Land-use changes for East Campus expansion advance to City Council

Eugene’s Planning Commission voted Tuesday, Nov. 18, to advance controversial land-use changes that would allow the University of Oregon to expand housing in the East Campus area, prompting blowback from residents.

The commission — a citizen advisory body appointed by the Eugene City Council — voted 4-0 with one abstention to recommend the set of proposed land-use changes to the council, which will hold a public hearing before making a final decision. 

If approved, the changes would make way for the construction of a second residence hall in an area long considered a buffer between campus and the surrounding Fairmount neighborhood. One dorm is already being built, and the projects are set for completion in 2027 and 2028.

UO says more housing is needed to plan for future growth. Neighbors say the land-use proposals — which raise maximum building heights in certain areas — would reverse hard-fought planning protections to preserve the neighborhood’s character.

The planning commission determines whether to move land-use changes forward based on whether they align with a set of application–specific criteria that, in this case, blend statewide planning goals, the city’s comprehensive plan, area-specific plans and zoning changes. 

On Tuesday, commissioners ultimately agreed that UO’s proposals had satisfied those criteria. 

“Land use is something that’s going to be changing and evolving, so I don’t necessarily expect that the neighborhood will kind of be frozen in time where it was 20 years ago or 25 years ago,” said Jason Lear, who chairs the commission. “The testimony was really compelling on all sides.”

But some commissioners acknowledged that the land-use change proposals were complex, and that their decisions were in part guided by city staff, who recommended the commission approve the proposals. 

Lear said he wondered if there was a “natural limit” to the extent a citizen commission can interpret technical material without “more substantive planning training” and more time for review.

“It’s not something that I think anybody is going to necessarily be able to fully wrap their heads around,” Lear said, adding: “While it is super complex, it did appear to meet the approval criteria as articulated by the staff to me.”

Commissioner Tiffany Edwards abstained from the vote because of such confusion. 

She said she couldn’t determine if the proposals aligned with the criteria, given the volume and complexity of testimony, adding that commissioners don’t make decisions based on their personal opinions.

“I’m not comfortable with what questions I have to ask and how to ask them, and I’m a little overwhelmed with the information, to be perfectly honest,” she said. “I don’t feel comfortable approving something that I don’t actually, really, truly understand.”

Residents react

Shortly after the planning commission’s vote, more than 25 Fairmount residents packed into the Ford Alumni Center for the Fairmount Neighbors Association’s monthly meeting. City Council member Alan Zelenka, who is married to the neighborhood association’s chair, Susie Smith, was present.

When UO Community Relations Director Karen Hyatt — the university’s neighborhood liaison, who regularly attends the meetings — addressed the commission’s decision and began fielding questions, residents reacted with clear disappointment, shaking their heads and murmuring.

One resident said she resents the sentiment that the university is solving a local housing crisis by creating more student housing. Others said they found it difficult to access public information, like the planning commission’s earlier meeting. 

“As a resident, I feel like this was shoved down our throats, and I am not happy about it at all,” Sharon Flynn, a Villard Street resident, told Hyatt. 

Another resident questioned why the university is building more housing given looming concerns of enrollment declines. Hyatt responded: “We haven’t experienced lots of growth, but we do still have a plan for modest growth.”

When Hyatt reiterated UO’s impetus for additional student housing — bringing students closer to campus — resident Steve Gab asked if he could “call B.S.” on that rationale. 

He claimed the university’s real motive is to increase total enrollment living on campus, which benefits the university financially, not to relieve pressure on the neighborhood rental market. Hyatt pushed back, saying more dorms would free up off-campus housing regardless and that the university is trying to support both modes of living. 

In a statement, UO spokesperson Angela Seydel said the university appreciates the planning commission’s approval and will continue to work with university neighbors as the changes move forward to the City Council for adoption. 

The City Council will likely schedule a public hearing for the proposal when it returns from winter break in 2026. The council’s final decision can be appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.