposed maximum height for buildings constructed within 75 ft of the R1 zone would be 45 ft. And the proposed maximum height for buildings more than 75 ft from the R1 zone is 85 ft. So based on the available information in the record for these applications and the materials and findings included as attachments to the agenda item summary provided for tonight's hearing, staff concludes that the requested refinement plan amendment, code amendment, and zone change appear to meet all applicable approval criteria. And with that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you commissioners for your consideration. And I'd also like to thank all the committee members who provided testimony and who are attending tonight's hearing. My contact information is listed here. As a reminder to those attending, I encourage you to contact me with any questions about this package of applications or for assistance interpreting the maps included.

All right. Thank you, Bray. Um before we begin and open the public hearing, I've got a few more details to share regarding our order of operations. We'll begin the public hearing with testimony from the applicant and then testimony will be received in the order that people have requested to speak. Following public testimony, city staff will have the opportunity to respond to the testimony provided and answer any questions that might come up. Finally, the applicant will be given the opportunity for a final rebuttal. I know commissioners have asked for more clarity on when it's appropriate to ask questions, and staff has suggested if you have questions about someone's testimony, you should ask those questions following that individual's testimony. So, just make sure you get your hand up. Following the conclusion of public testimony, staff will have a chance to respond to the public testimony presented and commissioners will have the opportunity to ask additional questions of staff. I remind everyone that the failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to allow the planning commission and parties to respond will preclude future appeals on that issue. In other words, please raise issues as clearly as you can so that the city and other parties can address them. Just as a reminder, the planning commission will not make a final decision on this application. We'll make a recommendation to the city council who will hold their own public hearing before making a final decision. As always, feel free to contact staff if there is testimony you were not able to provide in this hearing or testimony that you wish to provide to the planning commission in writing. Before we open the public hearing, Crystal has got some further instructions for us for providing testimony. Crystal.

Thank you, Chair Lear. Uh so, hi again everyone. It's now time to sign up to speak. If you wish to provide testimony tonight, you can get in the queue by raising your virtual hand. To do this, please click on the raise hand button uh on the menu. If you're joining from a computer or a smart device, if you're joining us on a phone, you must dial star 9. You can start raising your hands now as I continue to provide instructions. Traditionally, for these proceedings, once the public hearing is opened, speakers were called in the following order. First, those in support with the applicant speaking first. Second, those with a neutral position, and third, those opposed. However, due to limitations of the virtual hearing platform, we've had to make some adjustments. So, at the start of your testimony, please start by clearly stating your name, your address, and whether you're in support, in opposition, or neutral to the proposal. Consistent with planning commission standard practice, the applicant has um requested additional time for their testimony. For tonight's hearing, the applicant has requested 25 minutes for their testimony. I will announce whose turn it is to provide public testimony as well as announcing who is up next. When you are called to provide testimony, you'll be promoted to a Zoom panelist which will allow you to unmute and turn on your video if you so choose. Please do not mute or excuse me, unmute or turn on your video until it is your turn for public testimony. Once your public testimony is concluded, you'll be returned to the Zoom attendee status. Regular practice of the planning commission limits testimony to two or 3 minutes depending on number of speakers in the queue. I will notify you when you have 30 seconds remaining in your allotted time and when public testimony is concluded, you will be muted. So please be mindful of your time. If any technical difficulties are encountered, we will move on to the next person in the queue and try again after that person's comment. All that said, I will hand it back to the chair.

Thank you so much. Now I'd like to open the public hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the applications before us. I want to remind everyone that your testimony should be directed toward the approval criteria that you believe apply to these applications. We ask you to frame your testimony in terms of the applicable approval criteria because the Eugene code requires that our recommendations be based on these criteria. The applicable approval criteria for the proposed amendments and zone change are from Eugene code sections 9.8424, 9.8065, and 9.8. 8865. These criteria are listed and addressed in the planning commission packet for the evening. And Crystal, looks like we've got 14 speakers in Q. Is that right?

That is correct. So based on the number of speakers in Q, the planning commission will allow each speaker two minutes to speak. Do expect to continue to see some hands to come in and want to make sure we've got time for everybody tonight. Um, thank you. We encourage people to submit any written testimony as well. Written testimony may be submitted via email, by mail, or in person. More detailed instructions on how to submit written testimony are included in the materials for this meeting and are available on the application notices. We'll now begin public testimony beginning with the applicant. So, Crystal, I'll hand it back to you to begin.

Thank you, Chair Lear. Uh again, I want to remind anyone to raise their virtual hand if you would like to speak tonight. Also, at the start of your testimony, please begin by clearly stating your name, your address, whether you're in support, in opposition, or neutral to the proposal. Right now, I am currently promoting the applicant's representative to panelists, and it looks like Anne Godfrey will be the first to speak after the applicant. And I'm going to go ahead and promote you now, but please do not uh unmute or turn on your video until it is your turn. All right. And looks like we have uh Colin MacArthur and Michael Griffle. You are ready to go. Um whenever you may begin.

Thank you, Crystal. Just let me get the presentation loaded. Thank you, planning commissioners, city staff, and community members in attendance at the hearing tonight. Um, my name is Colin MacArthur. I am the applicant's representative with Cameron McCarthy, Landscape Architecture, and Planning. I'm joined tonight by Dr. Michael Griffle. He's an associate vice president and director of university housing with the University of Oregon. As staff did an excellent job summarizing, the university requests approval of a package of related land use applications that are intended to align State City of Eugene plans and development code with the university's own long range plans. The proposed changes will enable the university to address the immediate need for student housing in the east campus area while preserving the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal follows a two plus year planning process in which the university updated its own regulatory plans to meet the need for new housing and identified the land use barriers that needed to be overcome which form the components of this proposal. The university has completed a visionary housing plan for the next generation of

students and Dr. Michael Griffle will now provide an overview of that plan and detail the need for more onampus housing. Michael

Michael, I think for some reason we're not getting your audio. Okay. Well, we we'll keep we'll keep moving and then if we can get the audio audio audio going, um we'll we'll work you in near the end near the end of it. I'll do my best to cover the the relevant components. hear me?

Yes. Can you hear? Yes, that works. I apologize.

Okay. Um, so these the changes that are being proposed are incredibly important. They will allow for more campus student housing, which improves student performance, reduces academic costs, and intentionally connects students with the university. The continued development of highquality housing really is critical to the university's ongoing work of attracting and retaining incredibly talented students. The university needs new residence halls to support new incremental growth and continue um our existing incremental growth. Firsttime incoming students, freshmen who live on campus in comparison to those who live off campus have higher grades, stay at UFO at higher rates, and graduate at higher rates and graduate faster. The new residence halls will allow firstear students to be near other firstear students living on campus, which helps create a much stronger community. As you all probably know, the university has been planning student housing in this area for over five decades. Meeting the me need demand for more students living on campus provides more housing capacity for non- students in the Eugene community and for other members of the community offampus. Over the last 20 years, the university is planning more highquality learning centered residential communities on campus that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, provide a graceful transition between higher and lower intensity uses, and serve the growing student community as well as the greater Eugene community. UO is planning for a variety of housing types that meet the needs of firstear students, undergraduates, graduates, and

graduate students with families. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. I'll pick up with little history. I thought staff planner black did an excellent job summarizing the history. So, I won't be labor this, but I do think there are a couple points worth noting. Uh, one being that the university has long identified this area, the east campus area for student housing. This began back in the 60s when they began purchasing land in this area for institutional expansion. The Fairmount special area study, the neighborhood refinement plan, was adopted in 1982. I think it's important to note that that plan contained a development policy for the east campus area. Although the plan has been amended several times, it still maintains the same objective relative to the east campus area and that is to provide for the expansion of institutional facilities and to provide for a variety of housing options for university students all without diminishing the quality or character of the neighborhood. In 2003, the university was faced with a similar predicament as they are now. They'd maximize development area and needed to amend this development policy to allow for more institutional development. Those policies were codified in the east campus overlay zone and an amended neighborhood plan land use diagram. Then now 2023, 20 years later, the university began a process to update this policy again to allow for more residential communities. That process culminated in the development of the next generation housing development plan, which is a long range plan to accommodate student growth. It provides all firstear housing on the east side of campus and provides

more graduate and student and family housing. The plan explores housing solutions that advance equity, sustainability, community, and student success. In 2024, the housing plan was implemented through the adoption of updates to the university's east campus plan and campus plan. And those policy changes now inform and direct the need for updates to the east campus overlay zone and supporting neighborhood plan. I want to discuss some of the community engagement that we've done as part of the planning effort. Um the process to prepare the amendments included extensive community engagement opportunities. During two 2023 campus planning staff engaged with students, faculty st other internal staff, neighbors, public agencies, small business owners, and other community leaders and interest groups. Engagement opportunities included nine meetings with the university campus planning committee, focus group meetings with the Fairmont Neighborhood Associations, attendance at regular FNA, Fairmont Neighbor Association meetings, summer and other events with both FNA and Sunna, two community small group sessions with businesses and neighbors, four public house openhouse events, two that were student focused and two that were community focused. And all this information helps inform the proposed amendments and um specifically in response to some of the feedback the university has chosen to maintain and strengthen the residential transition along the east and south edges of the university own lands and they have initiated transportation studies directed at best accommodating all modes of transportation. Again, staff did an excellent job summarizing the land use background. I

won't bel labor um this information. Uh as you can see, the majority of properties in the east campus area zone public land. There are some properties along the large street and to the south edge near 19th zone low density residential. In addition to two properties at the corner of 17th and Columbia, which are also zoned residential, the east campus overlay zone is applied to a subset of the public land designation or formally the plan area identified between limited inst identified as limited institutional or limited highdensity residential which is proposed to be changed to just limited institutional. This was the transition between institutional and residential. The site review overlay zone is applied to properties north of 15th Avenue and is proposed to remain. Proposal does not change that. The university does own the majority of land within the east campus area. They own all of the properties that are zoned public land and most of the properties that are zoned low density residential. There are roughly seven properties, seven lowdensity residential properties that are privately owned, mostly on the on the perimeter of the east campus overlay. And um the proposed amendments do not change either of these based zone designations. Public land and low designate residential will will remain. The proposed code changes apply to the east campus overlay zone. Refinement plan amendments apply to the Fairmount special area study and the zone change itself applies to nine properties north of 15th Avenue that currently have the east campus overlay zone. Providing a little more detail on the proposed code changes. Uh the code amendments include allowing residence halls. Residence halls are synonymous with with dormitories, but for the purposes of

this presentation, I'll use residence halls predominantly. Uh the proposed amendments include residence halls as a permitted permitted use. And this change is necessary because the remaining viable development sites within campus are all within east campus area. The amendments uh increase the maximum building height in this area from 45 to 85 ft and this change is necessary to allow for residence halls of sufficient scale to create learning centered communities. The amendments increase the maximum building height within the residential transition from 30 to 45 ft. And that change is necessary to accommodate more diverse housing types and options. And finally, the the changes expand or strengthen the residential transition. Uh it goes from 60 to 75 ft where it is adjacent to R1 properties. mentioned the refinement plan amendments. Those are mostly cleanup um updates for modernization consistency and consistency with the east campus area plan and other city policies. And then the zone change request is to remove properties that are north of 15th Avenue from the EC overlay zone because they are pro predominantly already developed with institutional uses and plan for higher density institutional uses in in the future. Talking specifically about building height, the university needs new residence halls to support future incremental growth and these are being planned for the east campus area. These

new residence halls will allow first year students to be near other first year students living on campus and allowing them to be approximately seven stories in height or a maximum of 85 ft tall. Maximizes efficient use of the land. It maximizes land available for open space and restoration. Provides flexibility for a range of architectural design solutions. And it promotes vibrant learning centered communities. These new residential communities are planned to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They're limited to 85 ft in height and and cited to centralized services and reinforced community. They are conceptualized with a gradual transition in building scale creating the or establishing the the transition between institutional campus and neighborhood. They are cited to be close to dining, service, open space and recreation which are all important characteristics in creating a destination and they uh through the preservation of open space. Uh the sighting helps preserve mature trees which offer uh valuable transition between institutional and and residential uses. going into detail on the residential transition. The east campus overlay zone currently contains a standard which limits building height to 30 feet within 60 ft of R1. Um technically this is less or more restrictive than what is allowed in R1 in consideration of roof height exceptions. Uh the changes provide and reinforce a gradual transition between higher and lower intensity uses and the amendments proposed to increase the building height

to 45 ft. And to offset this ice height increase, we propose to strengthen the transition to 75 ft in width. The housing plan considers a variety of housing types to meet diverse needs. Uh the the proposed high increase is intended to facilitate the development of mix of a mix of housing types for undergraduates, graduates, and families. Briefly addressing transportation as part of the application university did conduct analysis consistent with the state's transportation planning rule. That analysis found that development is not expected to have a significant effect on the system and that existing and plan facilities are adequate to support the proposal. However, uh the university recognizes that there are challenges in this area, civic transportation challenges and that the function of AGOT street in particular is an important consideration. And in part due to these concerns, the university has contracted with a firm to do a study of the Austri corridor to accommodate all transportation modes as part of the update to their campus transportation plan. Finally, in closing, Eugene as a community needs to dramatically increase its housing supply to meet existing existing and future demand. These changes respond in part to the governor's executive order calling for higher density development near major transit corridors and by amending policies to increase height and density allowances. The limit of limited amount of land remaining within the central academic core of the university needs to be reserved for future institutional functions. The university itself is well positioned to

make efficient use of its land and to develop highquality onampus student housing in the east campus area. The university's future development needs cannot be met cannot be met without these changes. Uh we encourage the planning commission to approve this request and remove the barriers that have been are in place to the development of more student housing. Thank you.

Thank you, Colin. And thank you, Michael. And before you begin, I'm going to go ahead and promote the next person. It looks like Susie Smith. And I will be returning both Michael and Colin to the Zoom attendee role. And give me one moment before you begin. Okay. And Susie, I'm going to turn off your video. Um, I ask that you don't turn on your video until it's your turn. And, uh, you may begin when you are ready.

Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Susie Smith. I live at 1659 Orchard and I'm testifying on behalf of the Fairmont. Hi, Susie. It is Ann's turn to testify. Please hold on, and uh, we'll Oh, we'll call on you soon. Sorry. Thank you. And Ann, it looks like you are muted, so you will have to unmute.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Anne Gotfrieded. I live at 1410 Agate Street, and I'm speaking in support tonight. Um, I serve at the University of Oregon as the director of the Residence Hall Association. A little bit about me, I'm a fourth year undergraduate here in the College of Education. In my role, I work to create community building and leadership development programming for those who live in the residence halls. So, overall, my team of six serves over 5,500 people. Um, I'm here tonight to express my strong support for the proposed zoning change that would allow phase two of the next generation housing project to move forward. Every day in my work, I see the difference that living on campus makes for students. I myself have lived on campus for 4 years now and for many people this is the first place in college that truly makes them feel part of a community. It's where they build friendships and access the academic and wellness resources that help them succeed. It's also where they learn the balance and independence that comes with transitioning to college. So expanding onampus housing for me directly supports goal one of University of Oregon's Oregon rising strategic plan that was recently announced um which is enhancing pathways to timely graduation. So this plan calls for eliminating barriers that delay degree completion and providing environments that help students stay on track as Dr. Griffle mentioned. Um, and safe, accessible, and affordable campus housing is one of the most powerful tools in my opinion that we have to meet that goal. When students live close to classrooms and campus resources, they are more engaged. They're better supported, and they are just more likely to graduate on time. And for first year students in particular, this proximity to all of those resources and supports creates stability during what can be a challenging transition. as well. For returning students, it helps sustain academic momentum to be close to where you're learning and

30 seconds fosters a continued connection to the campus community. So, the phase two of the next generation project will make it possible for more students to access these benefits and it will also relieve pressure on the off-campus housing market um which will just help the broader Eugene community. So, on behalf of the residence hall association and the thousands of students we represent, I respectfully urge the commission to approve this zoning change and help us continue building pathways to timely graduation and lasting community. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, an all right and I'm going to return you to the uh attendee status and Susie, before you begin, I'm going to go ahead and call the next person and promote them. It looks like Fran uh Monkinbeck and Susie, you will have to uh unmute and turn on your video if you would like. And then you may begin your testimony, Susie, when you're ready. It says the videos um disabled by the host, but that's okay. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Susie Smith. I live at 1659 Orchard Street and I'm testifying on behalf of the Fairmont Neighbors Board of Directors. We oppose the parts of the application which are the code amendments that would enable sevenstory dormitories all the way to the edge of the East Campus Overlay District. The proposed amendments are inconsistent with applicable adopted refinement plan policies and therefore do not meet approval criterion EC9.8065 8 065 uh sub 2 and we requested that the record of the public hearing remain open for a week for submittal of written testimony. The applicable refinement plan Fairmont University Oregon special study includes policies directing preservation of the single family character of the lowdensity residential neighborhood to the south and east and the age of this plan's policies is irrelevant. Eugene code 9.42000 42000 debt to 9.4220 east campus plan overlay zone implements the refinement plans throughout through the requirements that provide for a land use transition between the University of Oregon and the adjacent lowdensity residential neighborhood to east and south. Currently, the code pro

prohibition on dormitories and the height limits of 45 feet in the overlay zone are precisely the policies that ensure an appropriate transition between the UFO and the adjacent lowdensity residential neighborhood. The university's proposal to allow dormitories and to increase the allow 30 seconds

um would completely eliminate the transition required by the refinement plan and the overlay zone. The board does not oppose allowing dormitories, but we do oppose eliminating the transition. Um, it does not meet approval criterion EC9.80652. Um, and alternatively, we commend to the city to require a stepped back multi-tiered height limit approach giving some buffer. And I'm sorry that is your time, Susie. I am going to be returning you back to the attendee role. Fran, before you begin, let me promote the next person, which is Sharon Flynn.

All right, Fran, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Fran Monkinbeck and I am a neighbor in the lowdensity neighborhood. I live at 1880 Orchard Street near 19th Street. I am neutral but with grave concerns. Um there is a reported in the plan that we must mitigate traffic or at least it's recommended on between 15th and 19th we have a no through trucking sign on 15th Avenue in Orchard. But this summer when construction started and when Hayward Field had events making AGOT not uh able to be used, our street was used by trucks going to and coming from Hayward and by campus planning facilities management to carry out their chores. One truck was so long and big that the driver had trouble negotiating the curb on 19th and Orchard and almost tipped over as he went over both curbs on both sides of the street. because 19th, if you know, it kind of juts out. Um, so anyway, it almost tipped over. I was shocked. The city cannot just recommend mitigation of traffic, but enforce the surrounding traffic laws and enforce with the UFO that they need to respect the low density neighborhood surrounding the East Campus. I I there are so many other things I could explain, but that's the main one I'm very concerned about. We don't need an accident on Orchard Street. Thank you.

Thank you, Fran. Sharon, before you begin, let me go ahead and return Fran to the attendee role and promote the next person. Looks like David Wade. Excellent. And Sharon, you may begin when you're ready. Hi, my name is Sharon Flynn and I reside at 1801 Boulevard Street and I selectively oppose uh this proposal, particularly the height and um the actual necessity of this as well. Um I live at 1801 Villard. Uh UFO has not been a good neighbor. There's a property across the street from us that has been abandoned and nothing has been done. There's a chain leak fence around it and they haven't been a good neighbor. Um, I also like Fran, I'm very concerned about the traffic in this neighborhood. I have children at home. I see people going down Billard at 40 miles an hour. I often can't get into my home on busy weekends through the uh 19th and AGOT intersection or even leave my home sometimes during basketball games. And so to put a highdensity residential area in this uh neighborhood just seems quite honestly insane uh to add more traffic to this uh already limited uh area. Also, the LTD does not run in this area. As was alluded to before, LTD has canceled the routes, route 27. So, there is no LTD bus. Uh, my other concern is the building height. Uh, I just think putting an 85 ft building would be like Yapoa Terrace in our neighborhood. And, you know, we all know that's an eyesore for this city. I think this neighborhood is a wonderful neighborhood. It's one of the few most beautiful neighborhoods in the city. and to ruin it with high density, high buildings just seems uh very shortsighted. Additionally, I've heard I have heard that the enrollment has gone down at UFO and the projected enrollment has gone down as well, which has contributed to the budget cuts and

why several members of the staff were laid off members of our community. So, I would like to see the data about what the residence halls actually uh are and their vacancy and how much they're charging for those uh halls and because I also know that there's a lot of vacancies on the properties along Franklin. So, I don't quite see the need for this uh given that the numbers are projected to go down. They're laying

and that is time. Unfortunately, you have it muted. Thank you for your testimony, Sharon. David, before you begin, please let me return Sharon to the attendee and promote the next person. Looks like it's Allen's iPad. Okay. And David, you may begin when you are ready.

David, you will have to unmute and or turn on your video if you would like.

Well, hi, David Wade. I live at uh 1673 Bard Street um which is immediately across the street from the transition zone. Um I'm in favor of additional student housing for the reasons given. I'm opposed to the uh changes to the transition zone uh for the reasons given by Susie Smith. I would also add that I don't see how the planning commission or anyone else can approve this without a transportation study of AGOT and Ard Street because we're the ones who are going to get hit. There's a lot of construction traffic on street including cement trucks and um it it's it's got speed bumps. It has parking on both sides and it cannot accommodate all this construction traffic. So I want to join Susie in her testimony, but I want to stress preserve the single family transition zone as is and do a transportation study not only of Agot Street but of the Ar. And I don't see how you could approve this without doing that.

Thank you. Is that your testimony? You have 40 seconds remaining. Oh, that's all. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, Alan's iPad, before you start, let me go ahead and make some quick changes here. Uh, Bob Chet, and my apologies if I mispronounce anything. I'm going to promote you next. Okay, Alan, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Uh, I'm City Councelor Alan Zelena. The University of Oregon is entirely in my ward. I live at 1659 Orchard Street on in the Fairmont neighborhood and I very much appreciate the economic and cultural aspects Uvo brings to our community. I was a student here too uh getting my master's degree from the Uvo. But I wanted to alert the planning commission to an important potential detrimental broader and important uh neighborhood livability issue with regard to the UVO's future plans. This is related to the overall long-term plan that Uvo is proposing. And that plan, I believe, includes uh pushing out the eastern boundary of the campus into the Fairmont neighborhood and potentially asking us to vacate 15th Avenue and building large sevenstory dorms and other buildings into the neighborhood. With that larger boundary, when they put all of that large multi-story dorms and buildings, all of that development required deliveries and traffic and on a consistent and ongoing basis. They don't have the same requirement for studies and impact analysis as regular commercial zoning. For instance, when this UFO uh uh initially uh put forward um this plan, you could put the entire city of Colberg worth of people into these few blocks without analysis and impacts on the Fairmont neighborhood. And if those blocks are locked into pedestrian only zones, they'll push all that traffic, all that noise, all that activity out into the neighborhood zone. uh and specifically they wouldn't be required to to uh to to do a stipulated or to do a traffic analysis and I think you should stipulate that they do. Um I uh I agree with the Fairmont neighborhoods assert assertions and that I am concerned how the UVO is allowed to proceed without this kind of analysis. And I think you need to take into consideration all these things and make sure that Fairmont Neighborhood again doesn't have a prepare and put forth an appeal and not take action tonight. Keep

the record open for at least a week and then carefully consider and discuss this item before taking action. Thank you for your testimony. Uh before you begin, let me go ahead and make some changes here and promote the next person. Jerry Lids, you are on deck. And Bob, you may begin when you are ready.

Good evening. I'm Bob Shaet and I'm here to speak in support of the proposed land use changes. I live in Springfield and I'm here in my capacity as chair of the university's campus planning committee. The CPC's mission is to advise the university president on long range campus developments regarding buildings, landscaping, and transportation policy. I support the proposed land use changes related to the east campus area as they will accommodate the current and future need for onampus student housing in the area. Onampus housing improves student performance, reduces academic costs, adds to the overall housing supply, and intentionally connects and engages students with the university. The university has long identified the east campus area for future student housing. The proximity to transit and commercial activity along Franklin Boulevard makes this an ideal location for onampus student housing and the proposed changes will allow the university to realize the vision established in the next generation housing development plan to support student success and make 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.

Thank you, Bob. And Jerry Lids, if you would like to um speak, uh I'm sending you a remote to panelist request right now. If you'll accept that. Thank you. And Jerry, you uh may begin. Uh let me go ahead and promote the next person as well. I'm so sorry. Hold on. or am I getting mixed up? Nope. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Uh Jerry, hold on one second. Let me also get the next person, university sophomore. Um you will be next. And Jerry, you may begin when you're ready. And you will have to unmute. Thank you. Trying to get the video here. Here we go. My name is Jerry Lids. I live at 1931 Moss Street and I'm testifying in opposition to the proposal.

Can you hear me now? Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Yeah. So, University sophomores, uh, it is not your turn yet. Uh, right now we're we're hearing from Jerry Lid. So, you'll be up next.

Go ahead, Jerry Lid. I'm testifying in opposition to the amendments because of its adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood that abuts it on both the south and east sides. I especially asked you to look carefully at the height and the distance numbers involved in the proposal. This would increase the maximum height of buildings almost double it from 45 to 85 feet in height and basically changing the buildings from large to massive. And I know that there is a slight increase in the transition area as well but the transition area would increase by uh from 30 to 45 ft. that is not enough to counterbalance the size of the and height of the buildings. For instance, if you look at the transition area, that is roughly the ha half the depth of a lot. And that's not enough. That means from your back porch, you're going to be looking directly at an 85 foot tall building. The presentation we had mitigated some of those concerns because the diagram or the map showed the heavy buildings more concentrated uh closer to the core of campus. But that's not what that's not what the proposal shows. The proposal shows large buildings being right up to 45 ft which would be very very close to residential homes. So for that reason, I oppose the plan proposal with the numbers that it has at the moment. I understand there's great value in increasing student housing. Don't disagree with that at

all. Just disagree with the way it's being done. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, university sophomores, before you begin, I'm going to promote the person who will speak after you, Peter Sarosino. But you sophomores, um, you may begin your testimony when you are ready.

Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Um, I was supposed to have a list. I do understand that you guys had a very good list at the very beginning for me to be able to um basically establish myself and my understanding on this entire um ongoing process. I do know you guys have already started had this conversation was this was there a conversation to kind of get into before this had started like a hearing or a review before this before any of the houses had even got torn down. uh that would I would have preferred to be there before any of these houses had got torn down. Um like I said at the at the University of Oregon um as a sophomore as I continue to progress um there there there's plenty of universities inside of uh you know the state of America I mean the the nation of America and I am going to go against uh just because of this property not stating that they don't have awesome facilities. I mean, don't get me wrong, I love the Ducks, but the thing is is that there's room on campus that this could literally be this could literally heighten on campus prefer to expanding it. The expansion of it is what I am and what some more uh sophomores and some grads might have a situation with. Uh because they had to live in housing that was built by or you know constructed and owned or you know put underneath a different organization of the then Oregon. had some of Oregon kind of just said that some of these other houses and apartment complexes was also owned by Oregon. I think that a lot of our students and sophomores freshman

you said 30 seconds correct and freshmans would have preferred to literally live in those areas where we we we I am all consumed and uh controlled and going towards everything the University of Oregon name is on. But at the same time, I do want to make sure that it's done properly. I don't think I think this is fast-paced. I think this is uptempo, but I don't think this is secure enough um for, you know, generations behind us. I think they might it might look good, but I don't think it's going to, you know, stand strong.

And that is your time. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, Peter, before you begin, let me go ahead and uh promote the next person who's also named Peter. Peter Smith and Peter Sarosino. You may begin when you are ready.

Um, hi, my name is Peter Sarosino. I own uh 1879 Mos Street. Um, four homes from the project area. Um, with my wife. Um, I oppose um aspects of the plan. Um, the height increases. Um, I I would like to see an increase in the in the transition area. Um, and um I I oppose dorm 2 on the east side of Mos Street. Um, thank you for letting me speak. Um, I've owned the home for 25 years. We bought this home knowing who our neighbors were, the university. In 2004, we participated in the NextGen process and we understood the effects. We um chose to invest in our home. Um didn't think it was too invasive. Um we decided to stay have have put money into our home, our garden, our neighborhood. Um now they're changing the goalposts. um they promised a transition between the Uvo and the residential area. Um we invested in in that and that hasn't happened since 2004. It's just been a steady increase of of just harm. Um Matthew Knight Arena was built. Um Hayward expansion dorms on 17th.

30 seconds. there's more traffic, parking, noise. Um, now more um the livability of the neighborhood will decrease. Um, I I oppose the height increases, the trans uh the changes to the transition zone. I'd like a binding real transportation strategy. Um, I don't want to lose um Moonly Alley uh to the university um which borders my home. And finally, it feels like a taking. My property values have decreased and I don't know who would want to buy my home with a crate.

And I'm so sorry that is time. Thank you for your testimony. Peter Simmit, before you begin, let me go ahead and do some housekeeping here. Steve Gab, you will be up next. I'm promoting you to panelist now. Peter Smith, you may begin your testimony when you are ready. Hi everyone. Uh, and Chair Lear, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Peter Sim. I live on 1505 Orchard Street and I am in support of these changes. I don't normally speak on land use issues. I study transportation planning at the university and serve on the active transportation committee at the city of Fiji. That being said, my opinions are my own and not representative of the ATC or the university's planning program. I want to speak tonight about the young people who make up the majority of this area. Not just the majority, but according to the American Community Survey, 87% of this census tract is under the age of 25. That is eight in every nine people. I asked the commission to please look around. Would you say that 87% of the people talking today are under the age of 25? While I am 26 and older than most the residents in this area, I do know many of their needs. The top two issues most young people were mentioned is one, the climate crisis, and two, the housing crisis. This proposal helps young people by addressing both of these issues. It increases the supply of housing, reducing competition for students trying to find housing. And this proposal also places the housing in an amazing place to walk, bike, and bus. I don't need to own a car in this neighborhood, and it's really awesome. as opposed to my classmates who have to drive from Thirsten and West Eugene in order to get to class every day. People here can walk to class, walk to the grocery store, take the MX to downtown, and you can bike to the the YMCA. I recognize some neighbors may be concerned that the character of the neighborhood is changing. Change is really scary, and there is no easy solution to this housing crisis and climate crisis. Every choice we make,

30 seconds. But quite frankly, I think it is more important that my generation has a home and we need build h to build housing that is close to destinations to reduce our reliance on cars and fossil fuels. I ask the commission to please think of the young people who are not represented in this room tonight and I and vote to support resoning. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony.

Steve, before you begin, let me do a little housekeeping. It looks like Ellen um MCMson will be next after Steve gives his testimony. And Steve, you may begin when you are ready.

Hello, my name is Steve Gob. Um my wife Hillary and I live at 1818 Street. Uh if you look at the maps, we're the little notch in the bottom of the boot at the heel of the boot. Um, so this prop this proposal affects us probably more dramatically than anybody else that you're going to hear from today. Um, that being said, we're opposed to the proposal, but we're not opposed to housing students at the Uvo on campus. Um, we're in favor of everything that U. Peter just spoke of, as well as some of the other folks who spoke in favor of that important goal. We just think this is the wrong way to do it. Um if we go out in our backyard 20 feet across from our corner of our property will be a building that will be a massive massive building. We live in Orwellian times. Granted at times where people say believe that saying something makes it true. It does not make it true. saying, for example, in the proposal, um, that the proposed amendments are designed to quote, "Enable the university to address the needs for student housing in the East Campus area without diminishing the quality of the surrounding neighborhood." Another one um, presenter tonight said, "While preserving the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood, virtually every single person who has spoken in favor of this proposal speaks to alludes to Also the envision Eugene pillar number five protect repair and enhance neighborhood livability. That's not being met by this goal. Traffic on AGOT street needs to be controlled by pulse traffic lights traffic lights so that students and pedest and vehicles can get through at the same time um equally fairly. Do not push the traffic onto the large street.

Keep please keep the transition heights that have been put in place calling something and that is your time. Thank you for your testimony. Ellen, before you begin, let me promote the next person. Tiki Lopez Dou and Ellen, you may begin when you are ready.

Hi everyone, my name is Ellen Mikhamson. I live at 1848 Orchard Street, 19th in Orchard, and I am um opposed to the refinement plan amendment um specifically um the limited institution label uh limited institutional label that allows student dorms in the transition area uh regardless of the height limit. Um, I believe that should be a more lowgrade mixed residential rather than allowing dormitories. Um, for many of the reasons stated by previous panelists uh or previous testimony, I think part of that is um my distrust um of the accountability mechanisms and enforcement that need to be in place for the university to be a trusted landlord in the area. Um, for example, I do take issue with the enrollment projections um and the need for additional onampus housing. At this time, we are experiencing nationwide a decline in enrollment and metriculation at institutions of higher learning, particularly um at the University of Oregon. There's been pretty poor projections on student enrollment, particularly that of international students and outofstate students. Uh those are students that provide a lot of money to the university and are those that need this type of housing more so than more local students um especially those from the area. Um we're in

30 seconds $30 million budget deficit um resulting in cuts including custodial services on campus. So it feels um optically it's not great to be doing this at this time. and I um yeah, I urge you to not recommend that re refinement plan amendment. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And uh Telique, before you begin, let me go ahead and just do a little housekeeping. All right, Tik, you may begin when you are ready.

Good evening, Chair Lear and commissioners. My name is Tique Lopez Dubof. I live at 731 19th Avenue. Uh, and I'm in strong support of the amendments that are before you. Uh, I've served now for two years on the university's campus planning committee and I'm also a member of the University of Oregon's board of trustees. Um, I think that these amendments are essential to allows phase 2 of the residence hall project to move forward as well as future projects identified in the next generation housing development plan. Uh these codes will change and make it possible for the university to add more onampus student housing that's proven to improve student success as Dr. Griffle mentioned. Uh and they reduce overall academic costs and strengthen the university's connection to our community. We need new residence halls to support the future and thoughtful growth and to ensure that first year students can live, thrive, and flourish alongside their peers on campus. Uh the university the university has been planning student housing in this area for many years. The east campus location is ideal. Um, it's close to transit and commercial activity along Franklin Boulevard. And looking ahead, the university is planning for more highquality learning centered residential communities over the next two decades. Communities that would fit well within the surrounding neighborhoods, creating a smooth transition between campus and residential areas and meet the needs for a growing student population. Um I I believe that this vision includes a variety of housing types that would serve first year students best, undergraduate students, graduate families. Um that every student has what they need to succeed. Um certainly we have a a housing crisis that's not just unique to Eugene

and we our planning department has identified a place um for this to go. Uh and so I'm in strong support and I thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. I do not see any other speakers in the queue at this time. First of all, I think uh we're going to provide an opportunity for rebuttal uh to Colin if they're interested in making a final statement. Yeah,

I think um but just before we jump into that um I'd like to just say that right now before uh there'd be an opportunity for staff um response to any of the testimony. Staff doesn't really have any. Um, but this is a really good time for before, you know, we end the hearing and we hear final rebuttal, any questions that planning commissioners may have um that they'd like the applicant to to speak to today. Um, or to give them a chance, you know, there's a request to keep the record open. So, um, they would also be able to respond to that in writing, but a a chance for those questions from some of the planning commissioners now, uh, that they'd like to ask the applicant for the final rebuttal. Now is a good time for that. Um, and then we can let Colin do his final response.

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, sorry to jump in with that. Yeah, sorry for skipping ahead a little bit. So, um, also Bray, did you have any responses or was that inclusive of your your Are you good? Okay. Yeah, Jeff covered it.

Uh, so do any commissioners have questions of staff? Don't see any hands. And also keep in mind there'll be an opportunity to ask questions of staff. looks like Commissioner Bon following the close of the hearing later tonight for any items that may be needed for followup during deliberations. Commissioner Bon. Thanks. Um, a few of the speakers referenced the transportation plan side. Um, I guess I'd like to hear a little bit from staff. Um I think as I'd gone through all of the material I felt that generally as staff had gone through it and as this thing had progressed that it had u met uh the various requirements that we have in our rules and and uh there was kind of a recommendation that we go ahead and approve it. So, I'm I'm interested in some response to uh some of the questions that were raised about the transportation plan and that maybe we shouldn't go forward until some more work is done. I'm not sure I understand what that might be. Uh the other the other part of kind of two-part question. Susie Smith talked about several different uh land use code sections that she was thinking we don't we won't be complying with if we approve this. And again, that wasn't really the understanding as I go through it. And I'm wondering if you if uh can you guys respond to that at all or Thanks.

Sure. Thanks for the questions. So, um there were kind of two parts to that and we got a lot of testimony, well some testimony about transportation issues in this area. Um there are not a lot of parts of the application materials that are directly related to traffic impacts or mitigation. There are approval criteria for um code amendments and refinement plan amendments that would address the statewide planning goals. One of those is uh statewide planning goal 12. The transportation planning rule is um what implements that statewide planning goal. So the applicant did provide a uh transportation planning rule analysis that's included in the application record and we also speak to those findings in our draft findings which are as included as attachment F to the AIS for tonight's public hearing. Um the analysis that the applicant provided essentially included two evaluations. One was based on worst case scenario buildout um under current zoning and current allowances and the other was based on worst case scenario buildout um that could occur by 2045 as a result of the proposed cumulative amendments. That is the information that the applicant provided about transportation planning on campus. Um for the record, I know that the university is also working on a study of the AGOT street corridor I believe and I think they would probably be better suited to speak to the details of that study. And then uh to your second question, Commissioner Bon, um we'll be happy to provide I because quite frankly I I need to go back and listen to the code sections that Susie quoted. Um and we'd be happy to provide some information during this open record period uh in response of just exactly responding to those.

Thanks. Thanks. I think that would uh I think that would be helpful. Thanks. Commissioner Isacson.

Uh, thank you. It was referenced in some of the testimony that we received um the the idea of an alternative um that they had proposed. I just want to make sure that the staff has a chance to describe the process a little bit for them in the sense that I don't believe that the the the we have the jurisdiction to be able to part this thing out and offer a different idea. The application is submitted as a whole. So, for example, we wouldn't be able to approve the redesation to allow dorms to be built in this particular area without the height increase. This is not a this isn't a kind of a buffet line that allows us to pick and choose. This is an all or nothing. Correct.

Jeeoff, would you be able to speak to that? Um, actually I'd like to also invite Lauren Summers to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the planning commission I believe does have the authority to um recommend changes that the city council could ultimately incorporate. Uh, but Lauren, I might be incorrect on that given the nature of this request.

So, Commissioner Isacson, that's something that I'm sure the applicant will want to respond to. Um, and that's something that staff can respond to in more detail prior to deliberations. Generally, the answer is that the planning commission in this instance is being asked to make a recommendation to city council. And so, you do have some um some flexibility in terms of you what your recommendation is. However, it does need to be based on the applicable approval criteria and the evidence and argument in the record. So there are also some sideboards on what your recommendation can be. Thank you.

Okay. Don't see any other questions from planning commissioners at this time. Since I skipped ahead a little bit before, I did want to thank everyone for taking the time out of your evening to share your thoughts with us. Um so now will be the opportunity uh for the applicant to present any final statements. Thank you chair Colin MacArthur. I am promoting you to panelist again. And do we need Michael Griffle as well for this final portion?

Um, no, no, Crystal. I will I'll handle the applicant's final rebuttal and make some some some brief brief statements. Um I want to start by talking about the the area um that is in question. Um this is one of the few areas of the University of Oregon campus that is um subject to an overlay or a special area zone. Um most of the contiguous campus is zone zone public land. So, it is an important area and it is a special area and it's an area that's been well planned as part of three distinct planning efforts beginning in 1982 and then in 2003 with the adoption of the east campus overlay zone and amendments to the to the neighborhood plan and now with the package of changes that uh planning commission is contemplating before them. In some cases, they are considering similar changes to where the university was regarding the need uh to develop its own land to meet its needs 20 years ago. This land was set aside to meet those needs. The East Campus area has long been planned for meeting future housing needs. It's close to academic buildings. It's close to support services. It's close to athletic and recreation facilities and it's close and part of the university's open space framework. It's well served by public transit and we're talking about the MX line on Franklin Boulevard and it's well served by pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure. It's close to commercial activity along

Franklin and it's close to commercial activity along AGOT and at 19th. The the location itself is ideal for highdensity student housing and it helps Eugene meet its goals of addressing existing and future housing demand along with advancing transportation and environmental objectives across all of our communities. We are experiencing a demand and an unmet need for more types of housing and particularly housing for our next generations. The Eugene community has experienced significant expansion of student housing re in recent decades and that growth is expected to continue. The university has responded to these dynamics by developing a housing plan for the next generations and taking all internal steps necessary to implement that plan. That plan occurs entirely on land that they own and entirely on land that is within their own campus boundary. The plan does not change proposed to change or expand the campus boundary. The plan does not change to propose to change any of the base zone designations. The only proposed changes are to a overlay zone that was put in place 20 years ago to reserve this land for future development. The changes are modest and the changes are incremental and the changes are necessary. And with the implementation of those changes, the university will able be able to deliver a plan for highquality learning centered residential communities that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Housing development that provides a gradual

transition between higher and lower intensity uses and housing options that serve the growing student community. including graduates and undergraduates and families. Um we've heard a lot of testimony tonight and um given that the record it will be kept open, we want to take our time to absorb the testimony uh review the substantive comments and evidence and um uh respond respond appropriately. Um, with that, I will thank Planning Commission for your time tonight and I'd be happy to take any other questions on on behalf of the half of the applicant.

All right. Well, thank you very much. Um, the decision now is whether or not to uh leave the record open. Uh, we're going to be closing the hearing shortly, and I've did hear several requests to do so, uh, including from Commissioner Bon. So Lauren, if you've got some comments about that or what our next steps will be if we keep the record open, please feel free to share.

I do. Thank you, Chair Leair. So this is a despite the fact that um some of the applications are requesting plan and code amendments. This is a quasi judicial application. And so um in this case, when anyone requests that the record be left open, the city has to leave it open for at least seven days. Um staff was anticipating this might happen and so has come up with a proposed open record schedule for planning commission. Um typically the way that we suggest that planning commission um structure an open record schedule in a quasi judicial uh application scenario like this is a 777 schedule. So the record remains open for 7 days for anyone to submit written testimony. Um anyone can submit new testimony on kind of anything. It is helpful to the planning commission if that testimony can be focused on the applicable approval criteria. Um but it's not limited. The second open record period also lasts for seven days. that is also open to anyone, but the written testimony submitted needs to be responsive to testimony that was submitted during the first open record period. And then in the third 7-day open record period, the only one who can submit testimony is the applicant or the applicant's representative. And it is limited to argument. So there can be no new evidence during that last open record period, but the applicant can respond to the testimony submitted during the first two open record periods and can, you know, make argument to the planning commission about presumably why the applicant would like you to approve the application. Um, so staff has created a timeline that I think they're prepared to share with

you. Um, and we have a a motion that we are uh that staff has created that they're also ready for you to use to um adopt those open record periods if the planning commission is we'll take staff's recommendation on how to structure this open record. Thank you for the explanation. Looks like you got some language for us, Jeff. Yeah. Uh here's the suggested motion. Um, and then once we have the motion on the table, I'll scroll to the next screen, which has the kind of the layout that Lauren just explained in terms of the dates and times. All right. So, we've got the language for the motion. It looks like we've got a a hand up from Commissioner Edwards. Commissioner Edwards,

thank you, Chair Lear. I'm um I'm happy to make the the motion to move to hold planning commission record open for written submissions as shown in the open record schedule on the screen with the first open record period ending on October 28th, 2025 5:00 p.m. The second open record period ending on November 4th, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. and the final open record period ending on November 11th, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Thank you very much. Do we have a second? I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner Isacson. All in favor, if you could raise your hands and any opposed. Make sure I'm scrolling through here. Okay, wonderful. So, uh, the record will remain open with the schedule now listed on the screen. Um, at this point, the planning the public hearing is closed, but the planning commission record will be held open. Uh any other notes from staff given the that the record will be held open?

Yeah, I would just like to direct folks to um the AIS had a link in it to see the record materials for this. These instructions will be located um within the application materials. So if you do have questions about, you know, the open record periods, what can you what you can submit, uh staff's contact information will also be there. So feel free to check that out. And uh yeah, don't hesitate to reach out to staff. We can help you navigate uh these types of open record periods. Thank you. Fantastic. Well, thanks to everyone. This meeting of the planning commission is now adjourned. Have a great rest of your week.